I see that John Kerry is in Baghdad and is pushing the Obama line that the staggering success of ISIS is the creation of lack of “inclusivity” by the Maliki Government. The BBC appears to accept this opinion  and no challenge is offered back on the topic. Whilst I can understand Kerry pushing this line there is the OTHER possibility that the growth and success of ISIS is down to the Obama doctrine of leaving field of battle and then declaring this a success when in fact it is obvious that the situation was highly volatile and that ISIS have filled the void that Obama created.

Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Phil Ford says:

    Kerry is as disingenuous as any other left-leaning dissembler.

    A quick look at the ISIS page on wikipedia reveals:

    “…In its self-proclaimed status as an independent state, [ISIS] claims the territory of Iraq and Syria, with implied future claims intended over more of the Levant, including Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, Jordan, Cyprus, and Southern Turkey… ISIS’s original aim was to establish a caliphate in the Sunni-majority regions of Iraq. This later expanded to include controlling Sunni-majority areas of Syria as a result of ISIS’s participation in the Syrian Civil War and the spillover from the Syrian Civil War.”

    It’s not too difficult to fathom, is it? I wonder why Kerry, his fellows travellers and of course the BBC seem to have such profound difficulty interpolating it?

    Anyone would think they didn’t want us to know. Surely not?


  2. chrisH says:

    And Jon Snow, John McTernan(ex Labour willy warmer) and George Galloway managed to all blame Israel for the rise of those IZAL shi`ite stabbers in Iraq/Syria.
    Galloway were there to blame Blair for it all…and when there was no agreement, then Israel brought them all together.
    Truly despicable-but what else is Channel 4 news?
    God bless Israel…maybe Jon Snow would agree to check on climate change in Cairo, where his like get justice insh`Allah…


  3. Richard says:

    I’ve got very little time for Obama, but it was clearly a strong possibility that having decided to launch an unprovoked attack on Iraq, without visible, let alone sensible or well-defined war aims the long-term prognosis was that at some point somebody would have to declare victory and quit, hoping, as they did so, that the present dogs dinner wouldn’t appear behind them in the rear-view mirror. You can characterise this as “leaving the field of battle” if you wish, but from the moment ‘aw ‘n’ shucks’ started, that die was cast. The current balls-up wasn’t just predictable, it was predicted. It was, those blessed with a long enough attention span might recall, the reason that Iraq wasn’t invaded after the Kuwaiti war.


  4. Wonderful article. I’d been looking at continuously this blog that i’m inspired! Very helpful facts especially the closing stage 🙂 We contend with such information a great deal. I became searching for this type of information for a long period. Appreciate it as well as associated with fortune.


    • Guest Who says:

      In the spirit of relativity and zero topicality, welcome Eugene II: anticipate the most humble and embiggen-aspirant of the BBBC’s resident topicality and maturity-assessors conferring many likes to a fellow bot.
      Maybe even support from one who finds you kinda hot.