Another Major Iraqi City Falls To ISIS

by JASmius



Or, in Jeb-Rubio-Cruz-Paul-speak, "one more thing we know now that we'll never do a damn thing about":

The Islamic State’s advance into Ramadi, the capital of Iraq’s Anbar Province, accelerated this week and has reportedly culminated in the seizure of the city’s central government compound. On Friday, the black flag of ISIS flew over Ramadi’s city center.

“They set off a co-ordinated series of as many as six car bombs outside the compound that houses the city’s main police station and governor’s office,” the BBC reported. “At least fifty security personnel are reported to have been taken hostage.”...

And are, of course, dead men already.

Even more dispiriting is that this ISIS advance occurred despite sustained "coalition" airstrikes....

....on ISIS positions near Ramadi. On a near daily basis, U.S. Central Command revealed strikes on ISIS tactical units near the Anbar capital. Just yesterday, CENTCOM reported “two airstrikes struck an ISIS tactical unit and an ISIS fighting position.”

Note the singulars and absence of plurals.

If Ramadi has fallen to ISIS fighters, it would mean that, along with Mosul, two of Iraq’s three biggest cities are now in the hands of the Sunni militia movement. The fall of Ramadi is a symbolic defeat and a reversal of the gains made in Iraq during the Bush Administration. The vaunted “Anbar Awakening,” in which Sunni tribesman turned away from Islami[c Fundamentalist] militias and helped the Iraqi Security Forces and U.S. troops pacify the restive province, has been completely reversed.

Another "mission accomplished" banner will be going up in the Oval Office shortly.

But Ramadi’s fall is a strategic setback as well. Ramadi’s fall is a prelude to what many said would be the ultimate siege of Baghdad.

And tomorrow, Washington, D.C.  At least, that's what ISIS fully believes, just like the mullahs, Czar Vlad, the ChiComms, the NoKos, etc.  And in light of most of the 2016 GOP presidential field joining the "anti-war" crowd, they have even more of a reason to believe it than they did already.

Noah Rothman argues that "It would better serve American voters if reporters were asking Republican candidates how they intend to win the current war against ISIS in Iraq rather than demanding that dwell on past events over which they have no control."  Noah Rothman obviously doesn't get it.  American "reporters" don't want to win the current war against ISIS; neither does Barack Obama, which is why he isn't really fighting it.  American "reporters" don't want to fight ISIS at all.  They have made - or convinced Republicans that - resisting jihadism, in Iraq or anywhere else, including right here at home, as much of a political third rail as entitlement program reform.  Another "mission accomplished," as unless Governor Walker is elected president next year, and doesn't get bludgeoned into meekly going Code Pinkish like his GOP rivals, Barack Obama's foreign policy will not change no matter who he allows to succeed him (if he allows an election at all).

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11 and for years afterwards, people kept saying that al Qaeda's signature attacks "changed everything".  And I kept saying back, "The hell they have."

A pity I don't receive a nice royalty sum for each time I've been proven right on that one.  I'd never have to work another day in my life.