That’s fueled growing doubts about the US strategy against ISIS, to the extent that there even is a strategy. The losses are palpable, and that’s got the hawks pushing for even further escalation.
Former State Department adviser David Kilcullen warned that if anything, the US airstrikes were “going to improve the enemy’s quality by killing the stupid and unlucky ones and bringing more talented and savvy guys to the fore.”
The White House has insisted that the airstrikes aren’t going to work without a “viable” ground force, which in Syria isn’t going to exist for at least a year under optimal conditions.
Secretary of State John Kerry echoed the sentiment of other officials, that the strategy is a very “long-term” one, and that the recent ISIS gains aren’t going to change the strategy.
The reality is that the US knew it didn’t have a winning strategy when it entered the war, and sought to substitute an end-game strategy with an open-ended timetable and a huge coalition of hangers-on that don’t intend to actually do anything.
Last 5 posts by Jason Ditz
- UN 'Horrified' by Libya Slave Auctions - November 20th, 2017
- Israeli Energy Minister Confirms Covert Ties With Saudi Govt - November 20th, 2017
- US Sanctions European Companies Over Iran 'Counterfeiting Scheme' - November 20th, 2017
- US Airstrikes Target Taliban Opium Labs - November 20th, 2017
- Trump to Declare North Korea a State Sponsor of Terrorism - November 20th, 2017