Usually, the elimination of an enemy leader would be a time of national unity, congratulations, and celebration. However, when President Donald Trump announced that U.S. forces had trapped and forced the notorious Islamic State leader Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi to commit suicide with explosives, members of the mainstream media sounded more like Russian assets than patriotic Americans.
Predictably, some claimed Trump took too much credit; a few complained that he had mentioned Russia first while thanking other nations and allies. The murderous ISIS leader was labeled an “austere religious scholar,” while some claimed that Trump lied about Al-Baghdadi “whimpering” because they believe cameras for some reason cannot be equipped with microphones. A rumor circulated that the official photo from the White House Situation Room was staged because Trump was supposedly out golfing during the time of the raid.
But the most unpatriotic story was unquestionably one published by The New York Times, which claimed the mission succeeded despite Trump, not because of him. According to anonymous “intelligence and military sources,” Trump’s recent decision to withdraw troops from Syria put the whole raid in jeopardy. The newspaper asserted that the withdrawal complicated the task of confronting Al-Baghdadi because America had lost control over soldiers, allies, air space, and operatives on the ground.
Bait and Switch?
Could these “sources” be correct? Blogger Jeremy Richard has proposed an intriguing countertheory. He suggests the Syria withdrawal bears all the signs of a classic bait-and-switch strategy, which involves pretending to be in a state of weakness or disarray to lure the enemy into a false sense of security, only then conduct a surprise attack.
If Richard is correct, troop withdrawal from Syria was partially staged. Consider the strange sequence of events: First, out of nowhere, Trump announces that he will withdraw from Syria. We hear reports of “escaped” ISIS soldiers held captive by the Kurds – were they deliberately released and allowed to provide a trail back to Al-Baghdadi? Then we get news stories of Turkey invading Syria and claims of a Kurdish genocide, but no images of bodies are shown. There are no confirmations of deaths. Suddenly, a truce “breaks out” and despite reports of violations of the ceasefire, somehow, the fighting appears to stop. Finally, many warring parties, including Syria, Turkey, Russia, and the Kurds, miraculously decide to cooperate in allowing U.S. forces to swiftly take out Al-Baghdadi.
These remarkable events could all have amounted to one big coincidence, but they could also have been the result of a genius move only someone like Trump would attempt to execute. We will never know, but Richard’s hypothesis is worth considering as a counterbalance to the smear stories that the media is putting out.
Note that even though foreign states who are not our friends were informed about the operation in advance, there was no leaking from them to the press. What does it say about the state of the nation when Russia is more of an ally than the American media and the deep state?