The reasons behind the rush to hail Ramadi as a 'success'
The Common Ills
CNN is in full propaganda mode on Ramadi. Let's start with reality instead.
Nyshka Chandran (CNBC) offers an analysis which includes the fact that Ramadi is an eight month battle so far -- a detail most ga-ga coverage is missing. From the analysis:
"The capture of Ramadi isn't that much a strategic event in and of itself. The fight definitely isn't over yet," Sim Tack, director of analytical support and military analyst at Stratfor, told CNBC on Tuesday.
"They are still clearing out pockets of the city, there's going to be a long process before they can call Ramadi secure. And then, there's still the continuing threat from IS, which still holds Fallujah and other areas in Anbar."
Ramadi is not liberated.
Why the push to call it so?
Michael Knights has a piece at BBC News which is insightful for its unconcealed motive.
The US government is pushing Ramadi as a success because it puts Iran in the back seat -- or maybe leaves it out on the side of the highway.
Defining Ramadi as a success and skirting over the reality of Tikrit allows Knights to insist, "This dynamic is important because Shia militia commanders like Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, a US-designated global terrorist, or Hadi al-Amiri will probably seek to play key roles in the liberation of Mosul."
And that's what you saw this morning on CNN as they rushed to pimp the line.
It's not about Ramadi.
It's about the battle of who calls the shots in Iraq -- the US or Iran.
The Iraqis remain pawns in the struggles of warring countries.
CNN? Listening to the ridiculous military official 'explain' that, in the mid-00s, the US trained the Iraqi forces to fight counter-insurgency style but the Islamic State fought like a 'traditional military'?
That nonsense can only fly because so few pay attention.
And the training, let's remember, did not end in the mid-00s.
It only ended in 2012 after the government made clear that they did not want the US training -- and this was well documented in Congressional hearings and in reports by the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraqi Reconstruction.
In fact, this bailing on training took place as it was handed over to the State Dept -- headed by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
So maybe it's time to start asking presidential wanna be Hillary about that?
The following community sites updated:
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
Nyshka Chandran (CNBC) offers an analysis which includes the fact that Ramadi is an eight month battle so far -- a detail most ga-ga coverage is missing. From the analysis:
"The capture of Ramadi isn't that much a strategic event in and of itself. The fight definitely isn't over yet," Sim Tack, director of analytical support and military analyst at Stratfor, told CNBC on Tuesday.
"They are still clearing out pockets of the city, there's going to be a long process before they can call Ramadi secure. And then, there's still the continuing threat from IS, which still holds Fallujah and other areas in Anbar."
Ramadi is not liberated.
Why the push to call it so?
Michael Knights has a piece at BBC News which is insightful for its unconcealed motive.
The US government is pushing Ramadi as a success because it puts Iran in the back seat -- or maybe leaves it out on the side of the highway.
Defining Ramadi as a success and skirting over the reality of Tikrit allows Knights to insist, "This dynamic is important because Shia militia commanders like Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, a US-designated global terrorist, or Hadi al-Amiri will probably seek to play key roles in the liberation of Mosul."
And that's what you saw this morning on CNN as they rushed to pimp the line.
It's not about Ramadi.
It's about the battle of who calls the shots in Iraq -- the US or Iran.
The Iraqis remain pawns in the struggles of warring countries.
CNN? Listening to the ridiculous military official 'explain' that, in the mid-00s, the US trained the Iraqi forces to fight counter-insurgency style but the Islamic State fought like a 'traditional military'?
That nonsense can only fly because so few pay attention.
And the training, let's remember, did not end in the mid-00s.
It only ended in 2012 after the government made clear that they did not want the US training -- and this was well documented in Congressional hearings and in reports by the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraqi Reconstruction.
In fact, this bailing on training took place as it was handed over to the State Dept -- headed by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
So maybe it's time to start asking presidential wanna be Hillary about that?
The following community sites updated:
Carly
6 hours ago
Wexler
6 hours ago
She's out of touch
6 hours ago
RT lies again
6 hours ago
Pluto
6 hours ago
Must read Tweet
6 hours ago
Shameful
6 hours ago
No comments: