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
4
4
0
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?
(4)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad, yes we did...kinda. We never really set the Iraqis up for success. As I have mentioned in other posts, we were more interested in getting out as fast as we could rather than doing the job right so we didn't have to come back. So guess what, maybe we should man up and finally do the job right.
(1)
(0)
GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad
Okay, I'll give you that LTC Paul Labrador --- but I if you are planning to wait for this Administration to man up, you might want to find a seat ... you're going to be waiting a while.
(2)
(0)
SGT Jeremiah B.
No administration is going to "man up," I think. Iraq is a toxic asset and a majority of Americans really don't want any more debt or death trying to save tribal cowards from themselves.
(2)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
Sadly stability in the Middle East is of vital importance to the US and ISIS most likely would not contribute to it.
Although we have shifted our oil consumption to other sources (notably domestic production, Brazil, etc) the Middle East still supplies much of the energy needs of Japan and Europe. A disruption in their supply would ultimately affect America adversely inasmuch as our economies are mutually dependent.
Although we have shifted our oil consumption to other sources (notably domestic production, Brazil, etc) the Middle East still supplies much of the energy needs of Japan and Europe. A disruption in their supply would ultimately affect America adversely inasmuch as our economies are mutually dependent.
(4)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
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.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
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.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
(3)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Capt Jeff S., right now we have enough oil stored, and will last for years and years. Oil wells are being slowed to a crawl or shut in on production of oil. Just like the past thirty years, the gas wells are producing. I know we can't support ourselves forever, but we don't have any room for their oil over here. That "cheap oil" isn't cheap when you consider the lives of the U.S. Military that have been lost in the Middle East since 1990.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
MSG Tom Earley, all of those are proven facts. But, another proven fact is that if the Republican Guard were losing, they would throw down their weapons and surrender or run away, much like the the ARVN's in Vietnam. What's always been strange to me is that in '66 in Nam, all of us Airborne guys were put on standby in case we needed to make night jumps into Iran and help them defeat the Iraqi army. Iran was an ally then, and later, Iraq became an ally, and Iran became an enemy, mainly due to all the oil. That's the craziest part of the world I've ever seen. It's been going like that since Jesus was a boy. I don't see much of it changing in the near future.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Capt Jeff S., It's hard to tell how something is intended to be taken in a blog. Sorry Capt. I didn't intend to get on a soap box.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
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)
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)
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
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?
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
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
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.
(3)
(0)
PO1 Kerry French
Doesn't fit the media's agenda. They live to make Republicans look stupid - especially GW.
(0)
(0)
SGT Anthony Bussing
"They live to make Republicans look stupid - especially GW."...it isnt hard to do
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
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.
(3)
(0)
PO1 Kerry French
Picot from France and Sykes from Britain set these arbitrary borders. They promised the world to both sides and reneged on everything. A big mess that has been festering since the end of WWI.
(1)
(0)
LTC Stephen F.
PO1 Kerry French, now I understand you were referring to the Balfour Declaration which laid the groundwork for dividing up the Ottoman Empire. Thanks to those wise people, people groups with nothing in common except hatred towards each other were grouped together in Iraq and Syria while Jordan and Kuwait seemed to benefit - at least their leaders did.
(1)
(0)
SFC Clark Adams
PO1 Hooks needs a seat on the JCS! She gets it , which is why those in power will never listen to people like her. She and her knowledge are a threat to the prevarications and lies that are passed off as policy!
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
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?
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?
(3)
(0)
SFC Steven Harvey
If you can't understand the differences between then there is nothing I can help you with.
I just thank Christ you're never going to be in a position to put me and my comrades who have been there many times in a situation where the people refuse to accept western ways of life.
Thinking Japan, Korea, Germany or any other example applies to a heavily Islamic, extremely poor, and uneducated population dealing with conflict for centuries is even remotely comparable is just the definition of someone who doesn't look at something with a good amount of critical thinking.
Have a good day sir, I'm stepping away to enjoy the rest of the holiday.
I just thank Christ you're never going to be in a position to put me and my comrades who have been there many times in a situation where the people refuse to accept western ways of life.
Thinking Japan, Korea, Germany or any other example applies to a heavily Islamic, extremely poor, and uneducated population dealing with conflict for centuries is even remotely comparable is just the definition of someone who doesn't look at something with a good amount of critical thinking.
Have a good day sir, I'm stepping away to enjoy the rest of the holiday.
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
You're right in the sense that we did create it, no argument from me there.
That written, we spent 11-12yrs supporting that govt, along with a huge amount of money attempting, encouraging and supporting Iraqi leadership to see the light. In your examples (and I am generalizing, and acknowledging SSGT Harvey's comments), West Germany and Japan saw the light, took advantage of US money/know how via the Marshall Program and rebuilt their respective societies into what we see today.
As I wrote in a differ post, Iraq had a recent, bright shining example in Nelson Mandela, who was able to lead South Africa in embracing former enemies instead of attempting to gain revenge for centuries old wrongdoings. Iraq, for whatever reason(s) one cares to throw, hasn't accepted it. We've spent enough blood, money and time over there, and until Iraq knows what it wants to be and will fight for what it wants to be, we should be out. Time to move on ...
That written, we spent 11-12yrs supporting that govt, along with a huge amount of money attempting, encouraging and supporting Iraqi leadership to see the light. In your examples (and I am generalizing, and acknowledging SSGT Harvey's comments), West Germany and Japan saw the light, took advantage of US money/know how via the Marshall Program and rebuilt their respective societies into what we see today.
As I wrote in a differ post, Iraq had a recent, bright shining example in Nelson Mandela, who was able to lead South Africa in embracing former enemies instead of attempting to gain revenge for centuries old wrongdoings. Iraq, for whatever reason(s) one cares to throw, hasn't accepted it. We've spent enough blood, money and time over there, and until Iraq knows what it wants to be and will fight for what it wants to be, we should be out. Time to move on ...
(0)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
SGT (Join to see) 11-12 years is barely enough time to train senior Capt & Majors, not to get a solid NCO & Officer Corps built, let alone a self-sustaining fighting force. Imagine if the US military had no field grades. No Senior NCOs. No one in a position with more than a dozen years in? How effective would we be?
This is something, we just take for granted. Institutional knowledge.
Everyone keeps trying to compare a NEW country to us, when they are utterly incomparable. A decade is an amazingly short amount of time.
This is something, we just take for granted. Institutional knowledge.
Everyone keeps trying to compare a NEW country to us, when they are utterly incomparable. A decade is an amazingly short amount of time.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
I acknowledge the first paragraph and disagree with the 3rd, particularly your use of the word "everyone".
As others have written on differing threads, and as our own Sec of Def recently stated, one can receive all the weapons and training available but if the will to fight heart isn't there, it simply isn't going to work.
There is no "Iraq"; the citizens of that land don't look a themselves as "Iraqi" first and have shown a consistently serious disposition to supporting that thought process. Until they do, I see no reason why US men and women should fight in their place, on the ground.
Continue give financial/weapons support? Yes. Continue cruise/drone/bombing the hell out the enemy? Yes. Trainers on the ground? Yes. US ground forces fighting in place of Iraqis? No way, not until they buck up and show that they will fight and die for their country.
As others have written on differing threads, and as our own Sec of Def recently stated, one can receive all the weapons and training available but if the will to fight heart isn't there, it simply isn't going to work.
There is no "Iraq"; the citizens of that land don't look a themselves as "Iraqi" first and have shown a consistently serious disposition to supporting that thought process. Until they do, I see no reason why US men and women should fight in their place, on the ground.
Continue give financial/weapons support? Yes. Continue cruise/drone/bombing the hell out the enemy? Yes. Trainers on the ground? Yes. US ground forces fighting in place of Iraqis? No way, not until they buck up and show that they will fight and die for their country.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
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.
(3)
(0)
SFC Paul Lyman Jr
The de-Bathification really , REALLY screwed everything up bad. That was a Bremer mistake that is still being paid for and truly lead to what we have today. Nothing can be done to fix that now, but one can easily see how that was when the problems started...and continue to this day. Bremer himself was a HUGE mistake !!!!
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google