Why fight for the Iraqis if they are not going to fight for themselves?

GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad — Fri, 22 May 2015 09:22:41 -0400

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

Response by Capt Richard I P. made May 22 at 2015 9:34 AM

Capt Richard I P. — Fri, 22 May 2015 09:34:30 -0400

"We are not about to send American boys 9 or 10 thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves."........right?

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made May 22 at 2015 9:41 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 22 May 2015 09:41:43 -0400

There are a few IP and Iraq Army leaders out there that really care; however, they are being stymied by budget and politics. You could also say this of the ANA/ANP. I've met some very loyal and patriotic senior NCOs, but they admit they are hamstrung by "xyz" Commander or "xyz" Mullah...etc. These guys can't defend or attack by themselves, so they'll follow the masses for another fight. Unfortunately, they can scream only so long before they are quietly put out to (or in) pasture.

Response by CPO Emmett (Bud) Carpenter made May 22 at 2015 9:46 AM

CPO Emmett (Bud) Carpenter — Fri, 22 May 2015 09:46:13 -0400

It's not fighting for the Iraqis it's fighting for us. How would it effect our national security if ISIS controlled the Middle East?

Response by SPC Jack Hunt, JR made May 22 at 2015 9:55 AM

SPC Jack Hunt, JR — Fri, 22 May 2015 09:55:36 -0400

We can train anyone to operate equipment. What we absolutely can not do is train someone to use said equipment to fight with heart.

Response by SPC Donald Moore made May 22 at 2015 10:02 AM

SPC Donald Moore — Fri, 22 May 2015 10:02:12 -0400

It will take generations of reconditioning the hearts and minds of the people of that country to get them to think that standing up for themselves is the right thing to do.
They have been conditioned for generations to submit or die, so naturally, they are going to do what they have been conditioned to do. Submit. Or, in some cases, run away. What they are not going to do is stand up and fight for a lasting peace. Because that is not how they think.

Response by SrA Edward Vong made May 22 at 2015 10:13 AM

SrA Edward Vong — Fri, 22 May 2015 10:13:52 -0400

It's politics now, we shouldn't have gone there in the first place, but if we pull out now, out of nowhere, we're going to look like a**holes.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made May 22 at 2015 10:36 AM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Fri, 22 May 2015 10:36:46 -0400

As others have stated, it's not fighting for them it's fighting for "US interests" as in maintaining FOB "Invade IRAN" That's if you believe the conspiracy theorists...

Response by PO2 Skip Kirkwood made May 22 at 2015 10:46 AM

PO2 Skip Kirkwood — Fri, 22 May 2015 10:46:18 -0400

The lines defining these "countries" were artificially drawn on maps by the British and the French. Iraqis are not interested in "fighting for their country" because they do not identify with their country (or really, any country - they have a tribal or theocratic culture rather than one based on a nation-state). The western influenced has well and truly mucked up the Middle East, and we should not risk American warriors and American treasure trying to fix something that simply can not work. Opposing groups simply hate each other to the death; they have so for centuries; and as powerful as the USA is or could be, we can't fix that.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made May 22 at 2015 11:40 AM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 22 May 2015 11:40:03 -0400

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.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made May 22 at 2015 1:24 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 22 May 2015 13:24:06 -0400

Continue gifting the love provided by drones, cruise missiles and the Navy/Air Force? Hell yeah! Large scale ground forces? No way, not until the Iraqis consistently demonstrate that they will fight for their land, that they will become IRAQI first.

We tried, Whether one was for or against President Bush's decision to invade Iraq, the point is we were there for 12+yrs, and the Iraqis had repeated shots at establishing a govt that spoke for the people while the US and some of its allies stayed the course. Yeah, mistakes were made, i.e. Bremer/Bush pushing the De-Ba'athification policy and firing the Iraqi Army, none of which helped when it came to creating enemies (Al Queada, off shoots, ISIS).

That written though, and I'm not giving us a pass into going there in the first place, the ultimate responsibility lies with the Iraqis themselves. Neither Nouri Maliki or his govt had the moral fortitude and courage to even seriously attempt to set aside differences and bring together all Iraqis, instead continued to play along historically adversarial cultural/tribal lines.

They had an example to follow, and chose not to do so ... Maliki most definitely was not a Nelson Mandela.

Response by SGT Jeremiah B. made May 22 at 2015 1:40 PM

SGT Jeremiah B. — Fri, 22 May 2015 13:40:01 -0400

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.

Response by 1LT Nick Kidwell made May 22 at 2015 1:45 PM

1LT Nick Kidwell — Fri, 22 May 2015 13:45:46 -0400

I hate to say it, but Saddam did add stability to the area.

Granted, he put his own people through wood chippers or hit them with Chemical weapons to do it, but the Middle East WAS more stable.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made May 22 at 2015 1:54 PM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 22 May 2015 13:54:37 -0400

Exactly. We can train them, we can arm them, but we can't give them that critical will to fight -- FOR THEIR OWN COUNTRY!!!

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made May 22 at 2015 2:02 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Fri, 22 May 2015 14:02:28 -0400

I've been trying to come up with a way to phrase this all day.

So here goes.

We're not just American Citizens. We're Citizens of the World.

If you're walking down the street and you saw someone getting beat up, do you just walk by, going not my problem? If he won't defend himself, I can't help him. If you see a bunch of kids beating on a smaller kid, do you break it up? Or do we walk on by and go "Not my problem."

I know this is a VERY simplistic approach to a VERY complex problem, however... we're the big kid on the block. We've got Power, and generally speaking we TRY to use it responsibly. Wouldn't it be irresponsible to walk away from a problem that we essentially created?

Response by MSG Brad Sand made May 22 at 2015 2:10 PM

MSG Brad Sand — Fri, 22 May 2015 14:10:54 -0400

I truth, I say they made their bed, let them sleep in it. With this being said, I think we should support those who have been our friends in Iraq...the Kurds and the Peshmerga.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made May 22 at 2015 2:31 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Fri, 22 May 2015 14:31:56 -0400

I think the POTUS does not want to leave the smoldering ruins of Iraq due to our paradigm of victory (Democracy), and the vicious threat of ISIS in the ME. However, our generals see hope in the new recruits, but HOPE is not a strategy.

Response by 1SG Kenneth Talkington Sr made May 22 at 2015 2:58 PM

1SG Kenneth Talkington Sr — Fri, 22 May 2015 14:58:15 -0400

I have been asking this question since the beginning. The same thing happened in Vietnam. The RVN and all the other paramilitary forces in that country was more interested in seeing how much money they could fleece from Uncle Sam than they were in defending their country. And as an after thought I keep asking myself why we keep making the same mistakes over and over again.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made May 22 at 2015 4:03 PM

SFC Mark Merino — Fri, 22 May 2015 16:03:26 -0400

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.

Response by SGT Lawrence Corser made May 22 at 2015 4:24 PM

SGT Lawrence Corser — Fri, 22 May 2015 16:24:51 -0400

What do you guys think maybe 20% of that population cares about the fight? like would fight to the end to keep it safe? I dont even know it is that

Response by LTC Stephen F. made May 22 at 2015 4:44 PM

LTC Stephen F. — Fri, 22 May 2015 16:44:53 -0400

Some "Iraqi's have been fighting for the selves for a long time - the Kurds are not considered to or embraced by Iraq or Turkey or Iran. - yet they have been fighting for their and others freedoms fro a long time.
I would submit that some Sunni groups and some Shia groups have been fighting and many died at the hands of ISIS or earlier opponents in sectarian warfare.
Some people forget that Iraq did not exist in modern times before the Balfour declaration following WWI which broke up the Ottoman empire and created Kuwait, Iraq, and other nearby nations with straight line borders. Iraq brought together groups that did not consider themselves to be allies. It is not surprising that turmoil exists especially since there is no history of democracy in that area.
That being said, our nation seems to arbitrarily decide when to go in, when to come out partially and how to reengage within Iraq with varying understanding of the situation on the ground or in the religious, economic and political spheres. Many in Iraq o doubt feel betrayed at our fickleness especially after the propaganda we pushed towards them.

Response by SPC Angel Guma made May 23 at 2015 2:20 AM

SPC Angel Guma — Sat, 23 May 2015 02:20:34 -0400

My post is more of a reference to sgt kennedys post. There is some truth in what you say, some of it I feel is misguided. And I definitely where 1sgt Talkington is coming from, the Afghan government is no better. First- if there is a motive to get back in Iraq again we need to clear on it. This may not be the most popular thing to say but Iraq was a functional if despotic country before 2003. The WMDs was a total farce, and ultimately for those that would care to listen, Saddam and Bin Laden were NOT in cohoots about anything. Bin Ladens only two goals in life were to kill Americans and topple the middle eastern dictatorships. Now once we were there, again let's be honest, there wasn't too much of a plan while we ere there. Congress pretty much killed many of the ideas the generLs came up with. Then when we left, it was well known that the Iraqi army was totally incompetent. We kicked down that anthill and had we not done that the situation would have been different. Now as far as keeping Baghdad from falling. It is our job. But see should not be fighting their wars. At some point it either going to be s full sce like Germany or we leave

Response by Sgt Tommy Johnson made May 23 at 2015 12:16 PM

Sgt Tommy Johnson — Sat, 23 May 2015 12:16:14 -0400

The best interests of the United States and allied countries would be break up Iraq into three separate autonomous countries - Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish - with clearly defined borders and mutual protection agreements with Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. On another note - why aren't news organizations and politicians acknowledging that there WERE weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the reason we know that is that the United States provided an arsenal of chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein, during the protracted war between Iraq and Iran. In fact, many of these weapons - overwhelmingly in severely deteriorated condition - still remain in Iraq, while a large quantity are reported to have been been spirited across the border to Syria long ago. Why were so many of the weapons destroyed by Assad, per the brokered American-Russian pact, obviously of United States origin? Stories about current and former U.S. armed forces ammunition technicians and Explosive Ordnance Disposal personnel being injured during their attempts to "clean up" some of these stocks of chemical weapons are well documented and easily found by internet searches!
SEE: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0
SEE: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-153210/Rumsfeld-helped-Iraq-chemical-weapons.html

To save articles or get newsletters, alerts or recommendations – all free.

Response by SSG Trevor S. made May 23 at 2015 1:34 PM

SSG Trevor S. — Sat, 23 May 2015 13:34:59 -0400

The simple reason, the force opposing them is a horrendous threat to the world.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made May 23 at 2015 2:02 PM

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 23 May 2015 14:02:05 -0400

I think the more we pull the Iraqis out the of the fire, the more they will expect us to do it. They don't seem to care about their own country.

With that said, ISIS needs to be destroyed. So why don't we just surge across Iraq, kill them all, and leave? There are a lot of Marines chomping at the bit for a chance to get some, so lets let the devil dog off the leash.

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made May 23 at 2015 9:32 PM

SSG (ret) William Martin — Sat, 23 May 2015 21:32:33 -0400

I have asked myself the same question GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad. I have asked the question sober and intoxicated so obviously, it is an issue. Why are we training people once again? If I had a foreign invader come into my country and they were pillaging, raping, and destroying our historical sites, I'd want to kill them.

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made May 23 at 2015 9:50 PM

SSG (ret) William Martin — Sat, 23 May 2015 21:50:45 -0400

I remember hearing a few people say, "we need to go" so I said "pack your shit and go because I'm not fighting this war again". Obviously, I will obey orders if those orders say go. I may not like paying for presidential run for office when a candidate made a political promise to voters. This is why I totally dislike most politicians because they make SMs, us, pay for their mistake and we get blame by every other flag burning liberal dipshit hippy.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made May 24 at 2015 12:12 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 24 May 2015 00:12:56 -0400

I think the problem is us even thinking of them as a nation rather than regional tribes, because they don't. There's not much point in trying to force something they don't care about.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 24 at 2015 3:20 AM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 24 May 2015 03:20:40 -0400

In 1775, we were scarcely any different insomuch as our priorities were concerned. A relatively small group of patriotic colonists. Not Americans, because at the time we did not identify as such but rather what colony we hailed from. This is not too dissimilar from the Iraqi tribal breakdown. We fought and lost and fought and lost until we received support from a more powerful nation, France. And suddenly we began to win some victories. They didn't fight our war for us but they were able to provide enough assistance that we could fight with a real chance for victory. And aiding us provided its own benefit for the French, a weakened English presence in the New World would pay massive economic dividends through increased trade access. From our own national birth history one can extrapolate the same lessons learned for the current conflict. Only this time we are in the role of France. A strong daesh presence in Iraq and in the greater Middle East threatens our allies in the region, our interests in the region and most importantly us here at home. The enemy has already stated numerous times their intent to strike at American targets in America. As to the Iraqi people not fighting for themselves, well the majority of Americans in the Revolution didn't either. I am aware that there are distinct differences between the US and Iraq but it is important to remember that the vast majority of people, from any country, would rather concern themselves with feeding their family than with fighting a war, even if it meant living under an oppressive theological regime. We can't let ourselves be deluded into thinking that this conflict would be easily fought and quickly won. This would require an investiture of manpower, resources and time that should be carefully considered while bearing in mind that true and lasting peace in the region would require change. Change in the governmental structure, change in public perception, change in almost every aspect of life in order to be successful. And change, even in areas where all acknowledge it to be necessary, is slow. It cannot be forced, and must come from within the region itself. But positive change, much like a plant in a garden, requires fertile soil, room to grow and security from the storm. I can't say what the outcome of this scenario would look like, what changes would be in effect, but I do believe that whatever the outcome may be it is far better for all parties than the alternative which now looms. In conclusion, to answer the original question of should we fight for the Iraqis if they aren't willing to fight for themselves my answer is no. We should not fight for them. We should help them fight for themselves. But our help needs to be taken seriously by politicians here and must consist of more than a mere token force, no matter how skilled said token may be.

Response by MSgt Thomas Price made May 24 at 2015 8:51 AM

MSgt Thomas Price — Sun, 24 May 2015 08:51:51 -0400

What most Americans are failing to realize is that we are coming close to committing a third generation of young men and women fighting a meaningless war in the Middle East. You hear politicians say "Americans want us to become involved." Involved how? When you are gambling with house money, you will stay at the Black Jack table all night. Meaning, when only 1% of the population is serving in the military then of course the American population is for intervention. The way you bring this to an end is institute a draft, and then we will see just how much support there is for this idea. America is asleep at the TV, watching NBA playoffs, The Voice or some dumbass reality TV. show. America, in general, to include our politicians do not understand the dynamics of a country or region of the word ruled by tribalism and religious ideology. We still have this romantic idea that we can offer democracy to parts of the world that does not understand the concept because their religion beliefs get in the way. The next point to consider is that other Arab nations do not want to get involved because they are used to America doing the “dirty work”. How much money are we throwing down a hole to make the Middle East a so-called democratic region of the world? Those funds can be best used here at home. You cannot turn on a TV these days without hearing politicians tell Americans that we have to fight them there, or they will come here to get you. When I see individuals such as Lindsay Graham who is a Colonel in the USAFR and John McCain who knows the perils of war call for sending in 10,000 combat troops back into Iraq it makes you wonder what would happen if these two people end up as POTUS.

Response by SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. made May 24 at 2015 10:32 AM

SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. — Sun, 24 May 2015 10:32:01 -0400

That's a dang familiar line...
Oh wait .. it's the oil!

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made May 24 at 2015 4:46 PM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 24 May 2015 16:46:59 -0400

I can't disagree with any of the people who have expressed their disgust at the Iraqi Army's cowardice. But I have one point ... If we have to fight the ISIS SOBs, I'd rather do it on their side of the world than ours.

I don't believe the ISIS SOBs are ever going to have enough, so someone, somewhere is going to have to face them, fight them, and kill them until there are none left.

That doesn't mean I'm giving a free pass to American foreign policy. It's also time our politicians cared more about military lives than their reelection chances.

Darfur or Dallas ... where do you want to fight them?

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made May 24 at 2015 5:22 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Sun, 24 May 2015 17:22:33 -0400

They have no heart and no passion to fight. No sense of democracy or nationalism.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 24 at 2015 9:25 PM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 24 May 2015 21:25:27 -0400

I want to thank all you guys that have served overseas and fought. I know its a tricky issue, but Im very grateful that you all answered the call. Im a vet too but never under fire or putting my life on the line. You guys are all heroes.

Response by SPC Daniel Joslin made May 25 at 2015 12:22 PM

SPC Daniel Joslin — Mon, 25 May 2015 12:22:25 -0400

We have been in the region for nearly 15 years and it doesn't look much different than when we first got there. We have paid the ultimate price in the number of coalition lives lost and what have we gained. I think that there are better things that we should be doing with our money, like taking care of our veterans who would definitely show more appreciation, especially since their care was guaranteed to them when they volunteered. I am not an Obama basher, but his foreign policy is lacking, to say the least, so until there is a change in thinking in the WH, there will be no differences made in the plan of attack.

Response by CW3 Craig Linghor made May 25 at 2015 1:28 PM

CW3 Craig Linghor — Mon, 25 May 2015 13:28:55 -0400

Support the Kurds. Let the Sunnis and Shia fight each other until one side surrenders. We should not be fighting their battles. Watch the politicians who advocate going back into Iraq and see where their money comes from. Are they getting huge gifts from the Military Industrial Complex? Are they willing to sacrifice your life for their own selfish ends?

Response by SN E Robinson made May 27 at 2015 2:39 PM

SN E Robinson — Wed, 27 May 2015 14:39:15 -0400

Here's an idea what ever city ISIS takes put 50 to 70 B-52's fully loaded with 500 pounders and level the city! What ever infrastructure they hold crater it and when they have nowhere to hide wipe them out. If we see convoys traveling down a road call in the A-10's and apaches. Tell Syria's president Assad if he gets in the way he's next. Stop fighting these wars with 1 hand and 4 fingers behind our backs. I forgot to say split Iraq and Syria up give the Kurds all the land in Iraq and Syria they can conquer. Tell Assad he can keep all the land he can defend. And the rest of Iraq goes to the Shite's so long as they do not become part of Iran. I honestly believe we are tired of half fighting these wars. You don't see these people messing with Russia because they know Russia won't play with them. A little ruthlessness will go a long way.

Response by SSG Calvin Birmingham made May 27 at 2015 4:28 PM

SSG Calvin Birmingham — Wed, 27 May 2015 16:28:11 -0400

If the folks in Iraq don't have the courage to defend their country, any gains we make is useless. We can't spend an eternity there fighting for people that don't like us and can't defend themselves.

Response by SPC Mike Losser made May 27 at 2015 4:29 PM

SPC Mike Losser — Wed, 27 May 2015 16:29:08 -0400

Help the Kurdish fighters in Northern Iraq would be a better use of the resourses from the US.
The Kurds are stomping a mud hole in Isis fighters. They do not run and they do not surrender. The forces are made up of the men and women of the area and volunteers from other countries. They are the ones fighting against the arsonal left behind by the Iraqi Army after abandoned running from the threat.
Just my 2 cents.

Response by PO1 Kerry French made May 27 at 2015 4:35 PM

PO1 Kerry French — Wed, 27 May 2015 16:35:38 -0400

The first problem we have as a military is not understanding the enemy. Most Islamic countries do not have an allegiance to a country but only to the ummah. In Iraq, who did the local guys say they would fight for? The Madhi militia.... if you do not know who the madhi is, then you do not understand Islam. And without a basic understanding of fundamental Islam, you will never be able to defeat the enemy.

Response by CMSgt George Osborn made May 27 at 2015 5:01 PM

CMSgt George Osborn — Wed, 27 May 2015 17:01:00 -0400

Here, here Gunny! History has taught us that it is difficult, if not sometimes impossible to defend those not willing to defend themselves.

The part that makes me sick is us sitting by watching territory American blood was shed to gain taken back by thugs.

CMSgt George S. Osborn (Ret)

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made May 27 at 2015 10:57 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 27 May 2015 22:57:18 -0400

Because they have awesome mustaches.

Response by PFC Tuan Trang made May 28 at 2015 12:11 AM

PFC Tuan Trang — Thu, 28 May 2015 00:11:49 -0400

it either their using us as scapegoat, or because we better equip.

Response by Sgt Andre Vaillancourt made May 28 at 2015 5:49 AM

Sgt Andre Vaillancourt — Thu, 28 May 2015 05:49:00 -0400

The question is not as simple as it seems. The ISF wasn't originally trained for this kind of threat. They were trained for an internal threat like small terrorist cells. The Syrian civil war changed the calculus of all of that, providing AQI with the safe haven, weapons, and fighters that turned it into ISIS.
The other thing to keep in mind is that the ISF wasn't really equipped for this type of threat either. What is recently coming out, but the media is very slow to pick up, is that the ISF ran out of ammo at Ramadi after about a year of holding the city only to be called cowards for it afterwards, mostly by those who never heard a shot fired in anger. This combined with many of the top officials comments, unfortunately shows how out of touch they are with what is happening on the ground in Iraq.

Response by Capt Vickie Adams made May 28 at 2015 9:17 AM

Capt Vickie Adams — Thu, 28 May 2015 09:17:42 -0400

I was on Wake Island during the evacuation of Saigon. Refugees by the hundreds included young men of fighting age. I wondered at the time "Why are our GIs fighting and dying when these guys are fleeing their own country?" It is history repeating itself.

Response by SPC Ei McS made May 28 at 2015 6:51 PM

SPC Ei McS — Thu, 28 May 2015 18:51:13 -0400

They have to start fighting for themselves! The Iraqis can and should not expect others to fight their battles all the time (no nation should). Yes, of course we are better trained, we've got the better weapons, and all that, but as long as I see that the Iraqis don't put their whole heart and soul into the fight, I for sure am against us joining their fight even more (so far I've been against it)! In addition, I think their neighboring countries have to come to their aid first before we do anything more than what we are already doing now! Of course ISIS affects the rest of the world to some extent, but so far it is still mostly an Iraqi, a Middle Eastern problem. It is that region that has to deal with ISIS directly -NOW! I am though for supporting the Kurds and the Peshmerga fighters! Of course I don't have all the details, but I am convinced that they put their heart and soul into the fight against ISIS with the little that they've got! Having said the latter, I keep in mind that if the Peshmerga and the Kurds get more of our aid, this "aid" may possibly be turned against us in the future as we have seen happen in the past with other groups of people. I say possibly. It doesn't mean it will.

Response by SGT Kevin McCourt made Jun 2 at 2015 2:46 PM

SGT Kevin McCourt — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 14:46:11 -0400

One thing the Iraqis were good at in DS. Giving up. Such a proud family tradition...

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2015 3:02 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 15:02:37 -0400

GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad, that's a good question. If it were up to me, and I knew the whole story, I would not put one U.S. Servicemember in that country. The Iraq soldier( Ha,Ha on that oxymoron)are too stupid or lazy to take care of themselves. Most of them were goat herders, who didn't know which way was up. I don't have any sympathy or tolerance for Iraq, Iran, Turkey, or Afghanistan. I'm tired of our service members going over there, getting blown up, shot, and coming back here with PTSD and then, killing themselves, or being on drugs, and homeless. They (the Middle East) don't give one crappola about us. They hate us. They want to kill us and that is happening when our brave troops go back again and again. It's all political BS. The Middle East doesn't have one thing I want from them.

Response by LCpl Mark Lefler made Jun 3 at 2015 12:14 AM

LCpl Mark Lefler — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 00:14:49 -0400

It's the fault of the innocent women and children that they do not have real men.

Response by SPC Angel Guma made Jun 3 at 2015 2:23 AM

SPC Angel Guma — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 02:23:55 -0400

Respectfully- Very Respectfully GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad :

They are fighting for something. Its just not for Iraq.

The politicos in the US know this, but can't afford to be seen as the reason for Iraq's breakup.

Iraq itself was a completely artificial construct from the beginning. Just like Yugoslavia or the former USSR. Take away the strongman and his goons, and it goes flying apart.

As heartless as it may sound, we need to just let Iraq follow its own destiny. If that means Iraq stops existing in a few years and flies into three separate new countries, let it be. The Iraqis, or who ever they will be called after Iraq formally dissolves, will find their peace.

Response by Capt Jeff S. made Jun 11 at 2015 3:30 PM

Capt Jeff S. — Thu, 11 Jun 2015 15:30:35 -0400

I don't see how drone attacks will fix anything over there. If nothing else, they will be perceived as cowardly. How would we feel about Mexico using drones to blow up people on our side of the border? ??? Even IF they were blowing up bad guys, it's an affront to our sovereignty.

Response by MSgt Mike Brown; MBTI-CP; MA, Ph.D. made Jun 12 at 2015 5:18 PM

MSgt Mike Brown; MBTI-CP; MA, Ph.D. — Fri, 12 Jun 2015 17:18:28 -0400

If we do not eliminate ISIS, then (please get a map), look at what countries are next... And a matter of time before Israel is attacked (conjecture, perhaps a bit of truth)...

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 28 at 2015 8:53 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 28 Jun 2015 08:53:52 -0400

I think our involvement in Iraq at this point has very little to do with the survival of Iraq as a state and much more to do with the United States' broader interests in the region. Iraq as a functional state is important only insofar as several administrations, including the current one, would be politically routed if it completely collapsed. Otherwise multi-state solutions or satellite-statehood would be acceptable outcomes to the United States. The problem ISIL is a disaster for U.S. policy in the region as a whole. Not because of its brutally or even because of its potential to build an Islamic terror state. I'm not sure that outcome is realistic even if no one intervenes (ISIL would very likely eat itself, eventually). Even supposing ISIL established a state, that would make fighting it much easier, and we certainly don't lack the conventional firepower to destroy a country and remove a regime. Our refusal to check ISIL early in their rise to prominence gave Iran position to increase their influence not just in Iraq, but also in Syria while making the United States look weak. In Syria, the presence of a successful, brutal group like ISIL bolsters Assad's claims that his regime alone can stabilize his country, while ISIL itself demolishes groups more favorable to the United States. Russia provided military aid to Iraq before we did, increasing their influence in the Middle East generally and in Iraq particularly. The other Arab states and Turkey essentially closed their eyes to the problem until the United States became involved.

I think your question is valid, Gunny: why bother trying to achieve an unrealistic goal through limited involvement that we failed to achieve for a decade with much greater resources, especially if the Iraqi people can't muster the collective willpower to even fight for themselves alongside us? The answer is that it isn't about Iraq. Checking the influence of actors who oppose our policy generally and increasing ties with and the power of our regional "allies" is much more important to the United States than whether the country of Iraq works, whether we kill off another terrorist group, and whether we save a bunch of innocent people from horrible fates. I think all three of those are laudable things to want to do, but not things that we have much chance of success in doing, and our policymakers know that too. Hence our level of involvement being just enough to give the Iraqis and the Arabs in general a chance to do this on their own while minimizing the risk to us, and showing our rivals that we won't let them dominate the region unopposed.

As a side note, I had the opportunity to serve as part of one of the first conventional units in Iraq during Operation Inherent Resolve. My Soldiers and I worked on a Build Partner Capacity Team and assisted the Iraqi Army in training about 800 infantrymen. There were, of course, many issues: lack of resources (on their side and ours), lack of willpower (on their side), etc... Like almost everyone, I was not impressed with the Iraqi Soldiers, who, when compared to American Soldiers, are unprofessional, lazy, and poorly-trained, -led, and -equipped. All the same, we accomplished something and incrementally improved the IA. Not much, but some. Hope isn't a strategy, certainly, but our strategy isn't entirely hopeless either.

Response by Sgt Packy Flickinger made Jun 29 at 2015 4:36 PM

Sgt Packy Flickinger — Mon, 29 Jun 2015 16:36:46 -0400

Cause were the self appointed dogoodies of the world. Also, if they fall it gives terrorism a larger foothold. That is a war we will never win but can never give up.

Response by SPC Rob Robinson made Jul 3 at 2015 12:00 PM

SPC Rob Robinson — Fri, 03 Jul 2015 12:00:13 -0400

The God of my understanding built us in his image and put us here to be happy, fruitful. WE, as a nation, have a long history that includes rescuing others from distress. That is what we do, sometimes imperfectly, nonetheless that is what we are about.

Another man's unwillingness to lay down his life for is country can be changed to willingness if he is in the presence of someone from another land willing to lay his life down for Liberty. I have lived that in CAP Units [Read:Brute, by Krulak] in Vietnam. If they can see a way to keep their hamlet, village and family safe, they will fight.

The complicating factors when I was in uniform were the strategies developed by High Command, the White House and a gutless Congress. In other words, the same complications our uniformed people face today.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Oct 20 at 2015 11:38 AM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Tue, 20 Oct 2015 11:38:46 -0400

There are not many options left. The US can do it, a coalition might be able to do it.

Response by SFC Marcus Belt made Mar 14 at 2016 3:48 AM

SFC Marcus Belt — Mon, 14 Mar 2016 03:48:15 -0400

It's NEVER about fighting for someone else. It is is ALWAYS about achieving US objectives.

Response by PO1 Kerry French made Mar 4 at 2017 11:42 PM

PO1 Kerry French — Sat, 04 Mar 2017 23:42:26 -0500

because they don't care about countries... they fight for the ummah. Until we understand their mindset, we won't ever be able to beat them.

Response by SPC Jeffrey Swanson made Sep 18 at 2019 11:07 AM

SPC Jeffrey Swanson — Wed, 18 Sep 2019 11:07:09 -0400

Right on Cowboy

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Apr 1 at 2021 5:05 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Thu, 01 Apr 2021 17:05:33 -0400

I am going to say we won in Iraq. The objective was to set up a democractic country who had the power to defend itself. I think we accomplished both.