Capitol Hill skeptical of military strategy in Iraq

Navy Times — Fri, 14 Nov 2014 13:39:15 -0500

From: Navy Times

Capitol Hill is growing skeptical of the U.S. military strategy in Iraq that hinges on the Shiite-led Baghdad government's ability to overcome years of sectarian divisions and strife and forge an inclusive government that shares power with Kurdish and Sunni minorities.

"Overall, I'm wondering how we can be walking down this same path that we walked down over the last decade or more and hope for a different outcome," Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, a Democrat from Hawaii, Army reservist and Iraq veteran, told top Pentagon officials Thursday.

Doubts came from both sides of the aisle when the Pentagon's two top officials appeared before the House Armed Services Committee to testify about the White House's recent $5.6 billion request to fund the ongoing fight against Islamic State extremists, also known as ISIS or ISIL.

Many lawmakers questioned President Obama's Nov. 7 decision to nearly double the number of U.S. troops authorized in Iraq to as many as 3,100. Congressional support will be essential because Pentagon officials have said additional troops will not deploy until lawmakers approve the money for the expanded mission.

Several days after Obama's authorization, about 50 U.S. troops deployed into Iraq's Anbar province for the first time in years, going to Al Asad Air Base to advise an Iraqi headquarters unit there.

The military's top officer acknowledged that the American strategy is banking on the hope that Iraqi politics will change abruptly and bring Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds together in an inclusive government.

"One of the important assumptions about this campaign is that the Iraqi government does establish its intent to create a government of national unity. I can predict for you right now, if that doesn't happen, then the Iraqi security forces will not hold together," Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, told lawmakers.

Some lawmakers were doubtful and noted the same sectarian conflict was at the core of the problems U.S. troops faced after the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

"Despite seven years of conflict in Iraq, 4,500 American lives lost, and more than $1.5 trillion spent, our military effort did not resolve the sectarian conflict we are now confronted with," said Rep. Niki Tsongas, D-Mass.

For now, Dempsey said he has only a "glimmer of indication" that the Baghdad government is "beginning" to move toward greater inclusion of Iraq's ethnic minorities.

Still, Dempsey and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told lawmakers that three months of intensive airstrikes have degraded the Islamic State, and both urged "strategic patience."

But Dempsey also said that if the Baghdad government does not follow through on its promises to be inclusive, he will recommend cutting off some U.S. military support.

"If they do not form and actually manifest this national unity agenda, then frankly ... I will be among those that recommends we do not support them to the degree that we support them," he said.

For now, it's not clear precisely what the Baghdad government can do to resolve the sectarian strife that is fueling a civil war between Sunnis and Shiites, Dempsey said.

"We don't yet know to what degree the government of Iraq will convince the Kurds and the Sunnis that it intends to have the government of national unity, one that gives the people of Iraq confidence that they have a future other than through ISIL's radical ideology," Dempsey said.

Obama has repeatedly insisted that he will not send U.S. troops back into a "combat role" in Iraq. Yet Dempsey said an Iraqi effort to retake Mosul or to restore the border with Syria may require more American boots on the ground.

"I'm not predicting at this point that I would recommend that those forces in Mosul and along the border would need to be accompanied by U.S. forces, but we're certainly considering it," Dempsey said.

He added that the U.S. has a modest force in Iraq now, and "any expansion of that, I think, would be equally modest. I just don't foresee a circumstance when it would be in our interest to take this fight on ourselves with a large military contingent."

Rep. Rich Nugent, R-Fla., urged the White House and the Pentagon to make sure they are "not glossing over the past but looking at it honestly so we can avoid making mistakes, because our men and women in uniform, their lives depend upon it."

http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2014/11/13/congress-questions-iraq-strategy/18978529/

Response by Maj Chris Nelson made Nov 14 at 2014 2:24 PM

Maj Chris Nelson — Fri, 14 Nov 2014 14:24:38 -0500

I would have to concur on the questions. My thought is that the military is making plans based on the intent of the POTUS. If the MILITARY had free reign, we would go in and crush obsticles OR stay out completely. Honestly, Iraq is a Soverign nation that should be standing up for themselves....this is an internal affair (or was). Top brass have their hands tied...following the orders of the POTUS without congressional backing and without the backing of the People of the USA. I am not sure that people are interested in going back into Iraq.....just my $0.02 worth....

Response by SSgt Lucas Dyer M.S. made Nov 14 at 2014 3:47 PM

SSgt Lucas Dyer M.S. — Fri, 14 Nov 2014 15:47:12 -0500

I would be skeptical too. It shouldn't take the eyes of Capital Hill to realize that putting our foot back into the door we once owned will not work with our current op temp, personnel, and direction the military as a whole is heading. I always say "don't start none, won't be none" and in this case with IS, let them do what they want to their own people all day. We will be ready for them if they attempt to attack us on US soil, until then, be professional, be polite, but have a plan to kill everyone you met. Semper Fi

Response by PO1 Walter Duncan made Nov 14 at 2014 3:57 PM

PO1 Walter Duncan — Fri, 14 Nov 2014 15:57:05 -0500

Really, DUH!

Response by CPT Zachary Brooks made Nov 14 at 2014 4:04 PM

CPT Zachary Brooks — Fri, 14 Nov 2014 16:04:24 -0500

I assume the strategy is to hem and haw and wait until the Republican leadership takes over again, leaving them in a poor situation that has been badly neglected, then blame them for starting another quagmire war. That's my $0.02.

Response by Cpl Adam Averill made Nov 14 at 2014 11:36 PM

Cpl Adam Averill — Fri, 14 Nov 2014 23:36:51 -0500

The strategy they say we have is bs

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Nov 14 at 2014 11:45 PM

SFC Mark Merino — Fri, 14 Nov 2014 23:45:42 -0500

I challenge anyone on this earth to come up with a cost-effective solution to the plague of extremists in the Middle East. I wonder how World War II would have been fought differently had everyone known how much oil was beneath everyone's feet at the time?

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 15 at 2014 9:50 AM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 15 Nov 2014 09:50:14 -0500

Congress? Skeptical? GOH. I would care or blink twice if the Senate Armed Forces Committee had mentioned something on the issue. But, they didn't! Put an opinion up of someone with some actual qualifications then I'll listen.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Apr 5 at 2019 4:14 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Fri, 05 Apr 2019 16:14:29 -0400

I think the crux of the matter is how do you mitigate deep seated sectarian hatred and shifting powers.