In a far-reaching interview with CBS, former US General David Petraeus, the commander during much of the last US war in Iraq, insisted that the US is “probably losing” the war against ISIS right now, and needs to reevaluate its strategy going forward.
Petraeus declared the loss of Ramadi “both an operation and strategy setback, a significant one, adding that he believes that US needs to deploy more troops on the ground, including embedding advisers with Iraqi troops, a plan other Pentagon officials have recently been talking up.
Petraeus added that putting more troops on the ground “is risk, but there is also risk of losing the fight.” He also warned against backing Shi’ite militias inside Iraq, saying that should be “a very last resort.” He insisted the US could win militarily in Iraq, but only with changes in strategy.
Active Pentagon and administration officials have refused to address the prospect of losing the war, insisting that despite mounting losses, they have a winning strategy. Today they bragged of killing over 10,000 ISIS fighters in the last nine months, saying this would obviously have a big effect in the long run.
Oh, that's not Gunther von Hagens in the pic?
That's really what it's about for these mental adolescents, isn't it, "not losing the fight"? Because, heck, geopolitics is nothing but a big school yard for these idiots, and the biggest dumbest bully can't have others see him "lose the fight."
We've been fighting the Taliban for 14 years. Before 9/11 the Taliban was still in the 7th century. 14 years and we still have not defeated them?? Really??? All ISIS has is Toyota Jeeps, assult rifles and long knives, most of which say made in the USA. Any serious military hardware they say they captured needs serviceable parts. Where is ISIS going to get access to those parts?
If we cannot defeat the Taliban we certainly cannot defeat ISIS, so what would happen then if we had to fight China or Russia or Both?? Now ask yourself if any of this even has the ring on truth to it?
If you feel like a puppet on a string thats because you are.
"If we cannot defeat the Taliban we certainly cannot defeat ISIS, so what would happen then if we had to fight China or Russia or Both??"
I'm going to assume that by "we" you mean "the armed forces of the United States" (I'm not part of said "we").
The answer is fairly simple: The US has the most powerful army, navy, air force and Marine Corps in the World, all of which are well-trained and well-equipped … FOR CONVENTIONAL WARFARE.
In standard, set-piece, conventional or maneuver battles on the air, land or sea, the US armed forces could almost certainly defeat the arrayed forces of either Russia or China separately, and perhaps even both simultaneously.
What the US cannot do is indefinitely occupy and politically control large areas of geographic territory in which a significant portion of the populace objects to said occupation and political control.
In a conventional battle, one side wins and one side loses and that's the end of it.
In unconventional battle, all the weaker force has to do is avoid annihilation and maintain its base of support among the populace. If it can do that, it can prolong the fight indefinitely. Sooner or later, the people who don't belong there will get tired of fighting to stay there, and leave.
An alternative to servicing equipment is just replacing it with other equipment. As IS conquers more territory they just grab more stuff.
Can't imagine a scenario where the US "had" to fight Russia/China; "want" is another matter. In an all out war between these, there wouldn't be much of a victor/loser. Just a whole lot of dead people.
IS has never been really tested, perhaps occasionally by Syrian forces. If the US wanted to inflict some serious damage on IS, they could easily. Start with their finances. Go after the oil transnationals that buy IS oil. Now that the Justice Department has suddenly the urge to fight corruption, how about going after oil companies for providing material support to terrorists? Then work with Assad instead of trying to topple him. How hard can it be to identify convoys of midsize toyota pickup trucks with black flags and machine guns and drone bomb them to smithereens as they travel from town to town? Rather, than waiting for them to reach town and then blow up a bunch of civilians. Just saying. IS, too, is somewhat of a foreign occupying force made up of fighters from who knows where. A couple of drone attacks would certainly test their commitment to whatever it is they claim to support.
You are right, but closing off money streams and supply networks is not now and apparently has never been part of the plan. The plan is to ally with terrorist groups (Nusra/al Qaeda and ISIS) to overthrow Assad, perhaps Hezbollah, and weaken Iran leading to regime change there. ISIS has been used to rally western publics behind the re-insertion of U.S. and NATO militaries into the region. If western public support wanes, then ISIS will release another atrocity video or conduct an attack in a western city.
Yes, I was thinking just a few days ago that it might be almost time for some more gruesome, well-produced videos.
Still interesting how he can suddenly be more truthful when he's not in that "function" anymore, isn't it.
Great place to go for a new strategy; you know; the author of the last great strategy; ie; the "highly successful" surge. Does this buffoon really think he has any credibility left? Showing up on TV, weighted down with all those ribbons, should do the trick; right: "General"? And now those ribbons; a beloved WW2 Marine Major, veteran of the Pacific war; looked very close at those ribbons, and, it was his opinion that most of those ribbons were unearned; rather, awarded by his superiors, for "service above and beyond".
Look at all those medals, bars, strips and awards pinned to his uniform. He must surely know what he is talking about, or at least his mistress thinks so. His wife is another story.
"…reevaluate its strategy going forward."
And, of course, his reevaluation requires sending more Americans to die someplace we have no business being and bankrupting the country for the next 2 or 3 generations of Americans – if these former Generals and politicians don' get us all killed before then.
If we didn't get involved in everybody else's business we wouldn't need all these Generals…or for that matter a permanent class of politicians.
I can't believe this dirtbag is back to pontificating on national TV. He is completely shameless and without honor or integrity, but "we" love him anyway. Maybe "we" really do get the scumbags "we" deserve…
It looks like they are winning to me. They have an enemy that can't really fight back, that is easy to hate, provides plenty of targets which to expend armaments on, provides cover for the growth of the $urveillance state, so I think the US has accomplished its true objectives rather well. Its a symbiotic relationship. US foreign policy has helped fuel this insurgency. Where would Republican candidates be if they didn't have a weak 4th generation military to talk tough against and scare the population with: "vote for us or the boogeyman will get you!" It is a wonder they didn't stumble onto their profitable Islamophobic narrative earlier. It appeals to their crazy base.
Here's the Chief Bozo talking about "winning militarily". Apparently learned nothing from his "surge", that you don't win anything "militarily" in an occupation, and the US has reached the point through its arrogant and violent mistakes, where real victory, political victory, is completely unobtainable.