“So you’re not degrading to the extent where [Islamic State] can’t launch major offensives to retake an important strategic city?” challenged a reporter at the State Department briefing Thursday, as spokesperson Marie Harf repeatedly asserted that the current strategy to “degrade and defeat” the Islamic State is working, and that there’s “no formal strategy review” taking place.
For the first 12 minutes of the briefing, Harf answered questions on the loss of the cities of Ramadi in Iraq, and Palmyra in Syria, by saying that the U.S. has cut off the Islamic State’s “main source of funding” and that “we’re taking fighters off the battlefield every single day. That’s having an impact.”
That’s when a reporter decided to push back hard against her narrative.
“Was the strategy [in Iraq] wrong, though, that you lost the strategically significant town of Ramadi?” he asked. “I mean, it’s given you a huge public relations disaster, and it’s also deflated many people because they don’t think you are actually on top of the war against ISIL. It has given them a massive boost, and may actually help with the recruitment.”
“Who is ‘them’? Who are you [referring to]— … who has it deflated?”
“I think we both understand I’m talking about ISIL,” answered the exasperated reporter. “It’s not just random men.”
“Who has it deflated? I guess I’m trying to – pundits, or who?” asked Harf.
“Well, the Iraqis,” replied the reporter. “It can’t be great […] for them to see the strategically important town of Ramadi being lost when the U.S. military is there in an advisory and training capacity, and has, in your own words, has this strategy on how to beat ISIL.”
“Well, I think the Iraqis, first of all, over the last 10 months have actually seen the Iraqi armed forces, backed up by the U.S., have many successes as well,” said Harf. “They’ve seen them retake Mosul Dam. They’ve seen them retake Mount Sinjar. They’ve seen them push ISIL out of 25 percent of the territory it used to hold in populated areas, and now there are all these people who live in those areas who are no longer living under ISIL.”
She continued: “I also think the Iraqi people – and I don’t pretend to speak for them; I know you just were, but – see that the Iraqi army on the outskirts of Ramadi now, unlike what we saw in Mosul, has held their positions outside of Ramadi … hopefully we will be able to help them retake Ramadi.”
“I don’t claim to speak for the Iraqi people,” answered the reporter. “[A]lthough, I have seen quotes from Iraqi people, including Iraqi people who saw their army run from Ramadi on – when ISIL moved in and who saw police officers going around asking businesses and locals for money to buy weapons, because they didn’t have enough weapons to defend themselves or their city. How does that fit into the U.S. strategy?”
“That’s not actually what happened in Ramadi,” protested Harf. “[The Iraqis] engaged in a very serious and sustained fight against ISIL. It was one where they were overpowered by an incredibly strong and well-armed challenge from ISIL. So they retreated outside of the city, they are regrouping. That doesn’t mean this wasn’t a big setback. Nobody’s sugarcoating that.”
“So you’re not degrading to the extent where [the Islamic State] can’t launch major offensives to retake an important strategic city?” the reporter shot back.
Harf replied that the U.S. has “degraded” the Islamic State’s capabilities in a “number of areas” while conceding that “ISIL is incredibly capable. … and they have the ability to launch these kinds of attacks. But every day we are degrading that ability. And we’re going to keep doing it, the Iraqis are going to keep doing it, and ultimately we believe they will be defeated.”
“Do you have confidence in the ability of the Iraqi armed forces that you have trained and spent billions of dollars on?” asked another reporter.
“We do, we do. Look, this is a tough fight. This is a tough fight,” she repeated, asserting that the Iraqi forces the U.S. has trained are “better armed, they’re better trained” than the Islamic State fighters.
“[A]ll this talk about degrading them and the strategy is working […] and that you’re taking fighters off the battlefield every day and that you cut back – cut off their source of revenue. It strikes me as somewhat contradictory,” said AP reporter Matt Lee. “[I]f they are being degraded, how is it that they have managed to capture these two significant cities?”
“Because they still have significant capabilities. They came in with a lot of capabilities; we have degraded a lot […] but there’s still a lot of work to do,” said Harf. “This is a very well-equipped group.”
The U.S. watched as some of that equipment, including rifles, rocket-propelled grenades, and missiles, flowed from Benghazi to Syrian ports, an activity then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton denied any knowledge of in January 2013.
The U.S. also ran 75 airlifts and 3,000 tons of Yugoslav weapons to the rebels who would become the Islamic State in November 2012, according to the Daily Telegraph.
