It's instructive to look at today's media coverage of the fight against ISIS. There were two big events: 1) the man called Jihadi John has likely been taken out by an American drone strike, and 2) the city of Sinjar in Iraq has been retaken from ISIS by the Kurdish peshmerga forces. Both are worthy of mention as important events. Jihadi John is the terrorist with the British accent who appeared in many of those early ISIS videos showing beheadings of one captive or another. He's been on the American target list from the beginning. Taking him out is a nice symbol, but not much more. There are plenty of other terrorists to replace him. On the other hand, the recapture of Sinjar is a major strategic development that will severely hamper the ability of ISIS as the fight continues. By retaking Sinjar, the Kurds have pretty much cut the link between the two most important centers of ISIS power: Raqqa in Syria and Mosul in Iraq. ISIS will no longer be able easily to shift forces from one side of its so called "caliphate" to the other as military needs dictate. There will be ISIS in Iraq and ISIS in Syria and each will need to survive on its own. Just as Sherman's march through Georgia split the Confederacy during the Civil War and hastened its end, the retaking (and holding) of Sinjar is a big step in doing the same thing to ISIS. Compared to the drone strike on Jihadi John, the battle in Sinjar is much, much more important.
So on which of these two events do you think the media is focused? Obviously, it's Jihadi John. It's further proof that most people in the mainstream media don't understand what is happening in the Middle East and that they are making no effort to learn about it. Our allies (who president Obama consistently disrespects) the Kurds are doing what no one else is: they are making real inroads against ISIS. There were around 8000 Kurdish soldiers who put their lives on the line to win back this city. They have to fight with outdated weapons because America under Obama won't give them modern ones, but they fight nevertheless. Even the coverage of the Sinjar battle has not been about the Kurds or the strategic nature of the victory. No, most of it has been about the massive damage that was done by American airstrikes on that city. So we see a massive victory by the Kurds and the coverage is about the damage inflicted by American planes. What's next? Will we hear a call for a commission to investigate whether that damage was necessary?
So on which of these two events do you think the media is focused? Obviously, it's Jihadi John. It's further proof that most people in the mainstream media don't understand what is happening in the Middle East and that they are making no effort to learn about it. Our allies (who president Obama consistently disrespects) the Kurds are doing what no one else is: they are making real inroads against ISIS. There were around 8000 Kurdish soldiers who put their lives on the line to win back this city. They have to fight with outdated weapons because America under Obama won't give them modern ones, but they fight nevertheless. Even the coverage of the Sinjar battle has not been about the Kurds or the strategic nature of the victory. No, most of it has been about the massive damage that was done by American airstrikes on that city. So we see a massive victory by the Kurds and the coverage is about the damage inflicted by American planes. What's next? Will we hear a call for a commission to investigate whether that damage was necessary?
No comments:
Post a Comment