Architects of 2007 U.S. troop surge criticize Obama for failed anti-IS strategy

As the White House tries to downplay the significance of the Islamic State's recent advance in Iraq and Syria, key architects of the 2007 troop surge criticized Thursday the Obama administration for failing to present an effective anti-terrorism strategy against IS military group.

"While there has been some progress and some success, looking at the strategy today, we know now that the conceptional plan is fundamentally flawed," said General Jack Keane, former vice chief of staff of the Army, during his Senate Armed Service Committee hearing Thursday.

In a televised address to the country last September, U.S. President Barack Obama outlined his "comprehensive and sustained counter-terrorism strategy" which, in his words, would "degrade, and ultimately destroy ISIL," using an alternative name for the extremist group.

As a vital part of the Obama administration's strategy, instead of sending large-scale ground troops to confront IS fighters, the United States has led a coalition force to conduct air raids while offering support to local forces fighting ISIL on the ground.

However, the strategy has long been faulted by Iraq hawks in Washington for being out of focus, and they said the past week of uncurbed territory gains highlighted their points.

"We are not only failing. We are in fact losing this war," said Keane, adding that resources provided to support Iraqi force were "far from adequate" and the urgency to provide arms and training was insufficient.

Though stopping short of calling for large-scale American ground troops, Keane said the White House should begin "serious planning" for reintroducing U.S. combat brigades.

During Thursday's hearing, Frederick Kagan, another key architect of the 2007 surge during George W. Bush's presidency, said the recent falling of Iraqi city Ramadi and Syrian city Palmyra showed that the United States was facing a "coherent campaign plan and a very intelligent one" that justifies large- scale ground troops.

"What I can't discern from the daily operations... is any coherent American strategy to respond to this threat," said Kagan, adding the White House should deploy "a total of 15,000 to 20,000 U.S. troops in Iraq", which would include necessary enablers, advisers.

Meanwhile, despite recent occupation of Iraqi and Syrian cities by IS fighters, little indication showed that the White House would soon budge on its stance of ruling out massive military deployment.

"I say it with full confidence, (that) the president will not be comfortable with the full-scale reinvasion of Iraq by the United States military," said the White House spokesman Josh Earnest on Thursday during the daily briefing. "That is a strategy that did not serve the long-term interests of the United States."

"What the president believes (that) serves the long-term interests of the United States is building up the capacity of fighters on the ground inside of Iraq who are willing to fight for their own country," he added.

In an interview with The Atlantic released on Thursday, Obama called the fall of Ramadi a "tactical setback" and said he did not think the United States was losing the fight against IS.

"There's no doubt there was a tactical setback," Obama told the magazine, adding that Ramadi had been vulnerable because the forces there were "not Iraqi security forces that we have trained or reinforced".

"There's no doubt that in the Sunni areas, we're going to have to ramp up not just training, but also commitment, and we better get Sunni tribes more activated than they currently have been," Obama said. Endite