Roy Batty and Andrew Anglin
January 17, 2019
Oh wow, dead American soldiers immediately after President Trump begins the pullout of Syria.
No one could have predicted this.
An apparent suicide bombing hit the Kurdish-controlled northern Syrian city of Manbij during a “routine” US-led coalition patrol, killing several US troops and civilians. Islamic State has claimed responsibility for the attack.
Two members of the US military, as well as a civilian and a contractor, were killed in the attack, while three more US service members were hurt, US Central Command (CENTCOM) confirmed on Wednesday.
The blast happened near a restaurant and market. Preliminary reports said at least six people were killed and 19 others injured by the explosion.
The attack seems curiously timed.
Trump wants to leave Syria. He starts saying that he’s going to pull out. His neocon advisors start saying that we can’t do this because of ISIS and Iran still being in Syria. Then the terror attack happens.
A terrorist attack that nearly doubles the number of Americans killed in Syria, which was 5 in the entire 5 year period of US involvement in the war.
It’s an interesting timeline.
The yid media is of course flipping their lids, demanding that Trump push it to the limit, Scarface style, and fight for the sanctity of American soldiers stationed in the middle of foreign warzones to support terrorists.
The Jewish terror leader Max Boot wrote for the Washington Post immediately following the attack (literally immediately, as if this op-ed was already written):
Under criticism from his own party, Trump backtracked slightly, announcing on Jan. 7, “We will be leaving at a proper pace while at the same time continuing to fight ISIS and doing all else that is prudent and necessary!” Apparently all this meant was that withdrawal would now take four months rather than one. On Friday, the pullout began with the removal of the first U.S. equipment, if not yet personnel, from Syria. On Wednesday, Vice President Pence, eager to play Little Jeff to Trump’s Jeff Dunham, faithfully announced: “The caliphate has crumbled and ISIS has been defeated.” This was after the terrible news from Syria, which in one day has tripled the total number of fatalities (now up to six) suffered by U.S. forces in Syria.
It is impossible to say why the Islamic State struck now, except that it could. But there is little doubt that the announced U.S. withdrawal gives the terrorists an inducement to attack. Gayle Tzemach Lemmon, a colleague of mine at the Council on Foreign Relations, writes about a recent trip to Syria in Foreign Affairs. She notes that the U.S. troop presence in towns such as Raqqa and Manbij was virtually invisible yet highly significant. Two female university students she met in Raqqa told her that the Americans “provided the invisible force field that kept ISIS down and the Russians, Iranians, and Turks at bay.”
Now the force field is dissolving, and all the regional actors are rushing in to try to fill the vacuum. The Islamic State has an incentive to attack U.S. troops to claim credit for their withdrawal and to demonstrate that it remains undefeated. We will see now what the other regional actors do, but it is unlikely to be what Washington wants.
Eastern Syria had, until now, been an island of stability thanks to the U.S. alliance with the Syrian Democratic Forces. The U.S. achieved outsize strategic returns for a small troop investment. But now Trump appears determined to fritter those hard-won gains away. And in the process of pulling out, he leaves U.S. soldiers who are tasked with carrying out his incoherent policy fatally exposed.
Yes, it’s impossible to say why a Western-backed terrorist group designed to keep eternal war going in the Middle East would do something to keep the war going.
In actual fact, this was absurdly predictable.
After Trump announced his plan to pullout, we wrote this here at the Daily Stormer:
As long as there are American troops in Syria, something could happen that could justify an escalation. Most likely, an incident could be staged in which American troops are ostensibly killed by either Assad or Russian forces, which Trump could then be bullied into responding to with severely escalated force. Sadly, Trump has already shown, with the two April revenge bombings, that he is willing enough to act in an egregious manner in response to clearly staged provocations.
If there are no American troops in the country, American troops cannot be killed in a staged provocation. Yes, another fake gassing video can emerge, but by withdrawing the troops in the country he is making an aggressive statement against interventionism in general.
The usual Assad gas attack narrative had been called out effectively by the Russian media the last couple of times that they tried it, so they had to raise the stakes with American soldiers while there were still some on the ground.
And by “they,” I am speaking of Israel, who I assume gave the green light to carry out this attack.
They want America staying in Syria to prop up the Kurds and eventually to start fighting with the Iranians.
They have their man Bolton on the job.
A story came out this week about his ham-handed attempts to keep this war machine rolling.
Senior Pentagon officials are voicing deepening fears that President Trump’s hawkish national security adviser, John R. Bolton, could precipitate a conflict with Iran at a time when Mr. Trump is losing leverage in the Middle East by pulling out American troops.
At Mr. Bolton’s direction, the National Security Council asked the Pentagon last year to provide the White House with military options to strike Iran, Defense Department and senior American officials said on Sunday.
The request, which alarmed then-Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and other Pentagon officials, came after Iranian-backed militants fired three mortars or rockets into an empty lot on the grounds of the United States Embassy in Baghdad in September.
In response to Mr. Bolton’s request, which The Wall Street Journal first reported, the Pentagon offered some general options, including a cross-border airstrike on an Iranian military facility that would have been mostly symbolic. But Mr. Mattis and other military leaders adamantly opposed retaliating, arguing that the attack was insignificant — a position that ultimately won out, these officials said.
Who would have thought that the “Mad Dog” was one of the saner ones?
Or did NYT just make that part up?
We’re getting Jewed from all sides here, for sure.
First the media was against Trump bombing, then Trump was evil for stopping the war and Mattis was a pure American hero for wanting to continue it, then (Bolton who is a supporter of war) is called out by the NYT for being too pro-war, now the media is saying Trump is a coward for not standing and fighting the ISIS after American soldiers were killed in this hoax.
What does the media even expect Trump to do at this point?
Change his mind and go all Rambo to avenge those soldiers?
That appears to be exactly what they are demanding.
Let us simply hope that Trump is not so easily manipulated, and that he stays the course on the withdrawal in this face of this obviously staged provocation.