

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"Seems like the Armed Services committees ought to do some oversight regarding the expensive and pointless Christmas fireworks display in Nigeria," said one legal expert.
After the Trump administration bombed alleged Islamic State targets in Nigeria on Christmas Day, Gen. Dagvin Anderson of US Africa Command claimed that "our goal is to protect Americans and disrupt violent extremist organizations wherever they are," and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth warned of "more to come," while critics advocated against any more American violence.
President Donald Trump said Thursday that he launched a "powerful and deadly strike against ISIS Terrorist Scum in Northwest Nigeria, who have been targeting and viciously killing, primarily, innocent Christians, at levels not seen for many years, and even Centuries!"
Specifically, according to the New York Times, which spoke with an unnamed US military source, "the strike involved more than a dozen Tomahawk cruise missiles fired off a Navy ship in the Gulf of Guinea, hitting insurgents in two ISIS camps in northwest Nigeria's Sokoto State."
The Nigerian Ministry of Foreign Affairs acknowledged cooperation with the United States that "includes the exchange of intelligence, strategic coordination, and other forms of support."
However, Nigerian Foreign Minister Yusuf Maitama Tuggar also countered the Trump administration's framing of the airstrikes as part of a battle against a "Christian genocide."
The minister stressed during a Friday appearance on CNN that "terrorism in Nigeria is not a religious conflict; it is a regional security threat."
The Associated Press spoke with residents of Jabo, a village in Sokoto, about the confusion and panic spurred by the strikes:
They... said the village had never been attacked by armed gangs as part of the violence the US says is widespread, though such attacks regularly occur in neighboring villages.
"As it approached our area, the heat became intense," recalled Abubakar Sani, who lives just a few houses from the scene of the explosion.
"Our rooms began to shake, and then fire broke out," he told AP. "The Nigerian government should take appropriate measures to protect us as citizens. We have never experienced anything like this before."
Jennifer Kavanagh, director of military analysis at Defense Priorities, a US think tank that that promotes restraint, and diplomacy, said in a statement that "the US action taken in Nigeria while Americans celebrated the Christmas holiday is an unnecessary and unjustified use of US military force that violates Mr. Trump's promises to his supporters to put American interests first and avoid risky and wasteful military campaigns abroad."
As Common Dreams reported after the strikes, despite dubbing himself the "most anti-war president in history" and even seeking a Nobel Peace Prize, Trump has now bombed not only Nigeria but also Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen, plus alleged drug trafficking boats in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean, since the start of his first term in 2017.
The Dove
[image or embed]
— Brian Finucane (@bcfinucane.bsky.social) December 25, 2025 at 9:06 PM
"Airstrikes in Nigeria will not make Americans safer, no matter the target," Kavanagh argued. "There are no real US interests at stake in Nigeria, a country that is an ocean and over 5,000 miles away. The country is home to a long-running insurgency, but violence and unrest in Nigeria pose no threat to the US homeland or national security interests abroad. Furthermore, despite Mr. Trump's claims, there is no evidence that Christians are targeted by Nigeria's extremist groups at a rate higher than any other religious or ethnic group in the country. Killings of civilians, to the extent they occur, are indiscriminate."
As CNN reported:
"Yes, these (extremist) groups have sadly killed many Christians. However, they have also massacred tens of thousands of Muslims," said Bulama Bukarti, a Nigerian human rights advocate specializing in security and development.
He added that attacks in public spaces disproportionately harm Muslims, as these radical groups operate in predominantly Muslim states...
Out of more than 20,400 civilians killed in attacks between January 2020 and September 2025, 317 deaths were from attacks targeting Christians while 417 were from attacks targeting Muslims, according to crisis monitoring group Armed Conflict Location & Event Data.
Kavanagh noted that "the United States has been conducting strikes on ISIS and other terrorist group targets in Africa now for over two decades and the number and power of militant groups on the continent has only increased. The whack-a-mole strategy is ineffective at controlling insurgencies or eliminating terrorist groups. It also needlessly expends scarce US resources and does so at a time when Americans are concerned about economic challenges at home."
"Chasing terrorist groups around the globe is the opposite of the 'America First' foreign policy voters expected when they returned Mr. Trump to the White House," she added. "To keep his commitment, he must make the attack in Nigeria a one-off."
Medea Benjamin of the anti-war group CodePink similarly says in a video shared on social media Friday: "We have to ask, is this Donald Trump's idea of America First? The American people do not want to be dragged into yet another conflict, and this was done without congressional approval, without public debate, without any transparency."
Former libertarian US Congressman Justin Amash (R-Mich.) has also emphasized in multiple social media posts since Thursday that "to carry out an offensive military action in another country, the approval the president of the United States needs is from the Congress of the United States, not from a foreign government."
Brian Finucane, a senior adviser at the International Crisis Group and nonresident senior fellow at the New York University School of Law, suggested congressional action, saying that it "seems like the Armed Services committees ought to do some oversight regarding the expensive and pointless Christmas fireworks display in Nigeria."
Meanwhile, progressive campaigner Melissa Byrne asked, "What kind of Christianity murders people on Christmas?"
"Most anti-war president ever, also a winner of the FIFA Peace Prize, threatened to invade Venezuela for oil earlier this week and has now launched strikes in Syria," said one observer.
President Donald Trump—the self-described "most anti-war president in history"—on Friday said the US military is "striking very strongly" against Islamic State strongholds in Syria following the killing of two Iowa National Guard members and an American civilian interpreter in the Mideast nation.
"Because of ISIS’s vicious killing of brave American Patriots in Syria, whose beautiful souls I welcomed home to American soil earlier this week in a very dignified ceremony, I am hereby announcing that the United States is inflicting very serious retaliation, just as I promised, on the murderous terrorists responsible," Trump said on his Truth Social network.
"We are striking very strongly against ISIS strongholds in Syria, a place soaked in blood which has many problems, but one that has a bright future if ISIS can be eradicated," the president continued. "The Government of Syria, led by a man who is working very hard to bring Greatness back to Syria, is fully in support."
"All terrorists who are evil enough to attack Americans are hereby warned—YOU WILL BE HIT HARDER THAN YOU HAVE EVER BEEN HIT BEFORE IF YOU, IN ANY WAY, ATTACK OR THREATEN THE U.S.A.," he added.
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said on X that "earlier today, US forces commenced OPERATION HAWKEYE STRIKE in Syria to eliminate ISIS fighters, infrastructure, and weapons sites in direct response to the attack on US forces that occurred on December 13th in Palmyra, Syria."
According to the Wall Street Journal, Jordanian warplanes also took part in Friday's attacks, which reportedly hit more than 70 targets in Syria.
"This is not the beginning of a war—it is a declaration of vengeance," said Hegseth. "The United States of America, under President Trump’s leadership, will never hesitate and never relent to defend our people. As we said directly following the savage attack, if you target Americans—anywhere in the world—you will spend the rest of your brief, anxious life knowing the United States will hunt you, find you, and ruthlessly kill you. Today, we hunted and we killed our enemies. Lots of them. And we will continue."
US Central Command (CENTCOM) said that one of Friday's airstrikes killed ISIS leader Abu Yusif in Dayr az Zawr province in eastern Syria.
“As stated before, the United States—working with allies and partners in the region—will not allow ISIS to take advantage of the current situation in Syria and reconstitute," CENTCOM commander Gen. Michael Erik Kurilla said in a statement. "ISIS has the intent to break out of detention the over 8,000 ISIS operatives currently being held in facilities in Syria. We will aggressively target these leaders and operatives, including those trying to conduct operations external to Syria."
During his first term, Trump followed through on his promise to "bomb the shit out of" ISIS militants in Syria and Iraq, killing thousands of civilians in a campaign launched by former President Barack Obama in 2014. Trump prematurely declared victory over ISIS in 2018.
Since then, the Biden and Trump administrations have bombed Syria, where around 1,000 US troops remain.
During his second term, Trump has ordered attacks on Iran, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, and boats allegedly transporting drugs in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean. The president—who says he deserves a Nobel Peace Prize—has also deployed warships and thousands of troops for a possible war on Venezuela.
"Most anti-war president ever, also a winner of the FIFA Peace Prize, threatened to invade Venezuela for oil earlier this week and has now launched strikes in Syria," political commentator David Pakman said on X in response to Friday's attacks.
Some observers noted that the strikes on Syria took place on the same day that the Trump administration released some of the files related to the late convicted sex criminal and longtime former Trump friend Jeffrey Epstein.
US Central Command said that the "lone ISIS gunman" who targeted the Americans "was engaged and killed."
Despite publicly seeking a Nobel Peace Prize, President Donald Trump on Saturday told reporters that "we will retaliate" after US Central Command announced that a solo Islamic State gunman killed three Americans—two service members and one civilian—and wounded three other members of the military.
"This is an ISIS attack," Trump said before departing the White House for the Army-Navy football game in Baltimore, according to the Associated Press. He also said the three unidentified American survivors of the ambush "seem to be doing pretty well."
US Central Command said that the "lone ISIS gunman" who targeted the Americans "was engaged and killed," and that in accordance with Department of Defense policy, "the identities of the service members will be withheld until 24 hours after their next of kin have been notified."
Citing three local officials, Reuters reported that the attacker "was a member of the Syrian security forces."
The news agency also noted that a Syrian Interior Ministry spokesperson, Noureddine el-Baba, told the state-run television channel Al-Ikhbariya that the man did not have a leadership role.
"On December 10, an evaluation was issued indicating that this attacker might hold extremist ideas, and a decision regarding him was due to be issued tomorrow, on Sunday," the spokesperson said.
Meanwhile, Rosemary Kelanic, director of the Middle East Program at the think tank Defense Priorities, said in a statement that "the deaths and injuries of US personnel in Syria today are tragic reminders that foreign military deployments are risky, costly, and should only be undertaken when vital national security interests are at stake. Sadly, Syria doesn't pass that test."
"The US military destroyed ISIS as a territorial entity more than five years ago, and its fighters pose no threat to the US homeland," Kelanic continued. "The only reason ISIS was able to strike US troops in Syria is because we senselessly left them in harm's way, long after their mission was completed. We must not compound this tragedy by allowing US troops to remain vulnerable to attack on a nebulous mission with no end date. The US should withdraw all forces from Syria and Iraq and let those countries manage their own problems."
"The Western press are waxing lyrical about the new Syria being born—but not a word on the U.S. and Israeli bombs falling from the sky," said Yanis Varoufakis.
U.S. military forces launched dozens of airstrikes on more than 75 Islamic State targets in Syria on Sunday after the fall of longtime Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and amid ongoing Israeli and Turkish attacks on the war-torn Middle Eastern nation.
According to U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), warplanes including B-52 bombers, F-15 fighters, and A-10 ground attack aircraft "conducted dozens of precision airstrikes targeting known ISIS camps and operatives in central Syria."
CENTCOM called the strikes "part of the ongoing mission to disrupt, degrade, and defeat ISIS in order to prevent the terrorist group from conducting external operations and to ensure that ISIS does not seek to take advantage of the current situation to reconstitute in central Syria."
The U.S., "together with allies and partners in the region, will continue to carry out operations to degrade ISIS operational capabilities even during this dynamic period in Syria," CENTCOM added.
"The Biden administration ordering ongoing airstrikes is a disappointing sign that they have no intent on reversing their deadly policy of interventionism."
Responding Monday to the latest attacks on Syria by U.S. forces, Danaka Katovich, national co-director of the peace group CodePink, told Common Dreams: "We condemn the U.S. airstrikes in Syria. The U.S. has sowed chaos in Syria and the entire region for years and the Biden administration ordering ongoing airstrikes is a disappointing sign that they have no intent on reversing their deadly policy of interventionism."
U.S. and coalition forces have killed and maimed at least tens of thousands of Syrians and Iraqis during the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations as part of the anti-ISIS campaign and wider so-called War on Terror.
Commenting on the dearth of coverage of the strikes by the corporate media, prominent Greek leftist Yanis Varoufakis said on social media that "the Western press are waxing lyrical about the new Syria being born—but not a word on the U.S. and Israeli bombs falling from the sky."
"Is there no bottom to the moral void of the Western press?" he added.
Sunday's U.S. strikes came as al-Assad and relatives fled to Russia—where they have been granted asylum—amid the fall of the capital, Damascus, to rebel forces.
Also on Sunday, Israeli forces seized more territory in Syria's Golan Heights and ordered residents of five villages to "stay home and not go out until further notice" if they want to remain safe. Israel conquered the western two-thirds of the Golan Heights in 1967 and has unlawfully occupied it ever since. In 1981, Israel illegally annexed the occupied lands.
"We will not allow any hostile force to establish itself on our border," right-wing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—who is wanted by the International Criminal Court for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza—said in a video posted on social media.
Numerous Israelis celebrated the seizure on social media, while others cautioned against boasting about what is almost certainly an illegal conquest.
Meanwhile in northern Syria, Turkish airstrikes in support of Syrian National Army rebels—who are battling U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) fighters in and around the Kurdish-controlled city of Manbij—reportedly killed numerous civilians along with dozens of militants.
In what it called a "horrific massacre," the London-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said Monday that 11 civilians from the same family, including women and six children, were killed in a Turkish drone strike on the SDF-controlled village of Al-Mustariha in northern Raqqa Governate.
"Trump's threat to blow Iran's largest cities and the country itself 'to smithereens' is an outrageous threat that should be widely condemned," said the National Iranian American Council.
Former U.S. President Donald Trump's threat on Wednesday to blow Iran "to smithereens" if he returns to power was condemned by a leading Iranian American advocacy group as "genocidal."
Trump—the 2024 Republican nominee—addressed a campaign rally in North Carolina on Wednesday after he was reportedly briefed about alleged Iranian assassination threats against him.
"If I were the president, I would inform the threatening country—in this case, Iran—that if you do anything to harm this person, we are going to blow your largest cities and the country itself to smithereens," he said to raucous applause. "We're gonna blow it to smithereens, you can't do that. And there would be no more threats."
Responding to the former president's remarks, the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) said in a statement that "Trump's threat to blow Iran's largest cities and the country itself 'to smithereens' is an outrageous threat that should be widely condemned as psychotic and genocidal."
"Just like his threat to target 52 of Iran's most cherished cultural sites, Trump appears disturbingly willing to kill millions of Iranians who have no say over the actions of their authoritarian government," NIAC continued. "These remarks should be disqualifying for a man vying to once again be commander in chief and have sole authority over launching nuclear weapons with the power to make good on his horrifying threat."
"Likewise, we unequivocally condemn any Iranian threats that may be targeted at Trump or former officials," the group added. "Political violence must be rejected and prevented in all forms. Assassinations are a path to war and human suffering, as was demonstrated by the strike on [Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Maj. Gen.] Qasem Soleimani that engendered these threats, and risk further embroiling the region in violence."
Trump ordered the January 2020 airstrike that killed Soleimani in Iraq. He also unilaterally withdrew from the so-called Iran nuclear deal and ramped up sanctions on Tehran, exacerbating Iran's economic woes.
While Trump is known for his boastful and sometimes empty claims, as president he also followed through on his 2016 campaign promise to "bomb the shit out of" Islamic State fighters and "take out their families," resulting in thousands of civilian casualties in countries including Iraq and Syria.
Although Trump often presents himself as the peace candidate, critics have warned voters not to be fooled.
"He's a liar. C'mon, you know he doesn't tell the truth at all," Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-Calif.)—the only member of either legislative chamber who voted against authorizing the so-called War on Terror in 2001—said in a recent interview with The Nation.
"Just look at his record, who he cozies up to in terms of dictators," Lee added. "He wants more investment in the military budget. What his strategy is, is to create a more dangerous world."
"Over the past 20 years, the U.S. military has struggled with escalation of force and many civilians were killed when they were falsely viewed as a threat. This incident appears to be one of many such cases," said one expert.
A formerly classified document published Friday by NPR revealed how the Pentagon dismissed highly credible evidence of civilian deaths caused by the October 2019 U.S. assassination of Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in Syria.
In a raid hailed by then-U.S. President Donald Trump as "impeccable," U.S. special forces stormed al-Baghdadi's hideout just outside Barisha in Idlib province on October 26-27, 2019. Realizing he was cornered during the raid, al-Baghdadi detonated an explosive device, killing himself and two children he was carrying with him, according to U.S. officials.
For years, the Pentagon dismissed a December 2019 NPR report of a U.S. military helicopter attacking Syrian civilians in Barisha during the raid, killing two cousins traveling in a van and blowing the hand off a third man, claiming the victims were enemy combatants who ignored repeated warning shots.
NPR subsequently filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Pentagon and obtained a redacted copy of the military's erstwhile secret assessment of the raid.
The document revealed that:
"Suddenly I felt something hit us," he said. His friends, 27-year-old Khaled Mustafa Qurmo and 30-year-old Khaled Abdel Majid Qurmo, were killed. Barakat's right hand was blown off; his arm was later amputated. His left hand was also badly injured.
The U.S. military initially claimed that the army helicopters came under fire from the van. However, a formerly classified U.S. Central Command document previously published by NPR shows that the Pentagon acknowledged the claim was untrue.
The newly exposed document states that the military also "assessed secondary explosions emitted from the vehicle, indicating weapons and explosive devices were on board the panel van."
This was untrue, as was a similar claim made by the Pentagon following an August 2021 drone strike that killed 43-year-old Afghan aid worker Zamarai Ahmadi and nine of his relatives, including seven children, in Kabul during the chaotic days of U.S. withdrawal from a 20-year invasion.
The Pentagon often attempts to conceal or minimize civilian casualties caused by U.S. bombs and bullets, which have killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of civilians in more than half a dozen nations since the ongoing so-called War on Terror began after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.
NPR's latest report on the al-Baghdadi raid comes as the Pentagon implements its Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response Action Plan (CHMR-AP), a series of policy steps aimed at preventing and responding to the death and injury of noncombatants.
"Britain claims a 'perfect' war against Islamic State in Iraq," said a report co-author. "It isn't credible, and it isn't true."
British airstrikes targeting Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria likely killed dozens of noncombatants despite claims by U.K. military leaders that no civilians died during such bombings, a major investigation by the monitor group Airwars and The Guardian revealed on Tuesday.
"Britain claims a 'perfect' war against Islamic State in Iraq. Thousands of missiles fired, thousands of fighters killed, and not a single civilian harmed," Guardian senior international affairs reporter and report co-author Emma Graham-Harrison tweeted. "It isn't credible, and it isn't true."
Airwars obtained via Freedom of Information Act requests previously classified documents from which the group identified eight airstrikes that may have been carried out by U.K. warplanes in which at least 32 civilians were killed.
"Working with The Guardian, we visited Iraq to search for the victims mentioned in the original casualty allegations and piece together what happened," said Airwars. "One of those we found was the Younis family in Mosul."
Using declassified reports, coalition statements, survivor and other witness interviews, and 3D modeling, Airwars reconstructed the November 29, 2016 strike that killed a 6-year-old member of the Younis family in the Iraqi city.
"We found that shortly before 4:00 pm a mission commander requested a strike on ISIS militants firing at Iraqi allies. After the strike was approved, coalition analysts reported losing sight of their initial targets," the group said. "They ultimately identified another group of males on the sidewalk carrying a 'possible' weapon."
Around this time, Enam Younis and her children left their home "looking for safety a few streets away. Both Enam and her father said there were no ISIS fighters within 30 meters. As they walked past the door of the neighboring house, the missile detonated."
As The Guardian reports:
Enam Younis, 31 at the time, was thrown to the ground by the blast and has never walked again. Her older daughter, Taiba, 6, inquisitive and desperate to start school, was killed instantly. Zahra, just 3, was hurled over a fence. She survived but was peppered with shrapnel that tore into her stomach and is still lodged deep in her skull. Doctors have said that if it moves, it could cause devastating brain injury.
There was a third child, Ali, a toddler too young to walk, who was shielded from the drone cameras—and the worst of the blast—by his mother's arms, but who still lost part of a foot and hand.
Younis was taken out of Mosul for treatment and even six years later, her memories are too painful for her to return to the city she called home. "It is still impossible for me to think about going to Mosul now," she said weeping. "I didn't even visit my daughter's grave. I can't do it."
A U.K. Ministry of Defense spokesperson declined to confirm or deny whether British forces carried out any of the airstrikes detailed in the investigation while insisting that "there is no evidence or indication that civilian casualties were caused by strikes in Syria and Iraq."
"The U.K. always minimizes the risk of civilian casualties through our rigorous processes and carefully examines a range of evidence to do this, including comprehensive analysis of the mission data for every strike," the spokesperson told The Guardian.
However, according to Airwars:
Politicians, campaigners, and civil society groups have consistently raised concerns about the U.K.'s lack of civilian harm monitoring and accountability in Iraq and Syria. The Netherlands has since paid millions in compensation to victims of its strikes, while the United States has launched major policy reforms to learn the lessons of the campaign. The U.K. remains an outlier, claiming it had robust mechanisms for monitoring the impact of its strikes—including post-strike battle damage assessments—and refusing to review its policies.
Airwars has also accused U.S. officials of habitually undercounting the number of civilians killed by American bombs and bullets.
The report notes that while "civilian victims of U.K. airstrikes can theoretically claim condolence payments from the British government," those attempting to do so "would face severe procedural and legal hurdles."
"The U.K. has not publicly compensated a single victim of a British airstrike and there is no clear process for victims and their families to apply," Airwars said.
The U.S.-led coalition victory over ISIS was achieved at a tremendous cost of civilian life. Cities, towns, and villages including Mosul and Raqqa, Syria were largely reduced to rubble.
Airwars estimates that between 8,197 and 13,254 Iraqi and Syrian civilians have been killed by U.S.-led coalition forces in 1,525 separate strikes since 2014. This figure stands in stark contrast with a coalition estimate of 1,437 civilians killed in 342 separate incidents.
Since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq 20 years ago, between 550,000 and 580,000 Iraqis and Syrians have died, according to Airwars.
The Costs of War Project said the U.S.-led invasion and occupation "caused massive death, destruction, and political instability," killing hundreds of thousands of people while displacing millions more.
As the 20th anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion and occupation of Iraq approaches, a leading research institute on Wednesday said that "the total costs of the war in Iraq and Syria are expected to exceed half a million human lives and $2.89 trillion" by 2050.
The Costs of War Project at Brown University's Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs said that "this budgetary figure includes costs to date, estimated at about $1.79 trillion, and the costs of veterans' care through 2050."
According to the project:
March 19-20, 2023 marks 20 years since United States forces invaded Iraq to oust dictator Saddam Hussein, under the false claim that his regime was manufacturing weapons of mass destruction. The ensuing war, in which U.S. ground presence peaked in 2007 with over 170,000 soldiers, caused massive death, destruction, and political instability in Iraq. Among the consequences was the increase of sectarian politics, widespread violence, and the rise of the Islamic State militant group with its terror attacks throughout the Middle East.
Though the U.S. government officially ended its Iraq War in 2011, the repercussions of the invasion and occupation as well as subsequent and ongoing military interventions have had an enormous human, social, economic, and environmental toll. An estimated 300,000 people have died from direct war violence in Iraq, while the reverberating effects of war continue to kill and sicken hundreds of thousands more.
The new report includes estimates for Syria, which the United States began bombing during the Obama administration after Islamic State militants rose to power amid the destabilization and power vacuum caused by the Iraq invasion and Syrian civil war. Including Syria, the Costs of War Project says between 550,000-580,000 people have been killed since March 2003, and "several times as many may have died due to indirect causes such as preventable diseases."
"More than 7 million people from Iraq and Syria are currently refugees, and nearly 8 million people are internally displaced in the two countries," the publication notes.
University of Oxford professor and Costs of War Project co-director Neta C. Crawford, who authored the report, said in a statement that "the Bush administration was convinced and assured the American people and the world that the war would have few casualties of all kinds—civilian and military—and would lead to quick victory."
"As the Costs of War Project has documented consistently, these optimistic assumptions are confronted by a record of death, high and ongoing costs, and regional devastation," she added.
Those ongoing costs include a recent $397.5 million budget request from the Biden administration to fight what's left of Islamic State.
What is clear is that there is a context—no matter how painful to admit—of U.S. and Western complicity in creating the very forces that now terrorize the imagination of the Western public. Just a cursory glance at that sordid history reveals the baselessness of the assumption of innocence that underlies the dominant narrative pushed by the corporate press in the U.S. and inculcated as a part of Western commonsense.
Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter's national security advisor, congratulated himself on his brilliant strategy to create the "Soviet Union's Vietnam" by bogging it down militarily in Afghanistan with the creation of an international corps of right-wing Islamists ready to fight the godless Soviets. Like all colonialist calculations, the Pentagon thought that these elements could be weaponized to do the bidding of U.S. and Western imperialism. They mistakenly believed that once the mission was completed that they could conveniently toss them aside like the Hmong in Vietnam, the Gurkhas from Nepal, the black Buffalo soldiers in the West of the U.S. - the list goes on. With direct logistical support from the Pakistani ISI, the Mujahedeen performed marvelously, destroying a secular nationalist government with Marxist leanings and plunging the nation into the chaos that led to the establishment of the Taliban who created their 8th century version of an Islamic state.
When Brzezinski formulated his plan, critics of this strategy, including some elements of the U.S. and British intelligence agencies, warned that the U.S. was playing a dangerous game by empowering what had always been the lunatic fringe of Islam, but colonial hubris inoculated those decision makers in 1979 and in both the Bush and Obama administrations from those more critical reassessments. They operated instead from a historical perspective in which the use of right-wing Islamists had yielded positive results not only in Afghanistan in the 1980's but also before that during the immediate post-world-war years to undercut support for left and left nationalist forces in the so-called Middle East.
These kinds of cynical calculations have always been a cornerstone of colonial "divide and rule" politics. However, what Brzezinski and others didn't understand was the subjective factor that they were dealing with. Unlike the slimy comprador and mercenary types traditionally used to advance Western interests in various parts of the world, the religious fervor and commitment of these Islamic elements could not be turned on and off.
By concentrating these forces in Afghanistan, U.S. policy gave them an opportunity to gain valuable training, fighting experience, and some degree of prestige along with more effective post-conflict networking among themselves. They created a force in which the tail would eventually wag the dog, with the al-Qaeda network was just one of the networks of radical Islamists that emerged from that period.
This was evident when the Bush administration and then the Obama administration decided to re-empower these radical jihadists as part of their strategy to put pressure on the al-Maliki government in Iraq and effect governmental change in Syria. In short, they encouraged a jihadist invasion and then framed it as a "civil war." Western governments pretended not to notice and certainly didn't seem to care in the early days of the war that more and more of their nationals were traveling to Turkey to enter the conflict zone in Syria.
Why this lack of concern?
U.S. propagandists knew that the so-called Free Syrian Army (FSA) was their public relations myth. Many analysts in the U.S. intelligence agencies concluded early on that if the Assad government was going to be toppled, it would come about as a result of the Jihadist forces being created internally and pouring into the country from abroad.
In a moment of unusual candor, President Obama revealed that he thought it was a fantasy that the FSA could overthrow the Syrian government and the Baath institutional apparatus. Many critics of Obama's strategies in Syria thought that this was an insult to the "moderates" and critiqued the Obama administration's reluctance to provide support to the FSA. But instead of that comment reflecting the bogus narrative of non-support for the forces fighting to overthrow the Syrian government by the U.S., it revealed instead what was really in place - a strategy to bolster Islamic jihadist forces working with and through Turkey, the Saudi's, and the other Gulf monarchs and repressive states in the region, including Israel.
With the CIA fully involved in training and equipping what was referred to as the "rebel" forces and with the assurances from Saudi Prince Bander that they had the jihadists fully under their control, the Administration didn't appear to be too concerned when ISIS broke off from al-Qaeda and began to establish its own independent economic base once it captured the oil fields in Syria. It all seemed like part of the plan, especially when it became clear that NATO member Turkey was being used to get the Syrian oil to world markets.
Michael Flynn, the frustrated head of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) who naively thought that the U.S. was concerned about "Islamic terrorism," revealed recently that after the DIA submitted analysis in 2012 that U.S. policies in Syria were enhancing the power of Islamic forces and leading to the establishment of a "Salafist principality" not only was that analysis ignored, it became clear to him that the Obama administration had made a "willful decision to do what they were doing."
But this Frankensteinian strategy turned farce into disaster when ISIS double-crossed their benefactors by breaking the rules and attacking the "good Kurds" in Iraq. The strategy appeared to be more concerned with holding territory in Iraq and Syria than carrying out their assignment to overthrow the Assad government and completing the dismemberment of the Syrian state - the strategic objective of U.S. and Israeli policy to counter the regional power of the Iranians.
With the categorical transformation of jihadist forces in Syria into "moderates" and their military enhancement with U.S.-supplied anti-tank weapons and better military and political coordination, the stage was set by the summer of 2015 for the last push after a no-fly zone was established. This move would have allowed coordinated ground operations with air power provided by the U.S., with symbolic participation from France and Britain, to give the operation its NATO credentials. Under this configuration and shift in the balance of forces, ISIS had outlived its utility for U.S. interests and became an obstacle because of its independent agenda. So it had to be cut down to size - not destroyed - at least not at that point.
But the rhetorical commitment to eliminate ISIS created a political/ideological opening for the Russians to be invited in by the Syrian government to "counter" ISIS. The result was to completely undermine the no-fly zone plan and the plan to support a final push on to Damascus by the newly concentrated Islamic forces in the form of the Jaish al-Fatah or the "Army of Conquest," as the new "moderates."
With the combined attacks by the Russians and U.S., the ISIS caliphate has constricted in size. In particular, some of the combatants from the West have left the battlefield and slowly tricked back to the West. Battled hardened and still committed to the cause, the strategic shift appears to be focused on taking the battle to the West, something that Abu Baka al-Baghdadi, an alleged former CIA asset and subsequent leader of ISIS, warned would happen if they were targeted.
The series of attacks in Paris, Brussels, Turkey, and Orlando reflect what Malcolm called the "chickens coming home to roost." Innocent human beings are the ones that suffer the consequences of imperial policy. From the tens of thousands of displaced Syrians who found themselves as political pawns in the manufactured "refugee crisis" in Europe to the Puerto Rican patrons of Pulse nightclub in Orlando, it is the people who suffer when these destructive forces unleashed on the world by their Western governments double back on their masters and bring the terror "home."
This "blowback" theory is controversial especially among some who view all of these attacks as part of some grand design to manipulate public opinion to support the permanent war strategy being operationalized across the planet in the name of fighting terrorism. While the forces of domination can tactically take advantage of these attacks to further that agenda, the position that this is all part of a grand plan gives those forces a ubiquity and level of competence among the people making policy that the evidence of how policy is developed and executed does not support.
There are already calls being made in some quarters for a more forceful intervention into Syria to crush ISIS in response to the attack in Turkey. Erdogan, the neo-Ottoman maniac who leads Turkey, declared with a straight face and not a hint of irony that the world must double its effort to defeat international terrorism.
Not supporting terrorism was precisely the demand that many Turkish citizens made to Erdogan before this attack. And like many of the innocents in the U.S. who have died from 9/11 to Orlando who probably opposed U.S. state terrorism, I am sure that many of the Turkish citizens who were murdered or wounded in that airport probably also opposed the immoral and fundamentally dangerous policies of their government in Syria. Their families and all of the people of Turkey should be outraged. As should the people of the U.S. whose government is now seen by so many people of the world as the greatest threat to world peace and as Dr. King declared the "greatest purveyor of violence" on the planet.
We may never know the crucial determining factor or combination of factors responsible for Omar Mateen's ghastly slaughter of 49 people and the wounding of 53 others at Orlando's Pulse nightclub. Mainstream media pundits quickly cited LGBT bigotry, lax gun laws, failed FBI background checks, an infatuation with violence, deeply closeted homosexuality, and "self-radicalization."
We may never know the crucial determining factor or combination of factors responsible for Omar Mateen's ghastly slaughter of 49 people and the wounding of 53 others at Orlando's Pulse nightclub. Mainstream media pundits quickly cited LGBT bigotry, lax gun laws, failed FBI background checks, an infatuation with violence, deeply closeted homosexuality, and "self-radicalization."
But as more evidence accumulates, it's plausible that Mateen's unspeakable act was yet another grotesque version of the chickens coming home to roost. While the time and location of future attacks remain uncertain, there's no doubt that more jihadist-type chickens are en route to the henhouse. This raises the question that has remained outside polite conversation since September 11, 2001: What might lead someone like Mateen to carry out these hideous assaults on innocent U.S. citizens? Critical inquiry is not about making excuses for terrorism. Refusing to look at the causes of terrorism is inexcusable.
Years ago, Mateen spoke about becoming a martyr and watched Islamic State terrorism and propaganda videos. Classmates recall that when the second jumbo jet slammed into the Trade Center's south tower, the 14-year-old Mateen "started jumping up and down, cheering on the terrorists."
During one of his 911 calls from Pulse, he referred to the Tsarnaev brothers, the Boston Marathon bombers, as his "homeboys." In another, he claimed to be "acting in the name of God" and pledged his allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Bagdadi. And just before being killed by police, Mateen posted a Facebook message stating, "You kill innocent women and children by doing [U.S.] airstrikes. . . now taste the Islamic state vengeance."
Patience Carter, one of the hostages, heard Mateen say his attack was "to get America to stop bombing his country," a reference to his parents being from Afghanistan. In another conversation with a 911 operator, he demanded that the U.S. stop attacking Iraq and Syria and said, "That's why I'm out here right now."
Terrorism is only one consequence (the refugee crisis is another) that continues to reverberate in the wake of U.S. imperialist interventions, occupation, and unabated drone strike killings in Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, and the Horn of Africa, and Washington's one-sided support for Israel's apartheid-like suppression of Palestinians.
As peace activist and author David Swanson notes, there is an immediate step the U.S. could take: "Stop bombing people around the world." Of course, this is the last thing that ISIS wants because the more bombs that fall, the "easier it is to motivate more killers." U.S. violence inevitably begets more violence and more sanctuaries for terrorists in the Middle East and South Asia.
To date, the U.S. has left citizens of these countries with four futile choices: (1) Remain in failed states destroyed by U.S. bombs. (2) Live under U.S.-sponsored brutal dictatorships with no prospects for change. (3) Become refugees. (4) Support or join ISIS-type organizations.
Because U.S. allies like Turkey, Pakistan, the Gulf monarchies, and, especially, Saudi Arabia are directly and indirectly in league with the terrorists, the decision has been made that this deplorable situation is preferable for U.S. "national security." The dominant interests in this country need to keep fear alive to justify any means of safeguarding their empire.
The Islamic State would not exist but for prior U.S. policy, including fateful decisions by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. ISIS is a death cult, and negotiating with them is impossible. Muslims must see an alternative to the dismal options listed above, an alternative that addresses their justifiable grievances. Recall Islamist Mohamed Morsi was democratically elected as president of Egypt in 2011, only to be overthrown and imprisoned by the U.S.-backed military. Only by supporting efforts to join Islam and democracy, currently exemplified by Tunisia and Indonesia, will this be possible. At this late date, it may not succeed, but there's no other sane alternative.