Posted on 12/24/2018 6:53:05 PM PST by bitt
On January 3, 2014, ISIS, then a growing force mostly ignored by the Obama administration, took the Iraqi city of Fallujah; liberated years later by our Marines, at great cost, from the predecessors of ISIS then called al-Qa’ida in Iraq (Ansar al-Sunni, Ansar al-Islam).
“A rejuvenated al-Qaeda-affiliated force asserted control over the western Iraqi city of Fallujah on Friday, raising its flag over government buildings and declaring an Islamic state in one of the most crucial areas that U.S. troops fought to pacify before withdrawing from Iraq two years ago….
The upheaval also affirmed the soaring capabilities of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), the rebranded version of the al-Qaeda in Iraq organization that was formed a decade ago to confront U.S. troops and expanded into Syria last year while escalating its activities in Iraq.”
Later that year, in September, Obama infamously compared ISIS to a “JV team”:
“Yes, but, David, I think the analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a JV team puts on Lakers uniforms, that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant. I think there is a distinction between the capacity and reach of a bin Laden and a network that is actively planning major terrorist plots against the homeland versus jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often sectarian.”
To this day, there are those who still try to spin this idiocy and claim that Obama was referring to other—yet unnamed—groups. Nonsense, David Remnick made sure of that:
“DR: But that JV team jus[t] took over Fallujah.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand. But when you say took over Fallujah —
DR: And I don’t know for how long.”
And on went Obama with his spin:
(Excerpt) Read more at quodverum.com ...
p
“There are two possibilities for such a withdrawal:
1. There is a change of STRATEGY and an abandonment of Syria, much like Obama abandoned Iraq. That would be an unmitigated disaster.
2. There is a change of TACTICS, made possible by the changing reality on the ground. The defeat of ISIS allows for a new approach with lessened American visibility to pursue a larger strategy in the Middle East, including the defeat of the Islamic Republic in Iran and the arrest of Islamism’s advance in Turkey. The withdrawal of a small amount of soldiers from the Syria/Turkish border in this context is not only necessary but advisable.”
Saul Montes-Bradley is not only an excellent writer, but has a grasp of the Middle East, jihadism and history. The article is well worth reading at the link, replete with maps and graphics.
Saved for further review.
This is a big bookmark. A very timely article. The Left is with Christmas glee that Trump looks like the fool. The boomerang is on its way . . .
The JV terrorists have been reduced to Farm League T-ball players.
We should pull out and run covert operations to disrupt their plans for growth in the future and further attrit their leadership...
More like a change to no tactics.
Read the Daniel Greenfield article on it...best explanation I’ve seen to date.
Wow, that McGurk character was a real a-hole. Good riddance.
bbb
Note: this topic is from . Thanks bitt.
Putin has to either move to his final roll, which is to expel Iran (a big job) and (eventually) Turkey from Syria, to remove the Iranian hand from the Assad puppet so he can insert his own, allowing him to see some way to extricate himself from Syria in the longer term...
...orrrr, he has to move first against Turkey by siding with the Iran-dominated Assad puppet, risking that Assad will on his own jump off the Iranian hand after Russia turns on its Turkish ally-of-convenience.
Assad knows only a further all-out war between Russia and Iran will expel Iran (and that assumes Russia wins) and that direct war against Turkey will immediately involve NATO and the United Nations Security Council. And the final outcome would be a continued domination by Putin and Russia (since Putin isn't going to live forever).
Assad wants everyone out, but even if he's willing to back Russia against Iran and Turkey/NATO (and assuming that Russia would win) he'd remain a puppet. His best option is intransigence, to wait it out, to see what situations arise. Meanwhile, he'll make noise about Israeli strikes on Iranian forces and its proxies the Hizzies, but ultimately looks on that as a positive. In the long run, if he regains control of the former state of Syria, he'll be reliant on Russian aid.
Erdogan was sure he wanted the US out, so he could have his way with the Kurds. Now he's going to be hanging out there, unable to do that, but crucial to the waiting game that Putin and Assad are in. As long as he avoids open conflict with the two big players (Russia and Iran), and with the figurehead Assad regime, he's just as stuck as the rest of them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.