Posted on Jun 14, 2015
General Dempsey doubts the wisdom of a larger U.S. role in Iraq. Do you agree/disagree with him? Why?
17.5K
38
18
4
4
0
In the homestretch of a 41-year U.S. Army career shaped by war and the scars of war, Gen. Martin Dempsey sounds unconvinced that Iraq has found its path to lasting victory over the Islamic State group.
But neither does the top military adviser to President Obama say the threats to Iraq today justify sending American ground troops back into combat.
He counsels patience, for now.
Give the Iraqis more time to heal their internal divisions and fight their own battles. Resist the temptation to grab control of the contest against the Islamic State group. An enduring victory will take more than military might; it will require a unified Iraq supported by neighbors.
"If we were to take control of this campaign, I mean literally seize control of the campaign, then there's no doubt in my mind we would probably defeat ISIL on, let's say, a faster timeline, but at some considerable cost to our young men and women in uniform," he told U.S. troops Thursday in an aircraft hangar in Naples, Italy, on one of his last overseas trips before finishing his four-year tenure as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2015/06/13/shaped-by-war-dempsey-doubts-wisdom-of-deep-us-role-in-iraq/71168848/
But neither does the top military adviser to President Obama say the threats to Iraq today justify sending American ground troops back into combat.
He counsels patience, for now.
Give the Iraqis more time to heal their internal divisions and fight their own battles. Resist the temptation to grab control of the contest against the Islamic State group. An enduring victory will take more than military might; it will require a unified Iraq supported by neighbors.
"If we were to take control of this campaign, I mean literally seize control of the campaign, then there's no doubt in my mind we would probably defeat ISIL on, let's say, a faster timeline, but at some considerable cost to our young men and women in uniform," he told U.S. troops Thursday in an aircraft hangar in Naples, Italy, on one of his last overseas trips before finishing his four-year tenure as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2015/06/13/shaped-by-war-dempsey-doubts-wisdom-of-deep-us-role-in-iraq/71168848/
Iraq
ISIS
International Affairs
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 8
3
3
0
Personally, and don't ask me to put a finger on why I feel this way, but Chairman JCS General Dempsey has never completely inspired me with any appreciable level of confidence in his "independence" from Obama. He has appeared too "puppet-like" on any number of critical military scenarios. Woefully, though, he is not the only one. But, to the question at hand, the word "quagmire' is now being used in relation to Iraq, and I could not agree more. In spite of my unashamed and unlimited respect for Bush 41 and Bush 43, I think a series of incomprehensible Pandora's Boxes have been inadvertently opened in that region of the world. My worst nightmare is that the world is looking at literally decades of endless sectarian war and uncontrollable terror acts around the globe. I have a great idea how to make a huge dent in the problems, but I don't know what good a multi-national parking lot would do for anyone clear over there!!!
(3)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
SCPO (Join to see), agreed. However, the situation in Iraq was getting better until this administration pulled out and threw away everything that we had gained. It takes time to turn a situation like that around, train new leaders, and let the old hatreds die out over time. It cannot be accomplished in one or two American election cycles; it must be a long term commitment.
It is not clear that the American people are capable of that long range thinking any longer.
It is not clear that the American people are capable of that long range thinking any longer.
(2)
(0)
3
3
0
I'm not a General, and do not pretend to know what is actually being discussed via a politically weak agenda. Seems to me that the Arabs via Iraq balanced the Persians... When we left, its obvious the vacuum created provided opportunities for Iran, Isis, and terrorists to occupy a shattered country. I have noticed these posting avoid the well-being and support of our only ally in the Middle East: Israel.
(3)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
LTC Bink Romanick, considering this administrations actions towards Israel, can you blame them? Their very existence is on the line and Obama is tilting toward those bent on Israel's destruction.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
There are no easy answers here, there rarely are in war. But we must aggressively lead on Iraq. Regional powers can't solve the Islamic State problem without us. The Sunni-Sheite conflict is an enormous problem, but not an insurmountable one. If we are to become more involved in Iraq we need to be prepared to be involved there for a long time. We can not allow the Millidle East to devolve into chaos and anarchy
(3)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
Lt Col (Join to see)
Capt Seid Waddell - We didn't dismantle the governments of Germany and Japan. And we sent enough troops to actually occupy the territory.
(1)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
Lt Col (Join to see), actually, we did dismantle the governments of both Germany and Japan, and we governed them directly until they were able to govern themselves. We also ensured their security during that time, and we still protect them both under our nuclear umbrella.
That was before our politics got so toxic that one side would rather see the U.S. lose a war than to have the other side win any sort of victory.
That was before our politics got so toxic that one side would rather see the U.S. lose a war than to have the other side win any sort of victory.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Until the Iraqi people can get together as a whole, fighting for their national interest, then there's nothing else we can do. The Iraqis don't look at national status like we do. They don't hold national status like we do and I really doubt they ever will - too many other higher loyalties.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
I agree with LTC Ross, there is no easy answer. Do I want to see more American service men and women sent in harms way, no. But if we do not intervene, I feel that gives ISIS more of a reason to try and attack on our soil.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
I absolutely agree with him. I think we have too many people there right now.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I agree with LTC Ross, there is no easy answer. Do I want to see more American service men and women sent in harms way, no. But if we do not intervene, I feel that gives ISIS more of a reason to try and attack on our soil.
(1)
(0)
MSgt Mike Brown; MBTI-CP; MA, Ph.D.
Great points; however, if this vicious enemy is not eliminated, then what are the further implications to nations friendly to us: Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Israel? Isis has already demonstrated total and unrestricted warfare -- nobody wants to see their son or daughter sent in harms way (my son is applying to become a USMC Officer)... That being stated, we can totally commit, and accept total warfare, or pretend that small numbers of advisors et. will encourage the Iraqis to fight. As they are fractioned by religion, ethnicity, and ancient tribal feuds, it is we who must shoulder the responsibility and totally commit with the might of this nation, or the resultant will be a fruitless effort to eliminate a savage enemy with no regard for human life.
Where are the Eisenhowers, MacArthurs, Pattons, Mattis, Puller, etc. who understood war is tragic, and terrible, yet understood the necessity of total commitment?
Finally, now we here via the media that enough nuclear material has been captured by ISIS to create a dirty bomb -- I believe the cost of American Military total commitment is worth the alternative of having a dirty bomb explode in a major population area - wither in our country, or in Tel Aviv, Bagdad, or Amman.
Thoughts???
Where are the Eisenhowers, MacArthurs, Pattons, Mattis, Puller, etc. who understood war is tragic, and terrible, yet understood the necessity of total commitment?
Finally, now we here via the media that enough nuclear material has been captured by ISIS to create a dirty bomb -- I believe the cost of American Military total commitment is worth the alternative of having a dirty bomb explode in a major population area - wither in our country, or in Tel Aviv, Bagdad, or Amman.
Thoughts???
(1)
(0)
CWO3 (Join to see)
Mike,
I agree with what you're saying. I have noticed over the last two decades since I retired that we have been sending our service personnel in doing someone else's battle. For what reason I don't know. But I do know this, our Country and its Armed Forces have been in every clime and place. WE only won WWII, we Lost the others not by lack of a strong military force but the constant interference by the political base establishment and their total involvement. South Korea, still going strong with the North Korea. Taiwan is in the same boat with China. We lost the advantage in North Korea, and in South Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Kosovo, Bonsnia and now this, OEF & OIF, This will not be won with these politicians that we elected to their office. We side with the enemy not to defeat them. We coax them when we need to, then drop out of sight. The Middle East is a hard lesson to learn for the American people. We are not invincible, nor we can not stand by to do nothing. We have polical leaders who are responsible to our people here in the U.S. and their job in my opinionnis to seek peace wherever they can. I can't see this happening in the next 4 to 5 years. It shows me that we Lack the Fortiude and Conviction in any conflict we get involved with since WWII. We also Lack a sense of Senior Military Leadership who just seek for their next star. Why are we called Profession of Arms. Because this what we do. What do they call themselves now? No Commitment, No Justice, No Fortitude. WHAT? We will be in the Middle East for another 10 years at least. By then we will know the true meaning behind ISIS and Iran and North Korea with China too. Just my personal thoughts on this crucial subject.
S/F,
JK
I agree with what you're saying. I have noticed over the last two decades since I retired that we have been sending our service personnel in doing someone else's battle. For what reason I don't know. But I do know this, our Country and its Armed Forces have been in every clime and place. WE only won WWII, we Lost the others not by lack of a strong military force but the constant interference by the political base establishment and their total involvement. South Korea, still going strong with the North Korea. Taiwan is in the same boat with China. We lost the advantage in North Korea, and in South Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Kosovo, Bonsnia and now this, OEF & OIF, This will not be won with these politicians that we elected to their office. We side with the enemy not to defeat them. We coax them when we need to, then drop out of sight. The Middle East is a hard lesson to learn for the American people. We are not invincible, nor we can not stand by to do nothing. We have polical leaders who are responsible to our people here in the U.S. and their job in my opinionnis to seek peace wherever they can. I can't see this happening in the next 4 to 5 years. It shows me that we Lack the Fortiude and Conviction in any conflict we get involved with since WWII. We also Lack a sense of Senior Military Leadership who just seek for their next star. Why are we called Profession of Arms. Because this what we do. What do they call themselves now? No Commitment, No Justice, No Fortitude. WHAT? We will be in the Middle East for another 10 years at least. By then we will know the true meaning behind ISIS and Iran and North Korea with China too. Just my personal thoughts on this crucial subject.
S/F,
JK
(2)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
CWO3 (Join to see), well stated. It is my belief that our politicians see their political opponents as being more of their enemy than are the terrorists.
(0)
(0)
Suspended Profile
With respect to Gen Dempsey for his over 4 decades of service, there is "no fool like an old fool".
If we don't stop ISIS NOW, it will lead to WW III... They are already in the Mediterranean. They have Jihad all over Europe, and now Canada and the US. What is to stop them from executing a major uprising of the New Islamic Empire?
If we don't stop ISIS NOW, it will lead to WW III... They are already in the Mediterranean. They have Jihad all over Europe, and now Canada and the US. What is to stop them from executing a major uprising of the New Islamic Empire?
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google