Drone footage showed widespread destruction in Mosul after a nine month battle to liberate the Iraqi city from Islamic State militants. U.S.-baked Iraqi forces have declared victory over IS but there are fears some militants could still be hiding in the ruins. (AP)
Comments
Like "Palestine" itself, Islamists have once again proven how much easier it is to create devastation through terrorism than to actually put their shoulder to the wheel and build something.
The question left to analysts is would Mosul be better off if it was still under the control of the Islamic State?
Despite the fact Hussein initiated two oil wars and orchestrated the murders of 450,000 of his own citizens western regressive liberal socialists still bemoan his removal from power and blame his removal as the root of all following violence, instead of a too hasty removal of all US troops in Iraq by President Obama.
Is anyone earnestly capable of suggesting Mosul would have been better off under the tyrannical genocidal criminal institution, Islamic State or ISIS?
Did coalition politics impede an earlier and quicker military solution?
In the movie Patton, as the exultant General prepares to drive off for his glory in Messina, Bradley exempts himself still musing on the causalities incurred by Patton's push to get there. The movie depicts General Bradley as grieved that so many lives were "wasted" so Patton could beat Montgomery to Messina.
Patton counters Bradley's dour appreciation by saying words to effect, "General its time we started considering how many more casualties we would have suffered if we were still slugging it out on that damn road." My guess is if the coalition had been fighting for Messina it would have looked like Mosul when they got there.