Military What was done is being undone...Iraq

Yes Red go back and blame the other guy to deflect from the president's failings. Why don't you address the points made in the article?

 

First, my how quickly this has turned from "IT'S NOT OUR FIGHT" to whole hearted support. I guess we're not as objective thinkers as we like to claim, or maybe it was a change of heart. Doesn't matter either way. It is action based on political expedience and public sentiment, altogether sad and pathetic.

Second, this is not a civil war. A civil war implies two entities that are part of the same state. Can't be a civil war if ISIS is comprised of jerkoffs from other nations. Can't be a wholly sectarian war since many sunnis inside and outside the country do not support ISIS. If anything, this falls more in line with an insurgency.

Third, the US never left Iraq with a stable government. It was a government full of empty promises and rhetoric. Current disarray is proof.

Last, the Iraqi army wasn't adequate. We gave them equipment, but what good is an UAHMMWV if there is no means to sustain it (parts, maintenance)? We all knew they were not capable of sustaining themselves logistically and in leadership. What few tactical successes they may have achieved were trumped up as "progress" and we were very quick to label individual units as "effective". Same thing is happening in Afghanistan, lived it firsthand. There was/is no capable leadership at the operational and strategic level, both levels of war that are responsible for deploying, synchronizing, fighting and sustaining forces in the field. That is why they were so soundly defeated. We lied to meet a political objective; we are doing the same in Afghanistan.

 

The Kurds are definitely willing to fight, and providing support is the right thing to do. But there has to be some backdoor maneuvering to appease everyone else is Iraq, Iran and Turkey. Kurds still want an independent Kurdistan that comprises parts of all three countries. And honestly, the only decent part of Iraq is the Kurdish area. It's like night and day from the rest of the country, but that's neither here nor there.

It's not semantics. They aren't fighting for a piece of land they feel should be independent from the rest of the country-they are fighting for a complete change, socially and politically. They may have members that are Iraqi, but their movement did not necessarily begin in Iraq. It has been imported from Syrian. Iraq was viewed as an easy target and their movement found willing participants brought about by government ineffectiveness, an ineffectiveness most of us who have had anything vested in Iraq understood was only a matter of time before it manifested itself.

Their army is obviously not adequate by anyone's standards. The brass signing off on it doesn't negate the fact is was politically expedient to do so, and again, same thing is happening in Afg. Their so-called "readiness" is based on a vast stretching of the truth. Yes, there were gains, but those gains were at a glacial pace. Then, all of a sudden, in the span of two years they went from completely dependent on the US to independent (not the exact terms, but close enough for discussion). Allow me a moment to explain how it works. Advisors are required to submit reports using given criteria that may or may not pertain to their organization. That criteria cannot be changed, it has to be answered. Advisors submit reports based on their assessment. It goes up to the next higher HQs, who give their cut on it. Then it goes up to the next higher HQs for their cut, and so on. The ones who did the original assessment will never see it again once it leaves their hands, there is no way of knowing what has been changed. No HQs at any level is going to show stagnation or, heaven forbid, a downgrade. What the final brass is getting is not the original assessment. It is, in fact, a farce. The reports that go to Congress are the same way. Now, there are units that can function independently, mostly at the battalion level and below, and even some brigades if they have a strong commander. But that's not where the disfunction resides. It resides at the division, corps and national military level who are responsible for supporting the tactical level commanders. Again, you are seeing the same thing in Afg right now.

The Iraqi army has better equipment than ISIS. But it doesn't matter if their logistical system is broken. They are inadequately trained and led to sustain themselves. They have no strategy in place, all they do is respond. That's not the fault of the trigger puller. ISIS fighters show up with 7 full magazines for their weapon; Iraqi fighters show up with one in a half full up-armored HMMWV because no one thought to order enough ammunition for a full combat load, or fill up their vehicles before they left, and no one is trained to figure out how to get more ammunition and fuel to them. We knew logistics and leadership were their biggest deficiencies, but no one wanted to say they were failing. And we're doing it all over again.

Operationally, I think the fix is seal off the absolutely porous Syrian border (which is like the pot calling the kettle black since we can't even seal our own). Isolate ISIS inside Iraq, then systematically conduct concurrent and successive operations to destroy them, with air and logistics support from the US and other allies. Then there has to be heavy US involvement in bringing all sides together, once again, to address grievances, and then STAY ENGAGED.

Militarily, the US response is right, but waiting this long is an utter leadership failure. However much of a clown shoe O has shown himself to be, this is still fixable. That said, there needs to be a measured US advisor role to the Iraqi Army to get their logistics moving and to establish some type of strategic plan. Otherwise, all we're doing is dropping bombs and they are spinning their wheels. Not what people want to hear, but at this point I don't see any other way to fix it. If we aren't interested in fixing the situation, it doesn't matter how many bombs are dropped.

 

Red the articles were put there for your education! You chose to ignore the substance and blame W in a knee jerk manner. Why don't you read the articles and learn something...I don't need a response just trying to help

 

Man, good questions. The US definitely could, but shouldn't go it alone. The prudent thing to do would be to get buy-in from other EU nations and ME countries. It would take a great effort on the US' part to get that, and unfortunately, I don't think Kerry is very good at persuasion. At least it wouldn't need to consist of the same effort as 1991 from a deployment standpoint, but what's needed more than anything right now is an opportunity to buy some time for other initiatives to work. Collectively, the world seems to be keeping more to themselves, and we're seeing the outcome of that (Russia, China, etc.). Other ME countries have for the most part always kept to themselves or chosen to act in the shadows. But, you're right, the same happening to Iraq could happen to them, as well. Could be a selling point for their involvement. Agree, Maliki is a shit show, and is too hell-bent on retribution and trying to right every wrong instead putting together an effective government.

As far as ISIS being supplied, Syria is the key. AQ may be at a disagreement with them, but that doesn't mean they exactly mind what's going on in Iraq, especially since it involves Shia and Iran, in whatever capacity that may be, and it gets ISIS out of their hair. I also wouldn't be surprised if the Turks have allowed some resupply, as well; not materially, but possibly have enabled it to happen since they have no love for the Kurds. My opinion is the Turks are about as shady as they come, NATO or not. I do not trust them. As long as the Kurds are fighting ISIS and not them, I think they are completely OK with it. I also think much of what you see ISIS rolling around in is what they've been able to take, and so far they've been able to pretty much take what they want. But Iraq clamping the border would go a long way into denying ISIS ability to resupply. Unfortunately, Iraq is mostly landlocked except for a small port near Kuwait, there's no love-loss between Iraq and Saudi Arabia and Jordan, and who knows what demands Iran is placing on them to get logistical support.

Both good questions. I have some friends of mine that are probably in the know considering what they do, will be interesting to get their take.

I'll come home at some point during this football season, would love to sit down over a beer about how bureaucratic it really is and some of the shit I had to put up with.