Posted on May 22, 2015
Why fight for the Iraqis if they are not going to fight for themselves?
55.8K
373
192
35
35
0
If Iraqis won’t fight for their nation’s survival, why on earth should we?
This is the question posed by the fall of Ramadi, which revealed the emptiness at the core of U.S. policy. President Obama’s critics are missing the point: Ultimately, it doesn’t matter how many troops he sends back to Iraq or whether their footwear happens to touch the ground. The simple truth is that if Iraqis will not join together to fight for a united and peaceful country, there will be continuing conflict and chaos that potentially threaten American interests.
--
From: The Washington Post
If Iraqis won’t fight for their nation’s survival, why on earth should we?
This is the question posed by the fall of Ramadi, which revealed the emptiness at the core of U.S. policy. President Obama’s critics are missing the point: Ultimately, it doesn’t matter how many troops he sends back to Iraq or whether their footwear happens to touch the ground. The simple truth is that if Iraqis will not join together to fight for a united and peaceful country, there will be continuing conflict and chaos that potentially threaten American interests.
We should be debating how best to contain and minimize the threat. Further escalating the U.S. military role, I would argue, will almost surely lead to a quagmire that makes us no more secure. If the choice is go big or go home, we should pick the latter.
The Islamic State was supposed to be reeling from U.S.-led airstrikes. Yet the group was able to capture Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province, and is now consolidating control over that strategically important city. Once Islamic State fighters are fully dug in, it will be hard to pry them out.
Among the images from Sunday’s fighting, what stood out was video footage of Iraqi soldiers on the move — speeding not toward the battle but in the opposite direction. It didn’t look like any kind of tactical retreat. It looked like pedal-to-the-metal flight.
These were widely described as members of the Iraqi army’s “elite” units.
In their haste, Iraqi forces left behind U.S.-supplied tanks, artillery pieces, armored personnel carriers and Humvees. Most of the equipment is believed to be in working order, and all of it now belongs to the Islamic State. The same thing has happened when other government positions have been overrun; in effect, we have helped to arm the enemy.
Obama pledged to “degrade and ultimately destroy” the Islamic State. His strategy is to use U.S. air power to keep the jihadists at bay, while U.S. advisers provide the Iraqi military with the training it needs to recapture the territory the Islamic State holds.
But this is a triumph of hope over experience. The United States spent the better part of a decade training the Iraqi armed forces, and witness the result: an army that can’t or won’t fight. The government in Baghdad, dominated by the Shiite majority, balks at giving Sunni tribal leaders the weapons necessary to resist the Islamic State. Kurdish regional forces, which are motivated and capable, have their own part of the country to defend.
If the Islamic State is to be driven out of Ramadi, the job will be done not by the regular army but by powerful Shiite militia units that are armed, trained and in some cases led by Iran. The day may soon come when an Iranian general, orchestrating an advance into the city, calls in a U.S. airstrike for support.
The logical result of Obama’s policy — which amounts to a kind of warfare-lite — is mission creep and gradual escalation. Send in a few more troops. Allow them to go on patrols with the Iraqis. Let them lead by example. Send in a few more. You might recognize this road; it can lead to another Vietnam.
What are the alternatives? One would be to resurrect Colin Powell’s doctrine of overwhelming force: Send in enough troops to drive the Islamic State out of Iraq once and for all. We conquered and occupied the country once, we could do it again.
But the Islamic State would still hold substantial territory in Syria — and thus present basically the same threat as now. If our aim is really to “destroy” the group, as Obama says, then we would have to wade into the Syrian civil war. Could we end up fighting arm-in-arm with dictator Bashar al-Assad, as we now fight alongside his friends the Iranians? Or, since Obama’s policy is that Assad must go, would we have to occupy that country, too, and take on another project of nation-building? This path leads from bad to worse and has no apparent end.
The other choice is to pull back. This strikes me as the worst course of action — except for all the rest.
The unfortunate fact is that U.S. policymakers want an intact, pluralistic, democratic Iraq more than many Iraqis do. Until this changes, our policy goal has to be modest: Contain the Islamic State from afar and target the group’s leadership, perhaps with drone attacks.
Or we can keep chasing mirages and hoping for miracles.
(Note: Full article added by RP Staff)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-fight-for-the-iraqis-if-they-are-not-going-to-fight-for-themselves/2015/05/21/8daab246-ffd9-11e4-805c-c3f407e5a9e9_story.html?tid=HP_opinion?tid=HP_opinion
This is the question posed by the fall of Ramadi, which revealed the emptiness at the core of U.S. policy. President Obama’s critics are missing the point: Ultimately, it doesn’t matter how many troops he sends back to Iraq or whether their footwear happens to touch the ground. The simple truth is that if Iraqis will not join together to fight for a united and peaceful country, there will be continuing conflict and chaos that potentially threaten American interests.
--
From: The Washington Post
If Iraqis won’t fight for their nation’s survival, why on earth should we?
This is the question posed by the fall of Ramadi, which revealed the emptiness at the core of U.S. policy. President Obama’s critics are missing the point: Ultimately, it doesn’t matter how many troops he sends back to Iraq or whether their footwear happens to touch the ground. The simple truth is that if Iraqis will not join together to fight for a united and peaceful country, there will be continuing conflict and chaos that potentially threaten American interests.
We should be debating how best to contain and minimize the threat. Further escalating the U.S. military role, I would argue, will almost surely lead to a quagmire that makes us no more secure. If the choice is go big or go home, we should pick the latter.
The Islamic State was supposed to be reeling from U.S.-led airstrikes. Yet the group was able to capture Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province, and is now consolidating control over that strategically important city. Once Islamic State fighters are fully dug in, it will be hard to pry them out.
Among the images from Sunday’s fighting, what stood out was video footage of Iraqi soldiers on the move — speeding not toward the battle but in the opposite direction. It didn’t look like any kind of tactical retreat. It looked like pedal-to-the-metal flight.
These were widely described as members of the Iraqi army’s “elite” units.
In their haste, Iraqi forces left behind U.S.-supplied tanks, artillery pieces, armored personnel carriers and Humvees. Most of the equipment is believed to be in working order, and all of it now belongs to the Islamic State. The same thing has happened when other government positions have been overrun; in effect, we have helped to arm the enemy.
Obama pledged to “degrade and ultimately destroy” the Islamic State. His strategy is to use U.S. air power to keep the jihadists at bay, while U.S. advisers provide the Iraqi military with the training it needs to recapture the territory the Islamic State holds.
But this is a triumph of hope over experience. The United States spent the better part of a decade training the Iraqi armed forces, and witness the result: an army that can’t or won’t fight. The government in Baghdad, dominated by the Shiite majority, balks at giving Sunni tribal leaders the weapons necessary to resist the Islamic State. Kurdish regional forces, which are motivated and capable, have their own part of the country to defend.
If the Islamic State is to be driven out of Ramadi, the job will be done not by the regular army but by powerful Shiite militia units that are armed, trained and in some cases led by Iran. The day may soon come when an Iranian general, orchestrating an advance into the city, calls in a U.S. airstrike for support.
The logical result of Obama’s policy — which amounts to a kind of warfare-lite — is mission creep and gradual escalation. Send in a few more troops. Allow them to go on patrols with the Iraqis. Let them lead by example. Send in a few more. You might recognize this road; it can lead to another Vietnam.
What are the alternatives? One would be to resurrect Colin Powell’s doctrine of overwhelming force: Send in enough troops to drive the Islamic State out of Iraq once and for all. We conquered and occupied the country once, we could do it again.
But the Islamic State would still hold substantial territory in Syria — and thus present basically the same threat as now. If our aim is really to “destroy” the group, as Obama says, then we would have to wade into the Syrian civil war. Could we end up fighting arm-in-arm with dictator Bashar al-Assad, as we now fight alongside his friends the Iranians? Or, since Obama’s policy is that Assad must go, would we have to occupy that country, too, and take on another project of nation-building? This path leads from bad to worse and has no apparent end.
The other choice is to pull back. This strikes me as the worst course of action — except for all the rest.
The unfortunate fact is that U.S. policymakers want an intact, pluralistic, democratic Iraq more than many Iraqis do. Until this changes, our policy goal has to be modest: Contain the Islamic State from afar and target the group’s leadership, perhaps with drone attacks.
Or we can keep chasing mirages and hoping for miracles.
(Note: Full article added by RP Staff)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-fight-for-the-iraqis-if-they-are-not-going-to-fight-for-themselves/2015/05/21/8daab246-ffd9-11e4-805c-c3f407e5a9e9_story.html?tid=HP_opinion?tid=HP_opinion
Iraq
ISIS
War on Terror
National Security
Edited 9 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 59
17
17
0
GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad asks a question that cuts right through all the PR hype, media spinning, and political BS. There is a huge difference in wanting to do the right thing (stopping tyranny, human rights abuse, religious persecution, etc) and having the intelligence to do the right thing. This country has a long track record of throwing resources at groups that parrot the political wishes of the American government. But when that "American friendly" interim government's corruption rears it's ugly head, the media spinning and cover-ups only work for so long. Meanwhile, the troops are dodging everything from enemy small arms to our own politicians who won't listen to the truth of their policy not working. If you are backing a government who can't defend themselves despite having the money, equipment, training, and ultimate sacrifices made by thousands of American service members, quit sending the same poor troops time and time again and make THEM pay for your obvious political failure. We are YEARS past due for a change in international policy in the CENTCOM AOR.
(17)
(0)
1SG Kenneth Talkington Sr
Thank you Gunny. Your comments were exactly what I was trying to put across in my comments on Vietnam. Our political and military leaders, i.e. Joint Chief of Staff, all the Chiefs of Staff, Secretary of Defense, MACV Commander, AID leader, POTUS, etc, etc, would not listen the those in the field. Those leaders in country ignored their written reports and wrote their own. These reports reflected the desires of the Leaders of the Vietnamese people. I still get very angry at the total waste of the lives of the young men and women who served their and the way they were treated when we got home.
(2)
(0)
SSG Bruce Booker
Same bullshit, different war. Politicians screwed up Vietnam, now they're screwing up Iraq and Syria. As to why anyone would fight for the Iraqis, I don't remember anyone in Vietnam who 'fought for the Vietnamese.' We fought for the guys in our own units. Was it any different in Iraq (or in Afghanistan)?
(0)
(0)
16
16
0
At this point, I think the best approach is to stop playing ideological bullshit games where we blame the guy we don't like and give the guy we do like a free pass.
Iraq as it stands is a nightmare. Screw Turkey's feelings - promise the Kurds sovereignty in their controlled region. Screw Iraq - Promise the Sunni tribes sovereignty in their controlled region. Insure both through force of arms and watch the place actually start fighting Da'esh.
We retook Ramadi originally because we got Sunni buy-in. We need it again and the only way that's going to happen is to make sure they don't get another Maliki.
Iraq as it stands is a nightmare. Screw Turkey's feelings - promise the Kurds sovereignty in their controlled region. Screw Iraq - Promise the Sunni tribes sovereignty in their controlled region. Insure both through force of arms and watch the place actually start fighting Da'esh.
We retook Ramadi originally because we got Sunni buy-in. We need it again and the only way that's going to happen is to make sure they don't get another Maliki.
(16)
(0)
Sgt Jerami Ballard
To a large extend I wholeheartedly agree, one thing I would change is the not a friend, not an enemy policy. Our focus should be solely on dismantling the Isis power structure and severely crippling their forces from being able to fight battles. The Kurds would happily take back the land they have lost because they have shown themselves capable and have more to lose if they don't. The rest of Iraq seems to be no dice and needs to boil down to, "If you want it back then take it back, you lost it in the first place." Our goal needs to be Isis, not Iraq, not, Syria, not Turkey. But like you said, WE need to stop the bullshit political bush prancing we are doing, and identify the enemy for what they are, political correctness and consideration for feelings be damned. No man who beheads another man because he is not you can be considered anything other than a despicable piece of trash.
(3)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
Good points. We have wasted so much for so little. Their philosophy basically says, "Brother against brother; brothers against cousins; escalated ad infinitum against the whole world.
(1)
(0)
SPC Rob Robinson
The best comment I've heard on the hot mess in the Sand. I worked with USMC CAP units in the villages training Vietnamese. Yes, a different sitchy, but down at the ground level there are Iraqis willing to fight, if, as the good Sgt. says, we give them the ground that they want to defend. Break it into Kurd, Shiite, Sunni give them ammo, guidance and get the [beep] out.
This method was used in Cental America in the 20's-30's and was picked up again by Petraeus and McChrystal as a part of the 'surge'.
Uh, not to bruise any egos, but a change in CIC would help.
This method was used in Cental America in the 20's-30's and was picked up again by Petraeus and McChrystal as a part of the 'surge'.
Uh, not to bruise any egos, but a change in CIC would help.
(0)
(0)
13
13
0
Iraq isn't a real country anyway. It's three provinces of the old Ottoman Empire that got cobbled together after World War 1. What should have happened is that the Shi'ite area in the south should have just been given to Iran, and the Kurds should have had their homeland, and the middle part should have been left to fend for itself.
(13)
(0)
(1)
(0)
CW3 (Join to see)
Yeah, blame the British for that one. They were too arrogant to correctly draw a map.
(3)
(0)
1SG Kenneth Talkington Sr
What the British did in the middle east is exactly what the US, Briton, USSR and French did in the far east. They without fore thought or maybe with a great deal of fore thought elected to divide Korea, Vietnam and several other countries along certain lines. That gave the USSR the northern part of the countries and the other three the south. This way they could return to the colonial holdings.
(1)
(0)
SFC Clark Adams
European Colonialism's residual is the root cause of most current conflicts in Africa and Asia.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google