New York Times: Ramadi, Reclaimed by Iraq, Is in Ruins After ISIS Fight
RAMADI, Iraq — As his armored vehicle bounced along a dirt track carved through the ruins of this recently reconquered city on Wednesday, Gen. Ali Jameel, an Iraqi counterterrorism officer, narrated the passing sites.
Here were the carcasses of four tanks, charred by the jihadists of the Islamic State. Here, a police officer’s home that the jihadists had blown up. Here, a villa reduced to rubble by an airstrike. And another. And another.
In one neighborhood, he stood before a panorama of wreckage so vast that it was unclear where the original buildings had stood. He paused when asked how residents would return to their homes.
“Homes?” he said. “There are no homes.”
The retaking of Ramadi by Iraqi security forces last week has been hailed as a major blow to the Islamic State and as a vindication of the Obama administration’s strategy to fight the group by backing local ground forces with intensive airstrikes.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: This reminds me of what they use to say about Vietnam. "To save the village we had to destroy it".
3 comments:
Interestingly, several weeks ago, the Western media relentlessly accuses Russia by the bombers and the US say they do not attack the DAESH for fear of civilian casualties. BS! The media war is the dirtiest of all.
A destroyed city is worth it if DAESH is defeated.
But to win the peace, Baghdad will have divide the budget equitably.
Many cities in WW2 were destroyed, yet Russia, Germany and Japan rose from the ashes. If they had wanted Ramadi in one piece they should have put up a fight back when ISIS took Mosul instead of running.
Actually the US media is quite deferential to Russia. I agree the media war is dirty and Russia is clearly winning it.
As for "fear of civilian casualties", this does factor in very heavily in US military calculations. Should civilian casualties occur in any numbers US officials up to and including POTUS would be in the dock for war crimes before kangaroo courts designed to convict them without a fair trial. Russian leadership faces no such risks. As such, they can pursue military actions far more aggressively than America can.
Also, other factors to consider. Syria's Assad government is essentially a puppet of Russia/Iran. Iraq's Baghdad government is essentially a puppet of Iran. As for the taking of Ramadi being "worth it", while anything that undermines ISIS is good, do we really want to assist Iran "death to America" to further strengthen their hold on Iraq. In other words, do we really want to help Iran further its interests all while it is actively trying to harm us?
As for Ramadi in one piece, I don't think they (Iran/Iraq) wanted it in one piece. When ISIS first rose to power, it conquered and held territory faster and more efficiently than the US military ever could have even before it was badly worn down as it is now. In order to do this, it seems likely they would have needed to have massive support on the ground among the population. I'm pretty sure the Iranians/Iraqis wanted to send a message to these people by destroying their city. This type of thing, right or wrong, was done in WW2. ISIS is a far greater threat to America than the enemies of WW2 ever were or ever could have been.
Post a Comment