:shrug: I don't need to.
In 1865 Gen Lee's Armies were decimated and yet continued to offer strong resistance to the northern armies. Likewise when Pres Obama said AQ was decimated he meant the same thing.
AQI =/= AQI, AQ in the land of two rivers, or the Islamic State. However, the latter group was more than decimated, it was down to a relative fraction of it's strength.
It's worth noting that the fact that ISIS today is stronger in Iraq and Syria than AQI was at that point in Iraq alone, and that this organization has already
proven that, without pressure, they can rise from those more
reduced origins to what we saw in 2014. So... I'm not exactly sure that's a great argument for the "Let's Just Leave And Hope This Time That Works" argument.
So when asked 2 years later about a group which took over Fallujah responded with the JV remark
Which, at the time, was astonishing.
Now the scandal of which you speak was very specific and was about CENTCOM itself. Whistleblowers complained senior level officers at CENTCOM were altering assessments. The rationale believed by the whistleblowers was it was more in alignment with administration views, which may be a reference to the JV comment or some other administration comments.
Yes, this was an example of the Administration's approach to the intelligence community when that community attempted to warn it about ISIS, namely:
What happened is that the Administration spent about a year and a half pushing back on the IC trying to tell them that ISIS was a large and growing threat, and excluding senior enterprise leaders who told them the truth on the matter from future meetings.
The CENTCOM J2 learned the lesson, and didn't want to be kicked out of the room and not invited back for telling the President something the President didn't want to hear.
The problem was the analysts believed (and it turned out to be more accurate) ISIS had a larger following, but the Dir of Intelligence apparently characterized it as not so large. They could both be right, however. It's like raw data before it is standardized. The analysts see an army of 10k and the Dir may see an army of 3k with 7k unwilling conscripts, much as the British saw American forces in the RW. I am not justifying what they did but offering a possible explanation of why they did it. I don't know and what I read did not have an opinion.
:shrug: The Administration did not want to admit there was a problem, refused to accept it, and, at one point, literally refused to take information from the military
, because the information it was getting wasn't what it wanted. Even our Embassy in Iraq at the time didn't know what our policy was, because the Administration refused to have one. It was a freaking cluster.
Your comment on an administration burying its head in the sand on the issue of terrorists is not supported by what I have read regarding the CENTCOM scandal.
The CENTCOM scandal was one (and perhaps the most written on) portions of that trend. :lol: I had a friend on the phone with one of the policy offices, trying to explain to them that he could see more ISIS fighters just on the drone feed he was watching live at that very moment in one particular city than they were willing to accept existed throughout the entire organization. They told him he didn't understand what he was seeing, and not to publish his information.
President Obama did not want to go back into Iraq after claiming credit for pulling us out and he did not want to hear about things that may require him to do so
My comment was regarded only the possibility of engaging ISIS in Syria.
Pres Obama, as did I, concluded major entities in Iraq did not want Americans to remain in Iraq, for several reasons. He of course could have taken the Trumpian view and simply threatened the Iraqis by saying FrakOff we are staying as long as we want to,[/quote]
That is not the Trumpian view at all. Trump keeps trying to pull us out of the Middle East - irresponsibly so, in fact. On a couple of occasions only the united opposition of his own national security team of experts - the General Mattis types - have stopped him. Now, they are trickling out, and we'll see if he continues to be restrained in this area.
but why stay when not wanted and especially if the Iranian supported militias would start fighting the Americans. Would fighting on two fronts be the solution any American president wanted? I don't think Pres Obama wanted to stay for that reason as well as the one Pres Bush had already signed a SOFA to leave. They wanted us gone and you don't make friends by pissing in their boots
Cool. The result was still the same. The U.S. tried the "let's just pretend none of this can effect us and so we can ignore it" game, and it turned out, we couldn't and can't.