Posted on May 22, 2015
Why fight for the Iraqis if they are not going to fight for themselves?
56K
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
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
(0)
(0)
SGM (Join to see)
Comparatively speaking, James is right. Middle East oil has a high sulfur content that we don't want. We get very little percentage wise of our oil from the ME.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
PO1 Kerry French
That is why John Adams was content to pay the jizyya taxk to the Barbary pirates. He knew, after reading the Qur'an that if we fought them, we would be fighting them forever. Jefferson, however, had a different idea. He started a navy and went to the shores of Tripoli and burned and bombed the utter dog crap out of them. They didn't bother us for about 170 years after that. Then the 1970's came and we let Sayyed Qutb come into America. He is considered the father of modern jihad... then we let the Ikwahn take root in our country. MSA, CAIR, ISNA, NAIT etc.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
SGT Brian Watkins
Nice post, but I'll be the one to disagree with you. The Colonies were not so content with their disposition and tried of their own volition to fight against the English with the French. The French didn't come over and say, "Hey, you guys are living like shit and should probably stick some Freedom up the King's ass... let's do this shit, ce bon!!!" the idea of an independent nation was spawned within the colonies, much unlike the Iraqi's whom would have never usurped an Alpha personality (Saddam Hussein, Muqtada Al Sadr, ISIS).
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google