Posted on May 22, 2015
Why fight for the Iraqis if they are not going to fight for themselves?
62.3K
373
186
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 >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 54
5
5
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!!!
(5)
(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)
4
4
0
I was on Wake Island during the evacuation of Saigon. Refugees by the hundreds included young men of fighting age. I wondered at the time "Why are our GIs fighting and dying when these guys are fleeing their own country?" It is history repeating itself.
(4)
(0)
MSgt (Join to see)
Very much so. History is bound to repeat itself when we do not learn from it. Let them fight for themselves and I would gladly help them.
(2)
(0)
SSG Bruce Booker
Thank you for making a great point, Capt. Adams. We should be fighting alongside them, augmenting them and doing things that go beyond their capabilities. We should be fighting with them, not instead of them.
(2)
(0)
4
4
0
Here's an idea what ever city ISIS takes put 50 to 70 B-52's fully loaded with 500 pounders and level the city! What ever infrastructure they hold crater it and when they have nowhere to hide wipe them out. If we see convoys traveling down a road call in the A-10's and apaches. Tell Syria's president Assad if he gets in the way he's next. Stop fighting these wars with 1 hand and 4 fingers behind our backs. I forgot to say split Iraq and Syria up give the Kurds all the land in Iraq and Syria they can conquer. Tell Assad he can keep all the land he can defend. And the rest of Iraq goes to the Shite's so long as they do not become part of Iran. I honestly believe we are tired of half fighting these wars. You don't see these people messing with Russia because they know Russia won't play with them. A little ruthlessness will go a long way.
(4)
(0)
GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad
One problem, among the many, with that idea is that we would probably then turn around and rebuild everything we destroyed.
(2)
(0)
4
4
0
I can't disagree with any of the people who have expressed their disgust at the Iraqi Army's cowardice. But I have one point ... If we have to fight the ISIS SOBs, I'd rather do it on their side of the world than ours.
I don't believe the ISIS SOBs are ever going to have enough, so someone, somewhere is going to have to face them, fight them, and kill them until there are none left.
That doesn't mean I'm giving a free pass to American foreign policy. It's also time our politicians cared more about military lives than their reelection chances.
Darfur or Dallas ... where do you want to fight them?
I don't believe the ISIS SOBs are ever going to have enough, so someone, somewhere is going to have to face them, fight them, and kill them until there are none left.
That doesn't mean I'm giving a free pass to American foreign policy. It's also time our politicians cared more about military lives than their reelection chances.
Darfur or Dallas ... where do you want to fight them?
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
I have asked myself the same question GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad. I have asked the question sober and intoxicated so obviously, it is an issue. Why are we training people once again? If I had a foreign invader come into my country and they were pillaging, raping, and destroying our historical sites, I'd want to kill them.
(4)
(0)
GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad
Exactly SSG (ret) William Martin. This is why I have such a hard time with this whole thing. If your country is being invaded, you stand and fight. If you won't do that (as we are seeing in Iraq), then why should anybody else want to come and help you?
(3)
(0)
1LT William Clardy
GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad, am I the only one to see the irony in your comment, given that, prior to ISIS's incursion, the United States military invaded and occupied Iraq until just a few years ago -- and called the Iraqis who continued to fight the foreign coalition "losers" and worse?
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
The simple reason, the force opposing them is a horrendous threat to the world.
(4)
(0)
GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad
So what you are saying is that it is up to us to go fight the "horrendous threat to the world" for the Iraqis, because they're not willing to do it themselves (even though it is their country and their people).
(2)
(0)
SSG Trevor S.
GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad I can't understand their cultural apathy toward tyranny, but I can see the potential threat to us in the US if Daesh spreads.
(1)
(0)
GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad
I see the potential threat as well SSG Trevor S. --- what I don't see is this being something that we can take care of for somebody else. My other concern with this constant commitment of resources to Iraq (and Afghanistan) means that those resources are not available here at home.
(2)
(0)
SSG Trevor S.
We agree there GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad. IMO we have fought there so many times, been accused of colonialism so many times, and been accused of fighting for oil so many times that it is high time we get something out of fixing the region for others. We should finally take the country and divide it up between those who help us. And yes, the resources gained should be used to pay for our effort. We should secure the borders and carry out a Marshall Plan type long haul solution with the modifier of our section staying ours and being annexed as a territory.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
As others have stated, it's not fighting for them it's fighting for "US interests" as in maintaining FOB "Invade IRAN" That's if you believe the conspiracy theorists...
(4)
(0)
GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad
Does anybody even know for sure what "U.S. interests" we are fighting for in Iraq anymore? I don't ... I lost sight of that a long time ago.
(3)
(0)
MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca
GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad
Why not ask Hillary, she should know, well, until she denies knowing it or blames her vote on her own stupidity.
Why not ask Hillary, she should know, well, until she denies knowing it or blames her vote on her own stupidity.
(1)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad I've answered your question in several other places in this discussion thread and others. Forgive me for repeating myself so that you don't have to go searching for it...
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.
...at least that's my opinion
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.
...at least that's my opinion
(3)
(0)
1SG Kenneth Talkington Sr
Good comments from everyone. What we are dealing with here and since WWII is exactly what President Eisenhower warned about. The growth and increasing power of the military/industrial complex. The problems we have experienced during the above time frame will continue so long as there is a buck to be made.
(2)
(0)
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)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google