Recently
Ahmed al-Sharaa (formerly al-Julani) met with David Petraeus at the
UN General Assembly. It was a unique moment that quite a few news
outlets found worthy of note. And while some saw it has symbolic, few
reflected on its actual meaning.
They tended to focus on how far
al-Sharaa had come, how he had once been a prisoner of the US, and a
member of al Qaeda. And yet (supposedly) he has renounced his
previous Salafism and is now being put forward as a leader that will
turn Syria toward Western Liberalism, democracy, and the rule of law
- or so they hope.
There are doubts of course as there is considerable sectarian violence within Syria and there are additional questions as to the degree of control he has over the country. There are further doubts as to just what al-Sharaa is all about.
The Israelis are not fooled for a moment and have met his rise to power with hostility - even though they are pleased to see Assad removed. As such, Tel Aviv moved to seize Syrian territory (adjacent to the Golan Heights) and launched a series of strikes meant to destroy Syria's military capability.
For Western strategists and the Americans in particular, the main point of contention with Assad was not in reference to his brutal authoritarian rule (which they happily endure with other allies) but rather his long-standing alliance with Iran. As a Sunni Salafist, al-Sharaa is unlikely to seek friendly relations with Tehran.
The real story here - the one the media will not spell out - is that the West's acceptance of al-Sharaa's marks not only a clear end to the so-called War on Terror but it reveals its farcical nature. The fact that al-Sharaa once was connected to ISIS is being downplayed and rarely mentioned. His Salafist group (al Nusra) was in an alliance with al-Baghdadi before they split and started fighting one another. It's striking how al-Sharaa was literally in the upper echelons of the Salafist movement cutting deals with the head of ISIS (al-Baghdadi) and at one time taking direct orders from bin Laden's successor (al-Zawahiri) as leader of al Qaeda.
And yet, as a known participant in mass murder, he sits on stage (with impunity) alongside one of the top figures in the US military-intelligence structure - David Petraeus, and this after he met with top US figures such as the Secretary of State and president Trump himself. It's quite a moment. Al-Sharaa previously had a large price on his head but this was simply dropped - not because he was found innocent of mass murder, not because he publicly repudiated his past deeds, but simply because he insists he's changed tact and is willing to work with the West. It demonstrates that Western powers (like the US) don't really care about ideology. They are guided by pragmatism and even a terrorist killer is just fine - as long as he'll bow to US foreign policy interests.
What of all the talk of 'justice' that we used to hear from the likes of Bush? Some of us never bought any of it but at this point it's all been publicly dispensed with. The fact that the US would do business with al-Sharaa reveals that the official posture (post-9/11) has been rendered obsolete and ridiculous.
Further, there's a big story here about the Syrian Civil War - which was never reported with any degree of accuracy or truthfulness. From the absurd narratives about 'moderate rebels', to the White Helmet propaganda campaign, to the confusion and disinformation about chemical attacks, to the whole back story and rise of ISIS, coverage of the war contained as many (if not more) lies as it did truths. It was a veritable game of smoke and mirrors.
But one thing that's especially noteworthy (given what happened at the UN) is that in 2015, Petraeus himself publicly admitted that the US was in an informal alliance with al Nusra (which is to say al Qaeda). The truth is by 2011 the original War on Terror had already turned into something else and was effectively done - though it could be appealed to from time to time as needed. This was especially the case during the final phases of the campaign to destroy ISIS-Daesh in 2017 - another farcical episode and permutation of the original war against al Qaeda. But if anyone had any doubts or wished to claim the War on Terror was still a valid concept, the 2024-2025 al-Sharaa PR campaign puts an exclamation point on that fact.
During these years (2011-2017) the US and NATO ran pipelines of fighters and weapons into Syria under the aegis of Timber Sycamore and other off-books operations. Some fighters were filtered from Europe through Türkiye but there's also a great deal of evidence to suggest the US moved men and materiel from the Libyan/North Africa theatre into Syria - and these efforts would contribute to the rise/consolidation of ISIS. Al-Sharaa was right in the thick of these events and so it's worth asking aloud - was al-Sharaa actually working with the CIA during his al-Nusra and then HTS tenure? Is that part of the story here?
No mainstream media outlet will raise the question.
Nor will they touch on the other elephant in the room - not only was the War on Terror exposed as a farce, but all that was done in the name of that war, and all who died - died for nothing. It was just a big geopolitical chess game packaged for public consumption.
After contributing to the destruction of Afghanistan in the 1980's, the US turned its back on Kabul during the civil war that followed, only to re-enter the fray in 2001. For over twenty years the US fought the Taliban and yet never seriously invested in the country, nor would commit to the massive amounts of money and manpower required to truly transform Afghanistan into a modern country - not that it would have succeeded. Too many evangelists of Western Liberalism fail to understand the necessary (and often unfortunate) groundwork required for such a society to function. And this is even more the case when it comes to American thinkers who fail to appreciate the unique and unrepeatable situation and circumstance that allowed America to rise and expand with minimal opposition. But I digress.
Instead the Americans backed a corrupt authoritarian regime that was deeply tied to the drug trade. Hundreds of thousands of Afghans (and Pakistanis) died and over 6,000 Americans (soldiers and contractors) were killed. And for what? For nothing. By the 2010's American dreams of pipelines to Central Asia and US bases to counter Russia and China were dead and the war no longer had any meaning. At that point the only reason the US remained was to prop up the corrupt drug-connected regime, in order to keep China from pulling it into its BRI (Belt and Road Initiative) orbit. But even this became ridiculous and the US decided to cut its loses and re-calibrate for war in Eastern Europe and the coming war with China.
While al-Sharaa was not in Afghanistan, his course in life was shaped by what happened there in the 1980's and the events leading to the rise of al-Qaeda and 9/11.
Al-Sharaa was deeply connected to events in Iraq - a theatre in which millions died in the spin-off wars (permutations and conflicts born of America's sanction regime in the 1990's and the 2003 invasion), and it should be noted that over 8,000 Americans (soldiers and contractors) have been killed thus far - and there are still troops there. Official numbers cannot be trusted and are often proved to be inaccurate and sometimes deliberately misleading. This has been demonstrated when it comes to US troop levels in Syria - a country that is still occupied in part by the US.
These people also all died for nothing as US strategic goals were not met. Assad and Hussein have been removed from power but replaced by what - Shia-led allies of Iran in Baghdad, and a 'former' al Qaeda commander in Syria. To call that 'victory' requires a redefinition of the parameters under which these wars were framed, packaged, and sold to the public. The US has (with Israel) scored some recent 'victories' of a sort, but the overall strategy has failed.
Many of the areas captured by the US were lost to ISIS-Daesh in the 2010's. After a ferocious campaign that led to the WWII-style destruction of cities like Mosul and Raqqa, these ravaged territories are now in the hands of the Kurds and remain centres of unresolved tension as Damascus (under al-Sharaa), Ankara, and Baghdad are hardly satisfied with the present state of affairs. The board has already been set for future conflicts.
And in the process of these highly destructive wars, the ethnic Christian communities that inhabited the regions have been severely reduced. For this and myriad other reasons I cannot help but think back on all the vain and meaningless commentaries offered by Evangelical leaders during these decades. All their concerns, all their strategizing and interpretations of events, all the narratives about the clash of civilisations were revealed to be erroneous and myopic - little more than vapid musings, and yet they certainly whipped up their congregations and played no small role in cheerleading these wars. I think of the Fundamental Baptist who in 2012 wanted to punch me in the face because I did not venerate the death of his son - who died as a criminal invader of Iraq in 2003. He was justly killed by those attempting to defend their country and the lives of their women and children. The father has since gotten a bridge named after his son and still works to actively recruit for the US military. At the time he teared up telling me about meeting Bush - foolishly believing that butcher cared about parents like him and their dead children. What does he think now? It was all for nothing. It was all lies. His son wasted his life and died in the midst of an evil deed. In my opinion, he can't face it. It would break him and so he digs in and commits himself all the more to his path of idolatrous delusion.
The fact that al-Sharaa sits on stage with Petraeus and shakes hands with Trump simply puts an exclamation point on this reality - that the War on Terror failed and was meaningless. For those of us who remember the sheer energy and outpouring of emotion connected to these events in 2001-2003, the idea that two decades later the end result would be a whimper - an effective 'oh, never mind all that' would have been inconceivable.
Further at this point, most of the public no longer cares and few even remember these events from a decade or two ago. As with the Edward Snowden and Wikileaks revelations of the 2010's, it was ultimately all for nothing. No one cares. Everyone has moved on.
I know of one local veteran who is in his fifties and enlisted (as I did) during the 1990's. In my case, the Holy Spirit regenerated by heart and opened by eyes and I walked away from the evil that I was part of in connection to Iraq and the Balkans. I left the military in 1997 and never looked back. Praise be to God.
But in this man's case, he stayed on and did almost thirty years. We're supposed to think he's a hero. I count him an immoral fool who now sits alone in his house (collecting his nice pension) and yet is broken, bitter, and angry. Should he repent he'll have my sympathy, but what men like him are looking for is affirmation and tragically so many in the False Church will give these men that 'peace, peace' assurance that the false prophets used to give to those who gloried in and continued to pursue their sin and rebellion against God. The False Church tells them that God honours their sinful deeds and blesses the very endeavours that should be a source of shame, regret, and repentance.
This man in question doesn't profess to be a Christian and so it's no surprise that like so many others his religion (apart from self-idolatry) is tied to nationalism. And yet in 2025, how let down he must be. Drinking in all the lies and deceit he willingly deployed multiple times to Iraq and Afghanistan and was part of all of it. And yet he must be tormented by the gnawing question of why? He lost friends. He did things, saw things, participated directly or indirectly in things that (whether he admits it or not) gnaw at his conscience. Though I've met some who don't seem to have a conscience and yet the fact that this man struggles to be out in public tells me he's bothered. He has no peace and rightly so.
I pity him on one level but not because he's an unsung hero or unappreciated. No, he's a stormtrooper-murderer. I pity him because he's lost. I would share in his grief should he repent and have to face the reality that he gave up most of his adult life to something evil. That he wasted it, lost friends for nothing, and hurt other people. I can certainly come alongside and show empathy for someone like that - but such are rare and in his case he's hardened and angry and so my only message is simple - repent.
But
how many of these refuse to give up their idols? They still defiantly
fly the flag and wear their veteran gear. Without belief in America
(as a Babel/pseudo-Kingdom of God) they have nothing and so though it
has let them down, its leaders have failed them, and their lives have
been proven futile, they cannot let it go. And as long as that's the
case, then I do not pity them.
But I think of men like this when
I watch al-Sharaa on stage with David Petraeus - and in Manhattan
just blocks from 'Ground Zero'. It must be salt in their wounds.
I feel a kind of contempt for the soldiers and the leaders who fight and create these wars but I'm afraid my real disgust is for the Christian leaders who were dead wrong and misled their followers and yet after all this - after a butcher like al-Sharaa sitting on the stage with Petraeus (another butcher), they refuse to repent, they refuse to come back and re-visit these questions and events. They reject deep reflection. They will not repent. They will not lose face. They are defiant. Like the FOX farce they've sold their souls to, their answer is to distract and move on to the next thing. There's nothing to see here.
Well, some of us at least know better.