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
1
1
0
The God of my understanding built us in his image and put us here to be happy, fruitful. WE, as a nation, have a long history that includes rescuing others from distress. That is what we do, sometimes imperfectly, nonetheless that is what we are about.
Another man's unwillingness to lay down his life for is country can be changed to willingness if he is in the presence of someone from another land willing to lay his life down for Liberty. I have lived that in CAP Units [Read:Brute, by Krulak] in Vietnam. If they can see a way to keep their hamlet, village and family safe, they will fight.
The complicating factors when I was in uniform were the strategies developed by High Command, the White House and a gutless Congress. In other words, the same complications our uniformed people face today.
Another man's unwillingness to lay down his life for is country can be changed to willingness if he is in the presence of someone from another land willing to lay his life down for Liberty. I have lived that in CAP Units [Read:Brute, by Krulak] in Vietnam. If they can see a way to keep their hamlet, village and family safe, they will fight.
The complicating factors when I was in uniform were the strategies developed by High Command, the White House and a gutless Congress. In other words, the same complications our uniformed people face today.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Cause were the self appointed dogoodies of the world. Also, if they fall it gives terrorism a larger foothold. That is a war we will never win but can never give up.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
It's the fault of the innocent women and children that they do not have real men.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
One thing the Iraqis were good at in DS. Giving up. Such a proud family tradition...
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
We have been in the region for nearly 15 years and it doesn't look much different than when we first got there. We have paid the ultimate price in the number of coalition lives lost and what have we gained. I think that there are better things that we should be doing with our money, like taking care of our veterans who would definitely show more appreciation, especially since their care was guaranteed to them when they volunteered. I am not an Obama basher, but his foreign policy is lacking, to say the least, so until there is a change in thinking in the WH, there will be no differences made in the plan of attack.
(1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
SFC Clark Adams
Correction........we've been in the region for 70+ years...............research Ibin Saud, Dharan oil fields.........
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I want to thank all you guys that have served overseas and fought. I know its a tricky issue, but Im very grateful that you all answered the call. Im a vet too but never under fire or putting my life on the line. You guys are all heroes.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
(0)
(0)
SGM (Join to see)
Comparatively speaking, James is right. Middle East oil has a high sulfur content that we don't want. We get very little percentage wise of our oil from the ME.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
What most Americans are failing to realize is that we are coming close to committing a third generation of young men and women fighting a meaningless war in the Middle East. You hear politicians say "Americans want us to become involved." Involved how? When you are gambling with house money, you will stay at the Black Jack table all night. Meaning, when only 1% of the population is serving in the military then of course the American population is for intervention. The way you bring this to an end is institute a draft, and then we will see just how much support there is for this idea. America is asleep at the TV, watching NBA playoffs, The Voice or some dumbass reality TV. show. America, in general, to include our politicians do not understand the dynamics of a country or region of the word ruled by tribalism and religious ideology. We still have this romantic idea that we can offer democracy to parts of the world that does not understand the concept because their religion beliefs get in the way. The next point to consider is that other Arab nations do not want to get involved because they are used to America doing the “dirty work”. How much money are we throwing down a hole to make the Middle East a so-called democratic region of the world? Those funds can be best used here at home. You cannot turn on a TV these days without hearing politicians tell Americans that we have to fight them there, or they will come here to get you. When I see individuals such as Lindsay Graham who is a Colonel in the USAFR and John McCain who knows the perils of war call for sending in 10,000 combat troops back into Iraq it makes you wonder what would happen if these two people end up as POTUS.
(1)
(0)
PO1 Kerry French
That is why John Adams was content to pay the jizyya taxk to the Barbary pirates. He knew, after reading the Qur'an that if we fought them, we would be fighting them forever. Jefferson, however, had a different idea. He started a navy and went to the shores of Tripoli and burned and bombed the utter dog crap out of them. They didn't bother us for about 170 years after that. Then the 1970's came and we let Sayyed Qutb come into America. He is considered the father of modern jihad... then we let the Ikwahn take root in our country. MSA, CAIR, ISNA, NAIT etc.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google