CNN: US intelligence chief contradicts Trump on ISIS defeat
Washington (CNN)Despite repeated claims by the Trump administration that ISIS has been defeated, US intelligence assesses that the terror group "very likely will continue to pursue external attacks from Iraq and Syria against regional and Western adversaries, including the United States."
The Worldwide Threat Assessment, released by Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats Tuesday, also states that with the recent loss of territory, "ISIS will seek to exploit Sunni grievances, societal instability, and stretched security forces to regain territory in Iraq and Syria in the long term."
Coats told members of the Senate Intelligence Committee Tuesday that ISIS "has returned to its guerrilla warfare roots while continuing to plot attacks and direct its supporters worldwide."
Read more ....
Update: Islamic State still has 'thousands' of fighters: US intel chief Dan Coats (Times Now)
WNU Editor: I do not think anyone is arguing that ISIS still has thousands (if not more) supporters in the Middle East and elsewhere. I also do not think anyone is saying that ISIS is no longer dangerous. These groups have always been a threat, and they will probably continue to launch terror strikes for years to come. But three years ago they were in control of territory that had millions of people, had access to millions of dollars, and were able to train and plan in a safe zone. That was then, today that safe zone is just a few square kilometres .... Islamic State pinned in tiny eastern Syria enclave with families, U.S. backed force says (Reuters).
If the benchmark is that ISIS must be 100% destroyed all over the world, then that is nonsensical. If the benchmark is ISIS must be left with no army in Iraq or Syria and not controlling towns or the countryside than that is reasonable. If the former is your goal, the US will be in never ending wars from the Philippines to all over Africa. Not viable.
ReplyDeleteNeocons trying to stay relevant.
ReplyDeleteU.S. Intelligence Report Says ISIS Remains a Threat, Despite Trump’s Claims of Defeat - FORTUNE
ReplyDeletehttps://apple.news/AqB_kMGEQSnWABVfTCb5iuA
anon: how many black ops operations we now have in various places, ie Africa etc etc? jihadists there do not have large pieces of land nor armies as we have in our military...why are they there if you are right?
WNU is spot on, you can't kill an idea by warfare. Heck, even Nazi's still exist.
ReplyDeleteYou cannot defeat something that can regenerate, unless you totally defeat and discredit it.
ReplyDeleteIt does not matter how long we are in Syria; we will not defeat ISIS. It is like cutting back a vine. It will just resprout.
The Left gives radical Islam all sort of cover and support.
Thanks to the Left we now have child marriage and FGM in America in a big way!
Thanks for nothing FUCKERS!
"Neocons trying to stay relevant."
ReplyDeleteDefine neocon. Be honest. Just try.
ReplyDeletescratched door on my new car! damned left
"Neocons trying to stay relevant."
ReplyDeleteNeocon is someone who was liberal, who became a conservative. It is also a label that an intellectually lazy Leftists uses to smear anyone, who is not a Leftists (not them).
Here is the wiki defiition
"Neoconservatism (commonly shortened to neocon when labeling its adherents) is a political movement born in the United States during the 1960s among liberal hawks who became disenchanted with the increasingly pacifist foreign policy of the Democratic Party, and the
growing New Left and counterculture, in particular the Vietnam protests. Some also began to question their liberal beliefs regarding domestic policies such as the Great Society.
Neoconservatives typically advocate the promotion of democracy and American national interest in international affairs, including peace through strength (by means of military force), and are known for espousing disdain for communism and for political radicalism.[1]
Many of its adherents became politically famous during the Republican presidential administrations of the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s as neoconservatives peaked in influence during the administration of George W. Bush, ..."
Neocon is such a stupid label. Say Wolfowitz advocates a certain policy and thus he is a neocon. Does that make it a neocon policy? But say Bolton who is a conservative, has always been conservative long time ago and espoused the policy way before Wolfowitz ever though of it, how can that policy be neocon? Those policies and schools of political thought were around long before a group of liberals left the echo chamber and walked out of darkness into light.
It is funny that if Samantha Power says the Libyan people need Democracy it is smart power and it is called R2P. If Wolfowitz says the Libyan people need Democracy, then it is neocon
It just goes to show that 342 and 809 are idiot(s).