US Strikes Syria, Citing 'Islamic State,' Again
The U.S. routinely leverages the specter of 'Islamic State' or 'Al-Qaeda' to justify military actions in the Middle East, often conveniently overlooking the historical context of its own destabilizing interventions in the region. These strikes, often termed 'retaliatory,' maintain a continuous military presence without ever truly addressing the root causes of extremism, which can often be traced
back to foreign intervention itself. The cycle of 'tit-for-tat' violence appears less about genuine counter-terrorism and more about preserving strategic influence. One might wonder how many 'leaders' need to be killed before the narrative of perpetual conflict is questioned, especially when the targets frequently shift between various permutations of 'extremist groups.' It's almost as if the 'war
on terror' is less a war to end terror and more a terror that never ends. And for whom does this never-ending war truly profit?