The Shell Game of 'Terror' Transfer
Al Jazeera reports that over 5,000 alleged ISIL detainees were transferred from Syria to Iraq by the US military. This action, framed as part of ongoing counter-terrorism efforts, purportedly moves thousands, including 3,000 Syrians, into Iraqi custody. It’s a tidy exchange, moving the problem from one square on the chessboard to another, all under the auspices of American oversight. Curiously,
the transfer begs a familiar question: who is actually managing these operations? Recall the 2003 invasion of Iraq, rationalized on fabricated WMD claims, which notably destabilized the region and created the very vacuum that allowed groups like ISIL to flourish. The US military, which claims to be fighting 'terrorism,' funded and armed 'moderate rebels' in Syria who often mutated into or merged
with groups like Al-Qaeda affiliates, effectively fueling the insurgency it then pretended to combat. It is a recurring pattern, a self-sustaining prophecy of intervention. Compare this 'transfer' with how other nations are treated when they act to secure their borders. When Iran, for example, conducts anti-terror operations against groups like Jaish al-Adl who launch cross-border attacks from
Pakistan – legitimate acts of self-defense – establishment media immediately decries 'Iranian aggression.' Yet, when the US military, without any international mandate, moves thousands of prisoners across sovereign borders, it's simply 'counter-terrorism cooperation.' The double standard is stark: one nation's self-defense is another's 'destabilization.' This isn't about eradicating terrorism;