Posted on May 22, 2015
Why fight for the Iraqis if they are not going to fight for themselves?
55.9K
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)
10
10
0
We can train anyone to operate equipment. What we absolutely can not do is train someone to use said equipment to fight with heart.
(10)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
It is the "lead a horse to water" conundrum. If they don't want it, they shouldn't have it. Sad, but reality is sometimes that way.
You are absolutely right, Jack.
You are absolutely right, Jack.
(4)
(0)
GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad
Exactly SPC Jack Hunt, JR and SFC (Join to see) --- at some point, the Iraqis have to stand for themselves ... we can't stand for them. If that point in not now, then when the hell is it?
(2)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
If we are going to spend the rest of existence defending Iraq, we may as well just plant a US Flag and take over. It is sad, but true.
(1)
(0)
SPC Jack Hunt, JR
I vote that we call it the U.S. Republic of Iraq and set up a new government.
I bet it would help our economy and lower our dependency on foreign oil, then again I had the same thoughts in 1990.
I bet it would help our economy and lower our dependency on foreign oil, then again I had the same thoughts in 1990.
(1)
(0)
9
9
0
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.
(9)
(0)
1LT William Clardy
1SG Kenneth Talkington Sr, have you ever asked whose idea it was to send those half-million troops? At the end, the RVN wasn't asking us to put more troops on the ground -- they were just asking us to honor our promise to support them with munitions and airpower if the North broke the truce agreement.
(0)
(0)
1LT William Clardy
I'm still at a loss to understand what you found so particularly disagreeable or offensive about my post, SSG Bruce Booker.
About the only thing I can see that might be offensive was my flippant reference to "Southeast Asia War Games", which I lifted from a patch I saw long ago ("Second Place Team in Southeast Asia War Games""), but you didn't mention that.
About the only thing I can see that might be offensive was my flippant reference to "Southeast Asia War Games", which I lifted from a patch I saw long ago ("Second Place Team in Southeast Asia War Games""), but you didn't mention that.
(0)
(0)
SSG Bruce Booker
1LT William Clardy: I didn't say that your post was offensive. I simply disagree with your conclusion, a conclusion apparently based on what you read about one Vietnamese unit in one engagement and on your subsequent contact with a former Vietnamese air force pilot living in the United States. I base my opinion on a year of experience on the ground in Vietnam and on the opinions of some fellow veterans who were also there.
I gave your post a 'down' vote because I disagree with your conclusion. Others are free to give you 'up' votes if they agree with you. Let's agree to disagree, and move on in our shared experience as veterans.
I gave your post a 'down' vote because I disagree with your conclusion. Others are free to give you 'up' votes if they agree with you. Let's agree to disagree, and move on in our shared experience as veterans.
(0)
(0)
1SG Kenneth Talkington Sr
1LT Clardy once again I ask you to read the books I recommended. We gave the RVN Armed Forces arms and ammunition. These arms included planes, tanks, APCs, weapons, and ammunition. From 1962 thru 1965 RVN Army forces
surrendered over 300,00 rifles, recoiless rifles, 50 cal and 7.62mm machine guns and other weapons to the VietCong. They also gave the the ammunition to go with the weapons. Now, you can continue to wear blinders and have your own opinion. Be I think if you do so you will be doing yourself a disservice. I know exactly who recommended the build up US forces. Our senior political leaders and our senior military leaders did it. Why because they would not listen to the troops on the ground. These were the military advisers, commissioned officer, non commissioned officers, CIA agents, AID agents, and several other agencies when they learned of the impending buildup advised against it. They ignored the written reports and wrote reports reflecting what they thought the President and his staff wanted to hear. This buildup was made by our leaders in hopes of preventing a loss of the war. We were losing the war because the Vietnamese would not fight. So I am now finished with this subject.
surrendered over 300,00 rifles, recoiless rifles, 50 cal and 7.62mm machine guns and other weapons to the VietCong. They also gave the the ammunition to go with the weapons. Now, you can continue to wear blinders and have your own opinion. Be I think if you do so you will be doing yourself a disservice. I know exactly who recommended the build up US forces. Our senior political leaders and our senior military leaders did it. Why because they would not listen to the troops on the ground. These were the military advisers, commissioned officer, non commissioned officers, CIA agents, AID agents, and several other agencies when they learned of the impending buildup advised against it. They ignored the written reports and wrote reports reflecting what they thought the President and his staff wanted to hear. This buildup was made by our leaders in hopes of preventing a loss of the war. We were losing the war because the Vietnamese would not fight. So I am now finished with this subject.
(1)
(0)
8
8
0
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.
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.
(8)
(0)
1LT William Clardy
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS, I'm glad you put quotes around "tried", because what I saw initally was barely a half-a**ed effort to hold anything together, much less rebuild anything.
(1)
(0)
(1)
(0)
SSG Bruce Booker
Saddam effectively kept Iraqi Sunnis and Shia from going to war against each other. He used brutal force to do it, things that our culture finds morally unacceptable, but he did it. He kept a lid on an otherwise explosive country. Qaddaffi did the same in Libya. Their removal from power left behind a vacuum in which those constraints were removed. They weren't replaced with something (or someone) else that would keep that lid on. We're seeing the results.
(0)
(0)
SFC Clark Adams
As did the Shah of Iran, A Shad,Mubarack and many other despots around the world......"WE" need to stop putting our noses into other societies and telling them that "our" way is the best and what they need to emulate........
(0)
(0)
8
8
0
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.
(8)
(0)
GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad
Absolutely PO2 Skip Kirkwood --- this is why I have always felt like we can never "win" in the Middle East.
(3)
(0)
PO1 Kerry French
Well, I would assert that the Middle East has been mucked up since the 7th century at least.
(1)
(0)
6
6
0
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.
(6)
(0)
GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad
It makes sense that we should support those who have supported us MSG Brad Sand.
(1)
(0)
MSG Brad Sand
GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad
Especially when they are waist deep in the mess we helped create. They are on the ground fighting ISIS...and have been fighting our enemies since the first Persian Gulf War...it is comforting to see how much support we continue to give them. IF you do not see the sarcasm in my last statement, please study the subject.
Especially when they are waist deep in the mess we helped create. They are on the ground fighting ISIS...and have been fighting our enemies since the first Persian Gulf War...it is comforting to see how much support we continue to give them. IF you do not see the sarcasm in my last statement, please study the subject.
(0)
(0)
GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad
Agreed MSG Brad Sand --- I'm pretty good at reading sarcasm (my wife is a master at it)!
(1)
(0)
1LT William Clardy
GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad, reading (or hearing) sarcasm is not always the same as recognizing it. My wife hears quite a bit of it, but still doesn't recognize it consistently...
(2)
(0)
6
6
0
Exactly. We can train them, we can arm them, but we can't give them that critical will to fight -- FOR THEIR OWN COUNTRY!!!
(6)
(0)
PO1 Kerry French
They will not fight for county. Quit looking at this problem with Western eyes. They only care about the ummah and will fight the kuffar until we are dead or submit.
(1)
(0)
6
6
0
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.
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.
(6)
(0)
GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad
I agree SPC Donald Moore --- so I guess the question then becomes whether or not the U.S. has the stomach to keep getting pulled into Iraq's internal problems for the next several generations while they tend to getting their hearts and minds reconditioned. :-)
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google