Do you realise that in Iraq the concept is that the Iraqi Security Forces effectively run the show? They compose the planning for ops and strategically where to capture. This is all done with just Western assistance, we haven't committed any substantial ground elements or indiscriminate bombing (like the Russian tactic of carpet/unguided and the Syrian regime effort of barrell bombing).
Given the difficulties of inspiring a rag tag bunch like the ISF, and the lengthy process of target development and precision delivery, progress was obviously going to be slow.
Don't forget that the politics throughout each country play a large factor. You've got the Iraqi government who are most concerned about the south and baghdad, they care much less about the ethnicities to the north. Obama on the other hand clearly has some draw up there as liberating Mosul before his time in tenure is up would be major kudos and portray him in a good light.
I can't understand any argument to retain am oppressive regime leader. I don't agree with the short sighted view that "these people need rule with an iron fist", it's offensive and it denies progress. I also don't get the strange fanboyism for states like Russia and Syria who indiscriminately bomb who they like. If that was the US dropping barrell bombs and unguided munitions you'd be spamming it all over the forum. Why the double standards?
