3
3
0
In his exit interview, Gen Odierno states that, if he had stayed more engaged in the actions in Iraq, we could've prevented the rise of ISIS.
I'm not so certain. I think that even if we could've prevented it in Iraq, there was just too much opportunity for it elsewhere - Afghanistan, Syria, etc. To me, it appears that they 'exploded' (pardon the pun) in Iraq because of the instability when we disengaged. It was just too ripe. However, I think that there was enough instability in other regions to also give rise to ISIS.
What are your thoughts?
--
EXCLUSIVE: The Army’s top officer told Fox News Tuesday it’s “frustrating” to watch the gains he helped achieve in Iraq disintegrate at the hands of the Islamic State, saying in an exit interview that the chaos now unfolding “might have been prevented” had the U.S. stayed more engaged.
Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno, weeks away from retirement after 39 years in uniform, spent more time in Iraq than any other U.S. Army general -- more than four years, the last two as top commander. He is widely viewed as a key architect of the Iraq surge.
In an exclusive interview with Fox News, the general tackled a range of topics, from the Iran nuclear deal to the deep cuts to U.S. Army troop levels. But Odierno had pointed words on the rise of ISIS in Iraq and Syria – suggesting it didn’t have to be this way.
“It's frustrating to watch it,” Odierno said. “I go back to the work we did in 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 and we got it to a place that was really good. Violence was low, the economy was growing, politics looked like it was heading in the right direction.”
Odierno said the fall of large parts of Iraq was not inevitable, reiterating concerns about the pace of the U.S. troop withdrawal there.
“If we had stayed a little more engaged, I think maybe it might have been prevented,” he said. “I've always believed the United States played the role of honest broker between all the groups and when we pulled ourselves out, we lost that role.”
In 2009, while still the top commander in Iraq, Odierno recommended keeping 30,000-35,000 U.S. troops after the end of 2011, when the U.S. was scheduled to pull out. The recommendation was not followed.
“I think it would have been good for us to stay,” Odierno said, when asked if it was a mistake to pull out.
Further, when ISIS took over large portions of Iraq last year including its second-largest city, Mosul, the White House apparently didn’t reach out to the Army officer who had spent more time commanding U.S. forces than anyone else.
“All my work was given to [Joint Chiefs] Chairman [Martin] Dempsey,” Odiernio said. “I never talked directly to the president about it at that time, but I talked to the secretary of defense and I'm sure he relayed all of my thoughts,” he added.
Odierno, though, is most worried about the deep cuts to the Army over the past four years – from 570,000 troops in 2010 to near 490,000 today, a reduction of 14 percent. And the cuts are getting deeper.
“In my mind, we don't have the ability to deter. The reason we have a military is to deter conflict and prevent wars. And if people believe we are not big enough to respond, they miscalculate,” Odierno said.
Earlier this month, the Army announced an additional cut of 40,000 troops, which would take the Army down to 450,000 soldiers -- or pre-9/11 levels -- the result of a decision taken two years ago.
"I believed at the time we could do that,” said Odierno. “But I said we were on the razor’s edge that we could actually do our mission at 450.”
He added: “Two years ago, we didn’t think we had a problem in Europe. … [Now] Russia is reasserting themselves. We didn’t think we’d have a problem again in Iraq and ISIS has emerged.
“So, with Russia becoming more of a threat, with ISIS becoming more of a threat, in my mind, we are on a dangerous balancing act right now with capability.”
“When we go to 450, we are going to have to stop doing something," said Odierno.
As for what message these cuts send to adversaries of the United States, Odierno said: “I believe they question whether we will be able to respond and so they're willing to take maybe a bit more risk than they might have just a few years ago.”
While Odierno says he supports the recently announced nuclear deal with Iran, he warned that Iran will not change its behavior in the region.
“Iran has continued to do malign activities throughout the Middle East [and] they will continue,” warned Odierno, who blamed Iran for contributing to the unraveling of Iraq and the rise of ISIS.
Dempsey recently told Congress that Iran was responsible for roughly 500 American deaths, an estimate Odierno did not dispute.
Odierno said of Iran: “We can't be naïve.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/22/exclusive-army-chief-odierno-in-exit-interview-says-us-could-have-prevented/?intcmp=latestnews
I'm not so certain. I think that even if we could've prevented it in Iraq, there was just too much opportunity for it elsewhere - Afghanistan, Syria, etc. To me, it appears that they 'exploded' (pardon the pun) in Iraq because of the instability when we disengaged. It was just too ripe. However, I think that there was enough instability in other regions to also give rise to ISIS.
What are your thoughts?
--
EXCLUSIVE: The Army’s top officer told Fox News Tuesday it’s “frustrating” to watch the gains he helped achieve in Iraq disintegrate at the hands of the Islamic State, saying in an exit interview that the chaos now unfolding “might have been prevented” had the U.S. stayed more engaged.
Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno, weeks away from retirement after 39 years in uniform, spent more time in Iraq than any other U.S. Army general -- more than four years, the last two as top commander. He is widely viewed as a key architect of the Iraq surge.
In an exclusive interview with Fox News, the general tackled a range of topics, from the Iran nuclear deal to the deep cuts to U.S. Army troop levels. But Odierno had pointed words on the rise of ISIS in Iraq and Syria – suggesting it didn’t have to be this way.
“It's frustrating to watch it,” Odierno said. “I go back to the work we did in 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 and we got it to a place that was really good. Violence was low, the economy was growing, politics looked like it was heading in the right direction.”
Odierno said the fall of large parts of Iraq was not inevitable, reiterating concerns about the pace of the U.S. troop withdrawal there.
“If we had stayed a little more engaged, I think maybe it might have been prevented,” he said. “I've always believed the United States played the role of honest broker between all the groups and when we pulled ourselves out, we lost that role.”
In 2009, while still the top commander in Iraq, Odierno recommended keeping 30,000-35,000 U.S. troops after the end of 2011, when the U.S. was scheduled to pull out. The recommendation was not followed.
“I think it would have been good for us to stay,” Odierno said, when asked if it was a mistake to pull out.
Further, when ISIS took over large portions of Iraq last year including its second-largest city, Mosul, the White House apparently didn’t reach out to the Army officer who had spent more time commanding U.S. forces than anyone else.
“All my work was given to [Joint Chiefs] Chairman [Martin] Dempsey,” Odiernio said. “I never talked directly to the president about it at that time, but I talked to the secretary of defense and I'm sure he relayed all of my thoughts,” he added.
Odierno, though, is most worried about the deep cuts to the Army over the past four years – from 570,000 troops in 2010 to near 490,000 today, a reduction of 14 percent. And the cuts are getting deeper.
“In my mind, we don't have the ability to deter. The reason we have a military is to deter conflict and prevent wars. And if people believe we are not big enough to respond, they miscalculate,” Odierno said.
Earlier this month, the Army announced an additional cut of 40,000 troops, which would take the Army down to 450,000 soldiers -- or pre-9/11 levels -- the result of a decision taken two years ago.
"I believed at the time we could do that,” said Odierno. “But I said we were on the razor’s edge that we could actually do our mission at 450.”
He added: “Two years ago, we didn’t think we had a problem in Europe. … [Now] Russia is reasserting themselves. We didn’t think we’d have a problem again in Iraq and ISIS has emerged.
“So, with Russia becoming more of a threat, with ISIS becoming more of a threat, in my mind, we are on a dangerous balancing act right now with capability.”
“When we go to 450, we are going to have to stop doing something," said Odierno.
As for what message these cuts send to adversaries of the United States, Odierno said: “I believe they question whether we will be able to respond and so they're willing to take maybe a bit more risk than they might have just a few years ago.”
While Odierno says he supports the recently announced nuclear deal with Iran, he warned that Iran will not change its behavior in the region.
“Iran has continued to do malign activities throughout the Middle East [and] they will continue,” warned Odierno, who blamed Iran for contributing to the unraveling of Iraq and the rise of ISIS.
Dempsey recently told Congress that Iran was responsible for roughly 500 American deaths, an estimate Odierno did not dispute.
Odierno said of Iran: “We can't be naïve.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/22/exclusive-army-chief-odierno-in-exit-interview-says-us-could-have-prevented/?intcmp=latestnews
ISIS
Iraq
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 6
5
5
0
SSgt (Join to see) I agree with Army Chief Odierno that we could have definitely prevented the or prolonged the current status their at now, but I also agree that other countries in the surrounding region (specifically) Syria were just a ripe for them to evolve. Of course, we can't change history and there isn't much we retired folks can do from our "arm chair quarterback" positions, but we can speculate and offer our opinions. Here is my opinion on the current state of affairs in the Middle East. When ISIS is gone, then another group will emerge in their place. Countries within the Middle East region that don't support the ways of ISIS or terrorism need to band together with help from the outside world to educate, reform, and "yes" exterminate the terrorist groups that have taken Islam to whole different perspective. This has to be a continuous and uniformed effort over an extended period of time to educate those new generations of children in a more peaceful interpretation of the religion, otherwise these groups will continue to pop up once another one is destroyed or defeated. We need to work on the root causes and even my opinion may be off base.
(5)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
Amen COL Mikel J. Burroughs! It is a revolving door, it seems. I was just thinking that Gen Odierno stated this the same day that candidate O'Malley stated that ISIS came about because of global warming. I tried REALLY hard to not spit my morning caffeine out when I thought this through!
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
SSgt (Join to see)
I am in agreement w/ you, SGT Ben Keen. I think there's just too much volatility over there to fully prevent groups like this. Perhaps we could've delayed the development of a group as seemingly organized & exact goal driven as ISIS, but eventually, I feel, one would have popped up.
(2)
(0)
SGT Ben Keen
SSgt (Join to see) - I think the one lesson we learned very quickly in this fight against terriorism is that no matter how hard you try and how many bombs are dropped, there is always someone ready to take your enemy's place.
(2)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
Yup. It is, in a way, a more advanced version of the type of warfare that occurred in Viet Nam. Very guerrilla. Very disjointed. Very ideological & motivated.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
ISIS isn't so much the product of a place as it is the product of weakness. Yes, it could have been spawned anywhere, but it wouldn't have been spawned anywhere if those who raised its banner had been in fear of reprisal by the US. However, once the US abandoned its mission in the Middle East (under the pretext of a diplomatic failure), the fanatics saw and grabbed hold of the opportunity. The US clearly demonstrated its lack of will and thus the terrorists were encouraged...
(2)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
Absolutely. If those in charge would've just allowed the military to fight the fight the way it needed to be fought - counter-insurgency - perhaps we would be looking at an entirely different Middle East?
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
Hindsight is 20/20. Could we have done something? Sure. Fact is we didn't prevent it so now we have to deal with it. Saying coulda, shoulda, woulda is pointless as it is in the past. We need to focus on there here and now and on the path forward. Just my 2 cents.
(2)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
SGT David T. I agree with you. Perhaps, instead of speaking up as they are retiring, some Generals need to speak up while in service about strategy. Telling about what should've been down after you have to ability to change what is being done isn't helping our brothers & sisters still out there.
(1)
(0)
(2)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
I know. I just think that if someone, at some point, with some authority, doesn't stand up, then those outside of military halls will continue to look upon us as unknowledgeable in how a war needs to be fought. That those that have studied war in a class room or read a library of books on engagements of yore know better than those who's actual job it is to wage war.
(1)
(0)
SGT David T.
One thing about academics is that they will always claim they know better. I told my professor in college that he didn't have a clue what he was talking about when it came to war. Needless to say he disagreed with me on that lol. I have deployed during OEF and OIF and I also have a Masters Degree in Military History so I have dealt with both lol. The Generals are subordinate to the President, and as such he can remove them at will. The only way to really change things is to have the people put pressure on the government.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
PO2 Mark Saffell
Sorry hit enter too fast. Had we left a force behind and had we not made a statement if you cross the redline and then did zero, both would have gone a long way in preventing.
(2)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
You're damn right, PO2 Mark Saffell. What is the point in drawing a line in the sand if you're just going to redraw it over and over again. Next thing you know, you're out of beach & in the water.
(2)
(0)
SSG Warren Swan
Gents the issue with leaving a force behind was that the Iraqis government didn't want us there (Afghanistan almost went the same way with Karzaid refusing to sign). Now with no SOFA in place to protect the troops from ignorant and wanton prosecution from everything they could think of, the best thing we could've done and did was leave. Name another recognized country the US has stayed in without a SOFA in place. Note the administration was trying to get a SOFA in place, but the Iraqis wanted us gone being we were seen to them as an "occupying force". At some point we would've had to leave no matter what and they would have to "Man Up and grow a pair" and solve their own problems. Problem is they never did and now we're back to help "train and assist" them in solving them.
(1)
(0)
PO2 Mark Saffell
But you have to admit the president really didnt want a SOFA. He gave up way too easy on that in order to make sure he could check that Campaign promise off.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
There was a time in 2009-2010 when we had a minimal kinetic footprint, post SOFA. Yet, Ninewah Province, which aside form Anbar has been ISIS' major inroad from Syria into Iraq, was had a relatively stable security situation. GEN Odierno is correct to say we were seeing some really positive trends at that time.
But, our lack for decisive action to limit the power vacuum in Syria allowed what was then simply ISI, basically the rump of post 9/11 Iraqi Baathism fertile ground to regroup. Back then, I used to speak frequently with members of the Sunni-dominated Ninewah Provincial Council, who expressed concern at the time that ISIS/ISI were establishing an extortion based shadow government, simply waiting for us to leave. So, I would agree with GEN Odierno that we implemented a poor exit strategy, thanks to our current administration's arbitrary timeline-driven criteria.
Perhaps more significant is the role of former Iraqi PM Maliki's criminal, ethno-sectarian mismanagement of the Iraqi Security Forces. I would argue this was the single most destructive process in Iraq's unravelling.
"Blame here can only go to Maliki, who has created what Michael Knights of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy has called “a culture of direct control” over state institutions. Maliki controls ISOF through the Counterterrorism Bureau, which has proved a useful tool for crushing dissent, detailed by Toby Dodge in his report Iraq’s Road Back to Dictatorship.
Such “coup proofing” strategies often result in military disaster. As the rebellion in Syria becomes increasingly radicalized and attracts Iraqi recruits, Maliki should take note. His rivals have dubbed ISOF the Fedayeen al-Maliki, and as the Pentagon scrambles to find more funding for the Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq, this should give them pause."
From a remarkably prescient 2012 article (I admit, I'm biased because I'm interviewed in it). http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/malikis-private-army-7915
But, our lack for decisive action to limit the power vacuum in Syria allowed what was then simply ISI, basically the rump of post 9/11 Iraqi Baathism fertile ground to regroup. Back then, I used to speak frequently with members of the Sunni-dominated Ninewah Provincial Council, who expressed concern at the time that ISIS/ISI were establishing an extortion based shadow government, simply waiting for us to leave. So, I would agree with GEN Odierno that we implemented a poor exit strategy, thanks to our current administration's arbitrary timeline-driven criteria.
Perhaps more significant is the role of former Iraqi PM Maliki's criminal, ethno-sectarian mismanagement of the Iraqi Security Forces. I would argue this was the single most destructive process in Iraq's unravelling.
"Blame here can only go to Maliki, who has created what Michael Knights of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy has called “a culture of direct control” over state institutions. Maliki controls ISOF through the Counterterrorism Bureau, which has proved a useful tool for crushing dissent, detailed by Toby Dodge in his report Iraq’s Road Back to Dictatorship.
Such “coup proofing” strategies often result in military disaster. As the rebellion in Syria becomes increasingly radicalized and attracts Iraqi recruits, Maliki should take note. His rivals have dubbed ISOF the Fedayeen al-Maliki, and as the Pentagon scrambles to find more funding for the Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq, this should give them pause."
From a remarkably prescient 2012 article (I admit, I'm biased because I'm interviewed in it). http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/malikis-private-army-7915
Iraq's special forces are being turned into a sectarian force while the political situation deteriorates.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google