Yeah. While of course, those same borders hamper US efforts to fight ISIS.
I'm also amused at the failure of the nonstop news cycle to realise that ISIS are fighting an insurgent war, and thus will not play to their timetable. Go back a few months, and you'll see more than a few writers prophesying the decline and death of Islamic State, how they were on the defensive and failing to hold territory.
They don't fucking get it. ISIS is Al-Qaeda in Iraq. It took a beating from the US and Awakening Councils, it retreated into the Iraqi desert and licked its wounds before striking again. It took Fallujah, then feigned weakness while building up sufficient forces for the Mosul offensive last summer. And here, yet again, they fell back, adapted their tactics and struck where their enemies were weak. Because they're insurgents.
Is there some financial interest involved why no reporter/"expert" mentions this?
Beyond what Roger said...they do.
Problem is, the reporters with the biggest audiences are those with access to the White House, which is contingent on them getting their pom-poms out and putting on a show for the home crowd.
I also suspect there's a dangerous level of ambivalence towards ISIS among some in the national security state...so long as the Caliphate and Iran's proxies bleed each other to the final drop, America "wins". This is of course the position most put forward by Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey et al and so of course is naturally self-serving and short-sighted...but within the immediate time frame, also has an element of truth about it. It also denies an outgoing President a victory, which again, is something which both those countries and certain interests in the USA have in common...especially when you consider the ties between those states, the US intelligence services and certain key, politically influential families in the USA.
