Most Americans say they are not satisfied with how the war [with Islamic Fundamentalism] is progressing, a new CNN/ORC poll finds, and more are now saying the terrorists are winning than at any point since the 9/11 attacks.
Given that Barack Obama hasn't been fighting this war at all for the past four years, I'd say that's about right.
The poll of 1,018 adults, conducted between December 17th-21st, found that 75% say they're dissatisfied following the terrorist attacks in San Bernardino and Paris, CNN reports, [shatter]ing a high point of 61% in August 2007.
However, fewer than half of Americans, or 40%, say the terrorists are winning. But that is still 17% above the previous high of 23% that was recorded in August 2005.
Translation: We could be winning this war if we were actually fighting the Global Jihad and would commit to the steps necessary to wipe it out - i.e. reinvading Iraq and marching into (eastern) Syria. Which a majority of Americans, according to this survey, once again opposes. Which means they're not fully weaned off the "We don't need to make tough choices/Just wave the magic wand and all our troubles will vanish/Victory on the cheap" addiction the Democrats inflicted on them in the previous decade.
But this is still measurable, even considerable, progress, given that even upwards of sixty percent of Democrats are thumbs-downing their own demigod on this issue. Of course, that could be because the White House hasn't sent John Kerry to Mosul to beg for peace negotiations with Caliph al-Baghdadi, leading to a "historic" summit meeting between the two Muslim leaders where the ISIS-U.S. treaty can be inked in O's spilled blood. But do not doubt, oh ye of little faith, my Donk friends; Dear Leader still has another year to go - at least.
I'm guessing CNN's (I swear I'm not making up this name) Poppy Harlow is in the above camp, given her last night's on-camera swoon of despair:
She claimed her fainting spell was the result of a "hot flash," which seems unlikely given that, unless she has one helluva plastic surgeon, she does not look remotely menopausal. But we all know what the real cause of her "shutdown" was.
I bet she wouldn't have keeled over schnoz-first if she'd had this story to report:
Iraqi forces on Monday declared a key victory in their battle to retake the city of Ramadi from ISIS, seizing a central government compound in what the U.S. called a “proud moment.”
Brigadier-General Yahya Rasool told state television that the Iraqi flag was flying over the complex, saying that the city had been “liberated” following a weeks-long fight against the militants.
As phrased above, measurable, even considerable, progress for the "Iraqi Army," which was last seen fleeing in terror out of Ramadi from an ISIS force a tenth its size. And I can certainly understand their elation and desire to oversell it. But the fact remains that Ramadi has not been liberated yet:
Pockets of ISIS fighters were still believed to be holed up in the western city, a senior Iraqi security official. The official said on condition of anonymity that about 45% of Ramadi remains under jihadist control, mainly in northern and eastern districts that are now surrounded by government forces.
And a senior U.S. military official said the city of Ramadi was far from secure, with several heavily-mined neighborhoods still under ISIS control and in need of clearing.
“The fight there is far from over,” the official told NBC News. “Iraqi forces may still face heavy fighting within the next few days.”
Can they hack that fighting? Or have they convinced themselves that winning this one skirmish within a larger single battle is all it will take? i.e. "Victory on the cheap," the same delusion that still grips half the American public? My guess is the "Iraqi Army" breaks and runs again before the week is out. And even if they don't, and do manage to completely liberate Ramadi, can they hold it against ISIS counterattacks? And can they liberate other ISIS (formerly Iraqi) cities and actually roll back the Caliphate out of Iraqi territory altogether? All of that remains to be seen.
But two things we can count on are that (1) this story will be Poppy
UPDATE: Guess which is the only Western country that ISIS fears: hint - it isn't us:
A German journalist who spent ten days in the Islamic State says that the radical jihadist group that has captured wide swaths of Syria and Iraq is deterred by only one Middle Eastern country - Israel. In an interview with the British Jewish News, Jurgen Todenhofer recalls his brief time behind enemy lines during which he spoke with ISIS fighters.
And made it out alive, somehow.
“The only country ISIS fears is Israel,” Todenhofer, a former member of the German parliament, told Jewish News. “They told me they know the Israeli army is too strong for them.”
The writer said that ISIS wants to lure British and American forces into Syria and Iraq, areas where it thinks it has an advantage.
“They think they can defeat U.S. and U.K. ground troops, who they say they have no experience in city guerrilla or terrorist strategies,” he told Jewish News. “But they know the Israelis are very tough as far as fighting against guerrillas and terrorists.” [emphasis added]
If I may translate the above: ISIS knows they can fight the kind of war and inflict the level of casualties for which the weak, soft, decadent American public has proven it hasn't the stomach and cannot and will not tolerate. Much like the Nazis and Japanese believed in World War II, to their ultimate peril, but about which Islamic Staters are spot on.
Put another way, the U.S. isn't a serious country, but the Israelis are. Probably because they have a millennia-long history of being hunted, persecuted, pogromed, and genocided, and thus do not entertain the delusions of younger, way more foolish Western countries.
The latter of which ISIS is going to exploit ever more horrifically:
Todenhofer said that ISIS was “preparing the largest religious cleansing in history” and that he was “pessimistic” that the threat it poses could be neutralized. He added that the Paris attacks were just the first of “a storm” that is coming to Western cities.
“They are not scared of the British and the Americans, they are scared of the Israelis and told me the Israeli army is the real danger. We can’t defeat them with our current strategy. These people [the IDF] can fight a guerrilla war.”
“In Mosul there are ten thousand fighters living among 1.5 million people in two thousand apartments, not in one place - so it would be difficult [for Western soldiers] to fight them. ISIS fighters are ready to die in a war against Western soldiers.”
Todenhofer said that ISIS plans to topple local governments while at the same time carry out terrorist atrocities abroad.
“They are a very strong danger for Iraq, Syria, Jordan and Libya, while the West will be subjected to big acts of terrorism instead of a full blown ISIS war because they say they don’t want too many battles at the same time,” he said. [emphasis added]
That sounds like it IS a "full-blown ISIS war" if you ask me. And they really have no reason to believe that the sky isn't the limit for how many battles they can fight at the same time, given the track record of the current American government.
I wouldn't be surprised if they let the "Iraqi Army" penetrate Ramadi so they could crush it yet again and reinforce that message, for which they have such a droolingly captive audience in Washington, D.C.