Russia Explains To Clueless US Public Why Obama Can't Defeat ISIS

Tyler Durden's picture

Earlier this week, CNN’s senior White House correspondent Jim Acosta asked President Obama the following question at a press briefing: 

"A lot of Americans have this frustration that they see the United States has the greatest military in the world, it has the backing of nearly every other country in the world when it comes to taking on ISIS. I guess the question is, and if you'll forgive the language, but why can't we take out these bastards?"

Well Jim, the answer is quite simple and indeed, if you - or any other member of the mainstream media for that matter - would bother to look at things like the declassified Pentagon report that Judicial Watch turned up earlier this year, you’d be less confused.

Allow us, once again, to provide you with the answers you seek, straight from the Pentagon ca. 2012: 

...there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist Principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).”

Translation: if Sunni extremists were to establish a proto-state in eastern Syria that would be great because it would destabilize Assad and cut off Iran from Hezbollah thus endangering the preservation of Tehran’s Shiite crescent. 

For those who need a still simpler formulation: ISIS started out no different than any of the other rebels the US supports in Syria. They likely received guns, money, and training if not directly from the US, then from Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Washington seems to have had some idea that they would seek to capture and hold territory and as far as the Pentagon was concerned, that was just fine. Whether or not the CIA anticipated what would come next is up for debate, but make no mistake, US intelligence knew good and well this was a possibility and let it happen because ousting Assad was (and still is) the top priority. 

So when the Jim Costas of the world ask “why can’t we take out these bastards?”, the answer is that if if we did, one of the main forces destabilizing the Assad regime would be gone and not only that, the US would no longer have an excuse to be in Syria, which would leave the country’s political future entirely up to Russia and Iran and that is a decidedly unpalatable outcome not only for Washington, but for Riyadh and Doha as well.

It’s Occam’s Razor Jim: look for the simplest possible explanation and go with that. 

Of course that explanation is simply too bad to be true for most Americans and so the public and the mass media will continue to exists in a state of perpetual bewilderment as to why 13 months of aerial bombardment hasn’t done anything to degrade the group.

In case any of the above isn’t clear enough, Sergei Lavrov has commentary which may help to drive the point home, presented below without further comment:

"Despite announcing ambitious plans for its coalition against Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL), the analysis of those [US-led] airstrikes during over a year lead to conclusion that they were hitting selectively, I would say, sparingly and on most occasions didn’t touch those IS units, which were capable of seriously challenging the Syrian army."


“Apparently, it’s a kind of a ‘honey is sweet, but the bee stings’ situation: they want IS to weaken Assad as soon as possible to make him leave somehow, but at the same time they don’t want to overly strengthen IS, which may then seize power."

 

"The US stance seriously weakens the prospects of Syria to remain a secular state, where the rights of all ethnic and religious groups will be provided and guaranteed,” 

 

"Russia’s assessment of the US-led anti-terror operation in Syria is based on observations of specific results and there are little results, not to say there are none – except the fact that during this period [since August 2014] the Islamic State has grown on the territories they control.”

Clear enough?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Herd Redirection Committee's picture

And we all know how bears like their honey!

Latina Lover's picture

"So when the Jim Costas of the world ask “why can’t we take out these bastards?”

Because we ARE the bastards.

knukles's picture

Because he's already squirted two whole bottles of "no tears" baby shampoo into his daughter's eyes and is wondering why they're still crying?

Surviver22's picture

Americans, it’s time to panic! WW3 already started!!! Events linked to Prophecy!
http://tinyurl.com/ofszc9f

NidStyles's picture

It amazes me that no one has noticed that Putin hasn't said a damn thing about the Paris attacks. 

Richard Chesler's picture

Obongo's most transparent administration ever.

 

Fucking clown!

 

Occident Mortal's picture

Why does America keep losing wars?

JD59's picture

The Communist Democrats (Liberals) influence the ROE Rules of Engagement, and then you have the MIC the Military Industrialized Complex that want continuous warfare, and Gov contracts, and of course you have the elite CFR/NWO/FED and global banks that need to feed off the debt of war and the indebted servitude of societies globally from the debt. Jekyll Island

Today the POTUS, Democrats, BLM, Progressives, College Professors, MS Media, & 50% of the U.S. population have no BALLS for self defense or WAR, no common sense, or will to protect their own lives. They are more concern about the weather, disarming law abiding Americans, bashing LEOs, and destorying the U.S. Bill of Rights.

ersatz007's picture

Thank the Lord above that the republicans still stand for all that is good in this world. 

cynicalskeptic's picture

Like W invading Iraq to satisfy some Oedipal urge?...... a war that by all standards of International Law was illegal and without justification, a war that destabilized the whole Middle East, killed hundreds of thousands and led to millions of refugees, a war to overthrow a regime that the US HAD supported against Iran for a pointless ten year war......    like Ronnie invading Granada - for what reason again?  like supporting AlQuaeda and recruiting juihadists to fight a proxy war against the Russians - jihadists who next turned against WHO?

Get over the 'Dems are bad - Repubs are good' false dichotomy.  They both serve TPTB NOT the American people.

I hope the /sarc was forgotten in the above

jeff montanye's picture

the ten to zero says that the real meaning came through.

beaglebog's picture

 

 

I dunno which group I despise the most ... politicians, or voters.

Urban Redneck's picture

The whole Democrat/Republican false dichotomy is remarkably similar to the ISIS/Al-Qaeda false dichotomy.  

If the clueless US public can't figure out the former in their own font yard, they'll never figure out the latter half a world away.

Zero Point's picture

Lose? Lol. They sold a TON of weapons and made a fortune. The MIC has won every war ever. Oh, yeah. You said murica. You're on the buy side, sorry.

BorisTheBlade's picture

Correct, it is more profitable to keep wars eternal, contrary to what Sun Tzu advised.

jeff montanye's picture

and if it's not inappropriate, how come islamic state never, ever attacks the greatest satan israel? i guess israel is so excellent at defense it is invulnerable; not even an unsuccessful attack.

i would think just for the sake of the theatrical event we are watching they would have run some entirely mossad operation and attributed it to islamic state.

1033eruth's picture

Occident Mortal - Stupid question from people that can't figure out simple puzzles.  

Do you think the MIC likes short or long wars?  

America spends 750 BILLION on defense every year.  Who do you think has more influence on congress, the neighborhood convenience store or the MIC?  

G*ddamn people are stupid because they refuse, absolutely REFUSE to use what's between their ears.  100% willful ignorance.

Its not about winning dumbshits and all the idiots that gave a thumbs up.  Its about spending as much money as possible and getting the braindead to endorse it.   

Moreover, nobody "wins" a war, least of all, American taxpayers. 

newdoobie's picture

America never loses a war! Your definition of 'win' must be wrong.

Did the MIC make tons of money? - WIN

Did the bankers make tons of money? - WIN

Did International Corporations make tons of money - WIN WIN WIN!

HowdyDoody's picture

"Putin hasn't said a damn thing about the Paris attacks."

As in "Putin Condemns Paris Massacre as 'Barbaric', 'Challenge to Civilization'" November 13.

“I would like to confirm the readiness for close cooperation with French partners on investigating the crime committed in Paris… I hope the masterminds and perpetrators will be brought to justice,”

http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/putin-condemns-paris-attacks-barba...

Filed under Stuff the Western MSM Won't Print

 

Alive or Just Breathing's picture

Well shit, you can't expect everyone to you know, read media outside of the US. No, that just wouldn't be right. If it's not on Chaos News Network, FAUX, or MSLSD then it's not happening.

HowdyDoody's picture

Censorship by omission is the most pernicious form of censorship.

 

Ness.'s picture

Beads.  Bees? ... Beads.  BEADS?

~GOB Bluth sums up honey and bees.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J2kc4oZTVU

agNau's picture

Left/Right no censorship here. The agenda perpetuates the diversion/blame game. If you're still here you are too far gone for medical help.

Televised media is a necessary tool. (Controllable; planned programming and message)*ditto on the medical help message above.

Note there is no movement to censor TV or even content of same. There is only desire to halt individuals of like mind congregating in the free speech zone known as the internet.

palmereldritch's picture

Propaganda by agitation...whether it be planted now or harvested later...is a powerful form of mind control

Remember: A down vote against the Anti-Putin comment now means you are a Putin-Lover later!!...regardless of the facts, because the perpetrators of this conditioning are either sloppy reckless amateurs or the alternative.

Oh well...everyone has a bad day

Proctologist's picture

they call that mushroom management, I believe.

Bay Area Guy's picture

I'm visiting my wife's relatives in Singapore and one of her brothers came along with us. We had ChannelNewsAsia, an English speaking channel, on and they had people discussing ISIS, the Paris attacks and the seeming problems the US has. My brother-in-law's reaction was priceless. "Wow. We never here anything like this at home on the news!" All I said was, "Really opens your eyes to see things from a lesser-interested third party, doesn't it?"

RaceToTheBottom's picture

Thanks for that info.  I had thought that and had some evidence from my own travels but yours was very interesting as well.  

Watching NPR or Bloomberg makes one question ones thoughts...

 

newdoobie's picture

While stationed with NATO in Turkey in the 90's we got to read the AP news straight! Totally different from what you read in the paper. Any time you see the byline 'so and so/AP' you know that 'so and so' has added spin and censorship to the original AP news story. The original straight story is disturbingly different.

swmnguy's picture

Well, yeah, except for the day after it happened, when Putin sent Hollande a telegram saying:

"This tragedy has become another testimony of terrorism's barbarity, which poses a challenge to human civilisation...It is clear that the real unification of the international community's efforts is needed for an effective fight against this evil."

Putin also said Russia was ready to "closely cooperate" with France in its investigation of the attacks.

In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, the Kremlin offered its condolences, condemning the "hateful" string of attacks and "inhuman murders".

So, other than talking to the French immediately, calling for unified action against ISIS and all the other standard expressions of diplomatic outrage, and cooperating with the French airstrikes, not a peep out of Putin.

silvermail's picture

 Putin was among the first leaders to publicly and officially expressed his condolences to the people of France.
But Obama actually said nothing publicly and officially about the russian plane crash for the Russian people.

Lea's picture

It amazes me that some here like NidStyles, even though they are no infants, cannot read.

You THINK Putin hasn't said anything about the Paris attacks because you don't want to think otherwise, or because reading is too much of an exertion for you.

 

uhland62's picture

What happens when the Emperor calls for war and nobody turns up?

Buckaroo Banzai's picture

I saw some statistics the other day that were rather shocking. Apparently we average about seven air sorties per day against ISIS, and in the vast majority of those, our planes neither drop a single bomb, or fire a single round from their guns. In other words, it's all fucking theater.

If Jim Acosta wanted to actually make himself useful, he'd stop asking vague, open-ended questions, and start asking questions referring to hard facts like these.

williambanzai7's picture

Jim  Acornhole is merely doing his MSM job, misdirection and propaganda.

Urban Redneck's picture

As of Nov. 17th:

Over these 48 days, the Russian aviation group has made 2,289 sorties and delivered 4,111 missile strikes on the terrorists’ main infrastructure facilities, munitions depots and manpower locations.

http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/50714

and for the mathematically challenged:

2289/48 = 47.7 sorties per day

4111/48 = 85.6 missile strikes per day

4111/2289 = 1.8 missile strikes per sortie

chiswickcat's picture

With the Russians cleaning up ISIS, The US and allies have to get in there quickly to protect ISIS.

scrappy's picture

Long - Oil Truck Manufacturers?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgYbiCGYy2c&html5=1

Russian warplanes bomb ISIS oil trucks in Syria
scaleindependent's picture

The internet, youtube, etc is full of videos of Russia attacking ISIS and of Russia being fired upon by ISIS, yet very few vague videos of the US doing the same.  But there are no videos of the USA being fired upon by ISIS? I mean, we've been there a lot longer than Russia. 

So all the doubters have to somehow answer these questions.

Yeah, cognitive dissonance is a bitch, aint it? 

conscious being's picture

The USAF has admitted and put out the stats to back it up that up til the time of Russian intervention, only 20% of their sorties dropped ordinance. It looks like every Russian flight drops everything they have.

HowdyDoody's picture

This is where strafing runs would be more effective. The Syrians need to open Kuweiries to allow the Russian and Syrian attack helicopters and SU-25s to do their stuff.

Edit:

Here is what the US is now doing using A-10s (or Apaches?) - 3 or 4 years too late. It is filmed near al Bukamal, which is just inside Syria, close to the Iraqi border.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXvrfmzH05M

chiswickcat's picture

If Jim asked real questions, he would not be invited back to the White House press conferences.

LostAtSea's picture

oh, boo-fuckin'hoo. When are these reporters going to grow some balls and ask the tough questions?