August 20, 2016

Trump's Ahistorical Comments On ISIS/Daesh

Trump's ahistorical claim that "Obama founded ISIS" was rebuked by the establishment, and rightfully so because it isn't true. It's like saying Osama founded Al-Qaeda.

But some ahistorical claims are held up as gospel.

Bush's ahistorical claim that "Osama did 9/11" is still defended to this day, despite the mountains of evidence proving otherwise.

Also, Obama's ahistorical claim that he killed Bin Laden in 2011 in Pakistan has never been properly scrutinized by the media.  

Why is one false version of history being propagated while another is attacked? Why take Obama's claims seriously and mock Trump's?

Trump's comments on ISIS's founding have struck a chord, especially with people in the Middle East, because it's a very simple explanation that points the blame directly at American leaders and shifts responsibility away from Middle Eastern societies and their leaders.

If Trump were more honest he would also mention Netanyahu's role in the founding of ISIS. Just because Israel has been silent does not mean that their military and spy agencies aren't active in shaping the military balance in Syria.

People eat up Trump's words about ISIS because there are no legitimate authorities in the political or media world to speak on ISIS.

Washington's rulers have not been honest about the nature of their goals or the effects of their policies in the region so whatever they say is dismissed, even if it happens to be factual.

In recent years they have done everything to mask their role in the destruction of Libya, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, and Iraq, rewriting history in the process.

What have they achieved since 2001 except grow the drugs and arms trade? Their business model in the Middle East is based around drugs and guns.

Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq were not rebuilt after they were destroyed. The lack of a successful product of a US regime change operation has added to the despair and given the oppurtunistic Islamists room to grow.

So they deserve legitimate criticism for contributing, both on the policy level, and covertly through the use of intelligence agencies and NGOs, to ISIS's creation and growth.

But Trump is not a good spokesman because he is not articulating a holistic, researched, and well-balanced view about the origins of ISIS.

He makes no mention of the disbanding of Saddam's army and its reemergence under groups with Islamic banners such as ISIS, the history of the prison Camp Bucca and its part in creating ISIS commanders, the transfer of weapons from Libya's stockpiles to ISIS in its early days in Syria after Gaddafi's execution, or the key roles played by the leaders of Turkey and Saudi Arabia throughout the war in Syria.

All he does is attack his opponents like a wild man without providing any facts or historical analysis.

The public deserves to be educated, especially since their hard-earned tax dollars are being wasted. But Trump is not an educator. He does not bring facts to the table.

The only good he's done with his comments is draw global attention to the idea that ISIS's founding is up for debate, and that US leaders deserve some of the blame.

And we should be grateful for that because if we don't understand how ISIS was created and why it has flourished then its destruction will never be fully achieved.