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
3
3
0
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.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
"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?
(3)
(0)
1LT William Clardy
Capt Richard I P., more than 4 times as many of those "Asian boys" gave their lives than American boys, and that was from a nation one-tenth the size of the United States.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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)...
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
SGM (Join to see)
Capt Jeff S., actually I have read more than half of the Koran. I admit, I have a lot of trouble with the poetry - at least it rhymes in Arabic. I also speak Arabic, although not even near a native level.
I am also aware of taqiyya, which in practice isn't that much different than "manana" as practiced south of the border.
I am not a Progressive. I am a conservative Libertarian, but more importantly I think people need to be judged on how THEY act, not on a book by an author who hates them thinks they act. I have spent over 6 years in Moslem countries. I'm the only Westerner I know invited twice to Islamic weddings.
I also know there is a difference between what politicians, mullahs, and people with an axe to grind say, as opposed to the people, no different than you or I, trying to make a life for themselves and their families. And even if Islam is intolerant, how is it better for you to be just as intolerant?
Respect. If you aren't willing to give it, you shouldn't expect to receive it.
I am also aware of taqiyya, which in practice isn't that much different than "manana" as practiced south of the border.
I am not a Progressive. I am a conservative Libertarian, but more importantly I think people need to be judged on how THEY act, not on a book by an author who hates them thinks they act. I have spent over 6 years in Moslem countries. I'm the only Westerner I know invited twice to Islamic weddings.
I also know there is a difference between what politicians, mullahs, and people with an axe to grind say, as opposed to the people, no different than you or I, trying to make a life for themselves and their families. And even if Islam is intolerant, how is it better for you to be just as intolerant?
Respect. If you aren't willing to give it, you shouldn't expect to receive it.
(0)
(0)
Capt Jeff S.
"Respect. If you aren't willing to give it, you shouldn't expect to receive it."
Exactly SGM (Join to see). But DO understand that it isn't intolerant or disrespectful when you call a spade a spade. Truth be told, Islam is at war with everyone that isn't Islamic, and those Muslims that don't ascribe to their flavor of Islam.
Individually, I've met some nice Muslims; collectively, I don't trust them. Why should I? I know what it says in their religion. I know exactly how they see me. Ultimately, I am still an infidel. Their book warns them about making friendships with non-Muslims. They are warned to not trust Christians and Jews. But not all Muslims are as zealous and faithful to their religion as the ISIS terrorists, much in the same way that not all Christians go to church every Sunday.
I have been corresponding with a student from Turkey for several years and have been invited to stay with his family if I ever were to visit Turkey. We have discussed everything under the sun, and he calls me "Uncle" which in Turkey is how a young man shows respect to an elder. We are very much alike in many ways, but one are that we are irreconcilably different has to do with our Religion. And as long as we don't dwell on the topic of Islam vs. Christianity, everything is cool. He knows where I stand. Every now and then he sends stuff to my facebook page. He kept me up to date when all the riots were going on in Turkey. We still chat a couple times a month.
My issue isn't so much with Muslims, but their religion. It hamstrings them and makes them untrustworthy allies. Unfortunately, we are also an untrustworthy ally to our allies, and our relationship with our allies has really cooled off under this current Administration. Our enemies see how we treat our allies so they trust us even less. Right now America does not have a very good reputation around the world.
America has done a lot of things to piss off the Muslims, and for some things I can't half blame them for being upset with us. We have mucked around in their part of the world, set up artificial borders, and they feel that we exploited them. They see our society as being one that is very immoral and decadent. They see what we watch on TV; they watch our music videos, and they really don't want us influencing them. Granted there is a lot wrong with their cultures too, but they tend to be blind to their own hypocrisy.
If Islam truly is a religion of peace, then why are Muslims involved in so many of the ongoing conflicts worldwide?
https://warsclerotic.wordpress.com/2010/06/13/of-the-22-world-conflicts-around-the-world-21-are-muslim/
Exactly SGM (Join to see). But DO understand that it isn't intolerant or disrespectful when you call a spade a spade. Truth be told, Islam is at war with everyone that isn't Islamic, and those Muslims that don't ascribe to their flavor of Islam.
Individually, I've met some nice Muslims; collectively, I don't trust them. Why should I? I know what it says in their religion. I know exactly how they see me. Ultimately, I am still an infidel. Their book warns them about making friendships with non-Muslims. They are warned to not trust Christians and Jews. But not all Muslims are as zealous and faithful to their religion as the ISIS terrorists, much in the same way that not all Christians go to church every Sunday.
I have been corresponding with a student from Turkey for several years and have been invited to stay with his family if I ever were to visit Turkey. We have discussed everything under the sun, and he calls me "Uncle" which in Turkey is how a young man shows respect to an elder. We are very much alike in many ways, but one are that we are irreconcilably different has to do with our Religion. And as long as we don't dwell on the topic of Islam vs. Christianity, everything is cool. He knows where I stand. Every now and then he sends stuff to my facebook page. He kept me up to date when all the riots were going on in Turkey. We still chat a couple times a month.
My issue isn't so much with Muslims, but their religion. It hamstrings them and makes them untrustworthy allies. Unfortunately, we are also an untrustworthy ally to our allies, and our relationship with our allies has really cooled off under this current Administration. Our enemies see how we treat our allies so they trust us even less. Right now America does not have a very good reputation around the world.
America has done a lot of things to piss off the Muslims, and for some things I can't half blame them for being upset with us. We have mucked around in their part of the world, set up artificial borders, and they feel that we exploited them. They see our society as being one that is very immoral and decadent. They see what we watch on TV; they watch our music videos, and they really don't want us influencing them. Granted there is a lot wrong with their cultures too, but they tend to be blind to their own hypocrisy.
If Islam truly is a religion of peace, then why are Muslims involved in so many of the ongoing conflicts worldwide?
https://warsclerotic.wordpress.com/2010/06/13/of-the-22-world-conflicts-around-the-world-21-are-muslim/
95% of Violent Conflicts Around The World are Muslim.
Of The 22 World Conflicts Around The World, 21 are Muslim.. This may sound like propaganda because it sounds so far fetched. It isn't. Check your own world almanac.... Radical Islam has spread a ...
(0)
(0)
SGM (Join to see)
Capt Jeff S., it's astonishing to me how you can mix everyday life with bigotry. It wasn't that many years ago that radical Christians were blowing up abortion clinics. Even today we have radical bigots claiming that God is killing US servicemen because he hates fags. So tell me, is it fair to say that Christianity is a religion of hate and intolerance? You certainly seem to put that forth.
But let's consider the Westboro Baptist Church, the Christian equivalent of the Wahabist Mullahs and the Muslim Brotherhood. I have not read any of their material, but I expect their cause is based on Leviticus 20:13, "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
Well, it sure does seem like God has a problem with homos, at least from that statement. So what should be done about it? Westboro thinks they should protest at the funerals of servicemen to get that point across. Do you agree with them?
Then there's the "Progressive" view. First, the person who reads that statement has to decide for themselves if they believe it or not. Maybe they don't. Maybe they think it's a mistranslation. Maybe they think God will do the Osiris thing and weigh their heart against a feather, and if their heart is pure enough, they get a pass. (That's Egyptian afterlife, in case you didn't get the reference.) It's not up to me to tell someone else what to believe. Second, even if the statement is absolutely true, unmistakable, and not subject to interpretation, it's still not me who gets to make the judgement. I suspect Westboro would like to be able to kill homos, but their own fear of our society's laws stops them from acting. If you are going to be a radical fanatic, at least you shouldn't be a coward as well. (Just one of the many things to detest about Westboro.)
I am no less disgusted and appalled by radical Islam than you are, but you cannot paint everyone with a broad brush and pretend to have any fairness, compassion, or respect, and you cannot expect to get these either. And more importantly, both to your moslem friends as well as to our moslem fellow servicemen, you denigrate their belief when it's clear they are adapting to and supporting the kind of peaceful relations that we would like to have.
So if you are just one fanatic, opposing other fanatics, the world isn't getting any better, but growing farther apart. I prefer to think that by drawing a distinction between Moslem fanatics and regular people who just happen to be Moslem, I am bringing the world closer together, encouraging civilized behavior, and perhaps even separating the regular people from those who want to be the masters of all of Islam. In short, when you push away the regular people, you are pushing them into the camp of the fanatics. You are helping al Qaida in their mission. Isn't that enough reason to tone it down a bit?
But let's consider the Westboro Baptist Church, the Christian equivalent of the Wahabist Mullahs and the Muslim Brotherhood. I have not read any of their material, but I expect their cause is based on Leviticus 20:13, "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
Well, it sure does seem like God has a problem with homos, at least from that statement. So what should be done about it? Westboro thinks they should protest at the funerals of servicemen to get that point across. Do you agree with them?
Then there's the "Progressive" view. First, the person who reads that statement has to decide for themselves if they believe it or not. Maybe they don't. Maybe they think it's a mistranslation. Maybe they think God will do the Osiris thing and weigh their heart against a feather, and if their heart is pure enough, they get a pass. (That's Egyptian afterlife, in case you didn't get the reference.) It's not up to me to tell someone else what to believe. Second, even if the statement is absolutely true, unmistakable, and not subject to interpretation, it's still not me who gets to make the judgement. I suspect Westboro would like to be able to kill homos, but their own fear of our society's laws stops them from acting. If you are going to be a radical fanatic, at least you shouldn't be a coward as well. (Just one of the many things to detest about Westboro.)
I am no less disgusted and appalled by radical Islam than you are, but you cannot paint everyone with a broad brush and pretend to have any fairness, compassion, or respect, and you cannot expect to get these either. And more importantly, both to your moslem friends as well as to our moslem fellow servicemen, you denigrate their belief when it's clear they are adapting to and supporting the kind of peaceful relations that we would like to have.
So if you are just one fanatic, opposing other fanatics, the world isn't getting any better, but growing farther apart. I prefer to think that by drawing a distinction between Moslem fanatics and regular people who just happen to be Moslem, I am bringing the world closer together, encouraging civilized behavior, and perhaps even separating the regular people from those who want to be the masters of all of Islam. In short, when you push away the regular people, you are pushing them into the camp of the fanatics. You are helping al Qaida in their mission. Isn't that enough reason to tone it down a bit?
(0)
(0)
Capt Jeff S.
"But let's consider the Westboro Baptist Church, the Christian equivalent of the Wahabist Mullahs and the Muslim Brotherhood."
Are you equating Westboro Baptist to Radical Islam? Really? THIS is not Westboro Baptist: http://boc.rocks/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/isis-atrocities-02.jpg
If you're attempting to portray yourself as some kind of academic, you're not fooling anyone. Get your head out of the sand and educate yourself on what Islam has been doing:
http://humanevents.com/2015/06/26/total-depravity-christian-carnage-and-western-indifference/
Are you equating Westboro Baptist to Radical Islam? Really? THIS is not Westboro Baptist: http://boc.rocks/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/isis-atrocities-02.jpg
If you're attempting to portray yourself as some kind of academic, you're not fooling anyone. Get your head out of the sand and educate yourself on what Islam has been doing:
http://humanevents.com/2015/06/26/total-depravity-christian-carnage-and-western-indifference/
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
Sgt Tommy Johnson
Patience is a virtue and, like common sense, an increasingly rare commodity. It is one thing to "win" battles. Occupation and administration of villages, towns, cities, and vast regions is an entirely different and infinitely more complex undertaking. I don't believe that Islamic State has the ability to occupy and administer on the scale they aspire to. Thus, in time, with or without foreign interference, they will ultimately implode. Both Syria and Iraq are too fragmented ethnically, religiously, and socially. If an all-powerful dictatorship has the resources to maintain a socialized set of handouts and create a dependent populace that is accepting of their meager status quo, then "peace" can exist. Forcing democracy and a federated system of government upon people who are obviously more comfortable existing under a totalitarian régime isn't a recipe for success. Sometimes, it is better to stick with the "devil you know" and not supplant him with a foolhardy social experiment that is likely to fail. It is often stated that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over-and-over-and-over again, while expecting different results. When will we begin to behave sanely? We can't bring Saddam Hussein or Muammar Gaddafi back from the dead. But, we can cease our incessant meddling in the internal affairs of other countries, with the ill-founded intent of molding them into some semblance of our own image!
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
SSgt Rilene Ann
Kinda like a person suffering from abuse or addiction; they don't see the circumstances they live in until get help.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google