From Anthony Cartalucci:
The United States has boasted responsibility for allegedly killing Islamic State spokesman and supposed senior leader Mohammad al-Adnani in northern Syria. The reports, like many of its kind, remain unconfirmed with evidence forthcoming.
Such announcements appear aimed at portraying the US military as engaged in military operations to combat and defeat the Islamic State, a terrorist organisation that sprung forth from Al Qaeda in Iraq and Syria.
However, even Western analysts question the significance of such tactics, admitting that the Islamic State’s leadership, or the leadership of any particularly large terrorist organisation for that matter, is easily replaced and has little impact on any given group’s fighting capacity or global menace.
Newsweek in a piece titled, “Does the Death of Abu Mohammad Al-Adani Spell the End for ISIS?,” would claim:
What Western analysts and the Western media have not mentioned, is anything regarding the lack of concerted efforts to attack the actual source of the Islamic State’s power, influence and fighting capacity, namely its funding, supply lines and state sponsors.
Great wars are rarely won by simply killing the leadership of any particular army or nation. During World War II, the death of Nazi Germany’s leader Adolph Hitler occurred long after Germany itself as a nation and as a military force was for all intents and purposes defeated on the battlefield. Italian leader Benito Mussolini presided over a militarily dysfunctional state even from the onset of war. In Japan, the Emperor and many senior military leaders were still alive and well upon the conclusion of fighting, but were missing anything resembling the industrial and military capacity required to continue waging war, even before the United States unleashed two atomic bombs on mainland Japan.
Victory over the Axis powers came instead through systematic, crippling attacks on national infrastructure, supply …