CNN recently asked “Why is ISIS winning?”
Earlier, Iraqi government troops and / or Kurdish fighters defeated ISIS at the border town of Kobane, near Turkey, and took control of the Baiji oil refinery, the largest oil refinery in Iraq. CNN was referring to the recent take-down of the Iraqi army at Ramadi. Still, does the CNN headline comes across as biased?
Earlier this year, The Fiscal Times reported that ISIS has been “defeated in every front in Iraq in unprecedented way – from Mosul to the north to Anbar to the west and Diyala to the east…” Iraqi government forces, Shiite militias, Sunni tribes and Kurdish forces were all victorious in battle, read the report.
In April, ISIS was beat back from the city of Tikrit. “ISIS just suffered its worst defeat yet – losing the Iraqi city of Tikrit,” reported Vox.
In March, The Washington Post stated: “Reports of rising tensions between foreign and local fighters, aggressive and increasingly unsuccessful attempts to recruit local citizens for the front lines, and a growing incidence of guerrilla attacks against Islamic State targets suggest the militants are struggling to sustain their carefully cultivated image as a fearsome fighting force…”
So, the question is: Who’s right? Is CNN being biased by stating that ISIS is winning? Or is ISIS being defeated, as other publications have stated?
Just as important – are some news outlets more likely to claim ISIS is “winning” than other media? Does politics come into play? For example, is Fox News more likely to report that ISIS is winning because it makes the President look bad? Just a thought…
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/isis-suffers-heaviest-defeat-iraq-101500786.html
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/28/middleeast/isis-how-to-stop-it/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/18/iraq-beji-refinery-isis-attack_n_7092080.html
OK, Fine. 
I think the news outlets are fundamentally unqualified to report on this stuff. Here’s my view. Because my qualifications are higher. 😉
Iraq doesn’t have the firepower to stop ISIS everywhere and anywhere. Meanwhile, ISIS has enough firepower, manpower, and resources to pick spots where they can overwhelm Iraqi forces. So, yeah, Iraq can drive them out of one place, and even most places, but then ISIS can centralize its resources and over-run Iraqi troops in a some other location. Until Iraq has overwhelming superiority in all facets, it’s going to be a constantly shifting battlefield.
It’s kind of like Vietnam for the U.S. We might have won the war, but in the end we lost it because of North Vietnam’s ability to just continue pecking away. ISIS may just be Iraq’s Vietnam.
There are different issues, I’m sure. When I was in SouthEast Asia, I saw some cultural differences that probably helped, too. People there can be gossipy and very good at “spreading the word” about something. The language is also hard to learn, especially the writing. People can also lie to your face of they need to. When I was in Southeast Asia, I saw many cultural things that may have helped Vietnam win the war. I’m sure the thick jungle didn’t hurt, either.
And, of course, in many areas of the world, the U.S. has supported a crappy dictator simply because they were capitalist. Maybe the Vietnamese were sick of their crappy dictator and really wanted a way out.
The USA Is making a big mistake in not just taking out ISIS. Sooner or later and this is why ISIS is going to win. This group is going to get smart and start impregnating these captured woman just to bread more sex slave’s and to double there fighting forces. The kids that are born by force are going to grow up only take take up arms as a fighter for ISIS making ISIS ever more of a force and even more unstoppable.