The Anbar capital city of Ramadi falls, and Pentagon officials shrug. 300 people are killed in Kobani, and US officials tout the fact that ISIS didn’t capture the city outright. Not a day goes by lately, it seems, that the Obama Administration isn’t touting their “progress” in the ongoing war on terror.
The claims were never particularly credible, and while officials continue to maintain that the strategy is “working” and won’t be changed, many, including a lot of former officials, are harshly criticizing the administration’s plans, saying their wars simply aren’t working.
“Drone strikes are not creating a safer, more stable world,” warned David Sedney, a former Defense Department official who resigned in 2013, and warns that the US attacks are simply increasing the likelihood of bigger, more disastrous attacks against the US.
Another former Pentagon officials under Obama, Rosa Brooks, warned that “US counterterrorism policy has caused some intense backlash and has had a lot of unintended consequences.”
The administration seems to be ignoring the growing chorus of voices against the war policies, and are continuing to tout their strategy as a “successful” one, despite the lack of any measurable success.
The establishment is so entangled in it's own self-perpetuating web of lies that it can't even recognize the truth anymore.
Go elect another Bush or a Clinton. they'll fix it!
The saying is, if you lie enough, one day you wake up believing in your lies.
Why Chief Whackamole struts with the world collapsing around US will be a question for future historians.What accomplishments besides filling the coffers of the Zionists and their traitors within?
Back during the Bushco administration, we all seemed to know who it was in the background driving the bus. With the administration of the Current Occupant not so much. So, who is pushing this attempt to put lipstick on this pig? The neocons at State? The Pentagon?
Occam razor says go with the simplest answer. Which is simply to accept that what Obama does is exactly what Obama wants to do. If you don't learn that now, you might make the mistake of voting for Hillary hoping for change.
Sometimes….but I believe the Current Occupant is so far out of his depth that someone has to be whispering in his ear. There is no way someone with his background and general lack of international skullduggery is going to come up with this scheisse himself. He is being led. And there is no chance I'll be casting a vote for another Clinton…or Bush…or any of the clown show.
The war on terror caused more destruction ,more sufferings, more deaths,more misery,more anger,more anguish,and more desire for vengeance.
Maybe its because I come from the part of the country that brought us the Hatfields and McCoys, but to me it seems obvious that when you kill someone's brother, their relatives will still be looking for revenge a couple of generations later. Obama's war strategy seems to be based on the notion that ISIS is far more peaceful and forgiving than Americans.
Obama should know that the way to win hearts and minds is to launch smart bombs into villages.
I'm sure the collapse of the Iraqi Army came as a big surprise. After all, those of us who are Obama's age still remember the heroic stand of the South Vietnamese army and their amazing fortitude during the two-year long Siege of Saigon.
Airpower never wins wars. All it does is p.o. the people being 'struck'. Ask the Brits in London how well being bombed works in defeating people. If it is going to even come close to winning a war, it has to look like a constant barrage of strikes against anything that moves. Now, considering that, compare the number of sorties in this 'air war' to the number of sorties in the opening days of the 2nd Iraqi war in 2003. Today, you hear about 10 or 20 sorties in a day, when the real air campaigns we saw in 2003 were up in the thousands. A few pinprick strikes here and there will never change anything. Can you imagine a Blitz of London with only 10 or 20 planes a night actually doing anything to win that war?