Iraq in Crisis- Merged Superthread
- Thread starter tomahawk6
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 1,358
- Points
- 1,160
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/397240/obamas-confused-iraqi-policy-bing-west-owen-west
National Review - January 27, 2015 - Bing West & Owen West
Obama’s Confused Iraqi Policy
U.S. air, aid, and advisers in Iraq are currently furthering Iran’s interests, not America’s.
Today in Iraq, American advisers stay in safe shelters, while Iranian soldiers and generals fight alongside Shia militias and Iraqi soldiers on the front lines. Our bombing supports Iranian-directed movements on the ground. This bizarre situation bring into question American policy goals. Are the administration’s actions ad hoc and poorly thought out, or is there a hidden, more foreboding agenda?
In the State of the Union address, President Obama said that “in Iraq and Syria, American leadership — including our military power — is stopping ISIL’s advance.” Actually, America is following Iranian leadership inside Iraq. In 2007, when President Bush surged more than 20,000 American troops into Iraq, Iran responded with explosive devices and assassination teams to kill our soldiers. Eight years ago, it would have been risible to predict that American troops would deploy a second time to support Iran’s Republican Guard. Yet that is what we have done.
How did we get to this stage? After the president pulled all our forces out of Iraq in 2011, the majority-Shia government oppressed the minority Sunni and Kurdish tribes. The sectarian Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki deployed Iraqi military units commanded by Shia political hacks into the Sunni areas. When the Sunni Islamists invaded from Syria, those Iraqi units ran away. Iran rushed in troops to prevent Baghdad from falling.
In response, President Obama has provided air strikes, while forbidding any American to engage in combat. Canadian advisers have been in combat on the front lines, marking targets for U.S. aircraft. The American advisers must stay in the rear. This is publicly embarrassing and militarily zany.
Iran is pursuing a consistent policy to extend its influence. Inside Syria, Iran has sent in its Hezbollah militia from Lebanon to fight for Assad, its client. We are bombing the Sunni terrorists. Mr. Obama has designated the Assad forces off limits. Rhetorically he declaims against Assad and Hezbollah, but he refrains from action. In contrast, last week in Syria, our ally Israel bombed and killed several Hezbollah leaders and the Iranian general who was advising them.
Inside Iraq, it is again the Iranians who display more consistency than the administration. In Baghdad, houses are searched by Shia militias, supervised by Iranian advisers. Other Iranians are on the battlefields and inside the operations centers of the Iraqi army, where they study our techniques and learn how we think and plan campaigns. Iranian aircraft are transiting Iraqi airspace to supply the Assad regime and are bombing targets inside Iraq.
Addressing those Iranian strikes, Secretary of State John Kerry said, “The net effect is positive. . . . The Iraqis have the overall responsibility for their own ground and air operations, and what they choose to do is up to them.”
How is the effect “positive” when the end state is an Iraq more closely tied to Iran? About 7,000 Iranian soldiers are committed to the fight, while 3,000 American advisers stay safe in the rear. Given its close control of Shia militias, Iran can, whenever it chooses, engineer bombings that will drive us out of the country. We stay at Iranian sufferance. That will end someday, as it did in Lebanon when Hezbollah, trained by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, blew up U.S. barracks in Beirut, killing 241 Marines. When it is in Iran’s interests, we will be pushed out of Iraq.
The 1916 map of Mesopotamia drawn by the British and French is being redrawn by the 21st-century Islamic upheaval. Iran is consolidating power on the Shia side. On the Sunni side, the Obama administration has antagonized both Egypt and Saudi Arabia, while no Sunni coalition of religious and military leaders has emerged to destroy the extremist movement within Sunni Islam.
Inside Iraq, the Sunni and Kurdish tribes will not accept a return to the status quo ante. The tribal and political dynamics that caused Iraq’s disintegration remain in place. No offensive to drive out the Islamists can succeed without Americans on the front lines calling in air strikes. Obama will be forced to play that trump card before leaving office, despite his denials to date. In return, he should demand an Iraqi federation with largely self-rule for Kurds and Sunnis.
On two levels, the administration’s policy in Iraq is confusing and suspect. First, Obama will not acknowledge the religious base of our enemy. He calls them “violent extremists” while insisting that “the vast majority of Muslims share our commitment to peace.” But he refuses to join France, England, Germany, Egypt, and other nations in calling on peaceful Muslim leaders to speak up.
“They [ordinary citizens] ask how they can trust the phrase that murderers who claim to act in the name of Islam have nothing to do with Islam,” German chancellor Angels Merkel said last week. “We urgently need a clarification of these questions by Islam’s religious leaders. This issue can’t be evaded any longer.”
Obama, however, persists in evading it. As long as he refuses to recognize the self-professed motivation of our Islamist enemies, he cannot take steps to remove their support system among the too-silent majority of peaceful Muslims.
On the second level, the policy is foreboding. For Egypt, Jordan, Israel, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf States — all allied with America for the past half-century — our aligning with Iranian forces inside Iraq increases their concerns that America has switched sides. Obama is pleading with Iran for a deal about its nuclear-weapons program. It represents the last, best hope for his legacy in foreign policy, which he has botched. And so he will not upset Iran by frowning on its military presence and increasing influence inside Iraq. Our traditional allies in the region believe that the administration is allowing the balance of power to shift against them, as Iran consolidates its influence in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen.
Congress has a role to play. The administration has asked for funding and authorization to continue to use force against the Sunni Islamists in Iraq, Syria, and other countries. Congress should insist on three provisions relative to Iraq.
First, no aid, or bombing will be delivered, unless Iraq places limits on the number of Iranian military and on their linkages with Shia militias.
Second, insist on a compact with Iraq for a long-term American military presence. We should not fight and leave the political victory to Iran. Some in our military are whispering, “Don’t worry, the Iraqi mullahs don’t like the Iranian mullahs.” Perhaps true, but irrelevant. Their power positions are scarcely equivalent. Shia mullahs rule in Iran and pontificate in Iraq.
Third, all U.S. aid must flow directly to the end recipient, whether that be the Iraqi army or a Sunni or Kurdish tribe. The Iraqi government should be notified of our aid but not given control of it.
American air, aid, and advisers in Iraq must further American interests, not Iran’s.
— Bing West served in Vietnam as an adviser and has written three books about the Iraq war. Owen West served two tours in Iraq and wrote the book The Snake Eaters about his advisory team in Anbar Province, now controlled by the Islamists.
National Review - January 27, 2015 - Bing West & Owen West
Obama’s Confused Iraqi Policy
U.S. air, aid, and advisers in Iraq are currently furthering Iran’s interests, not America’s.
Today in Iraq, American advisers stay in safe shelters, while Iranian soldiers and generals fight alongside Shia militias and Iraqi soldiers on the front lines. Our bombing supports Iranian-directed movements on the ground. This bizarre situation bring into question American policy goals. Are the administration’s actions ad hoc and poorly thought out, or is there a hidden, more foreboding agenda?
In the State of the Union address, President Obama said that “in Iraq and Syria, American leadership — including our military power — is stopping ISIL’s advance.” Actually, America is following Iranian leadership inside Iraq. In 2007, when President Bush surged more than 20,000 American troops into Iraq, Iran responded with explosive devices and assassination teams to kill our soldiers. Eight years ago, it would have been risible to predict that American troops would deploy a second time to support Iran’s Republican Guard. Yet that is what we have done.
How did we get to this stage? After the president pulled all our forces out of Iraq in 2011, the majority-Shia government oppressed the minority Sunni and Kurdish tribes. The sectarian Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki deployed Iraqi military units commanded by Shia political hacks into the Sunni areas. When the Sunni Islamists invaded from Syria, those Iraqi units ran away. Iran rushed in troops to prevent Baghdad from falling.
In response, President Obama has provided air strikes, while forbidding any American to engage in combat. Canadian advisers have been in combat on the front lines, marking targets for U.S. aircraft. The American advisers must stay in the rear. This is publicly embarrassing and militarily zany.
Iran is pursuing a consistent policy to extend its influence. Inside Syria, Iran has sent in its Hezbollah militia from Lebanon to fight for Assad, its client. We are bombing the Sunni terrorists. Mr. Obama has designated the Assad forces off limits. Rhetorically he declaims against Assad and Hezbollah, but he refrains from action. In contrast, last week in Syria, our ally Israel bombed and killed several Hezbollah leaders and the Iranian general who was advising them.
Inside Iraq, it is again the Iranians who display more consistency than the administration. In Baghdad, houses are searched by Shia militias, supervised by Iranian advisers. Other Iranians are on the battlefields and inside the operations centers of the Iraqi army, where they study our techniques and learn how we think and plan campaigns. Iranian aircraft are transiting Iraqi airspace to supply the Assad regime and are bombing targets inside Iraq.
Addressing those Iranian strikes, Secretary of State John Kerry said, “The net effect is positive. . . . The Iraqis have the overall responsibility for their own ground and air operations, and what they choose to do is up to them.”
How is the effect “positive” when the end state is an Iraq more closely tied to Iran? About 7,000 Iranian soldiers are committed to the fight, while 3,000 American advisers stay safe in the rear. Given its close control of Shia militias, Iran can, whenever it chooses, engineer bombings that will drive us out of the country. We stay at Iranian sufferance. That will end someday, as it did in Lebanon when Hezbollah, trained by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, blew up U.S. barracks in Beirut, killing 241 Marines. When it is in Iran’s interests, we will be pushed out of Iraq.
The 1916 map of Mesopotamia drawn by the British and French is being redrawn by the 21st-century Islamic upheaval. Iran is consolidating power on the Shia side. On the Sunni side, the Obama administration has antagonized both Egypt and Saudi Arabia, while no Sunni coalition of religious and military leaders has emerged to destroy the extremist movement within Sunni Islam.
Inside Iraq, the Sunni and Kurdish tribes will not accept a return to the status quo ante. The tribal and political dynamics that caused Iraq’s disintegration remain in place. No offensive to drive out the Islamists can succeed without Americans on the front lines calling in air strikes. Obama will be forced to play that trump card before leaving office, despite his denials to date. In return, he should demand an Iraqi federation with largely self-rule for Kurds and Sunnis.
On two levels, the administration’s policy in Iraq is confusing and suspect. First, Obama will not acknowledge the religious base of our enemy. He calls them “violent extremists” while insisting that “the vast majority of Muslims share our commitment to peace.” But he refuses to join France, England, Germany, Egypt, and other nations in calling on peaceful Muslim leaders to speak up.
“They [ordinary citizens] ask how they can trust the phrase that murderers who claim to act in the name of Islam have nothing to do with Islam,” German chancellor Angels Merkel said last week. “We urgently need a clarification of these questions by Islam’s religious leaders. This issue can’t be evaded any longer.”
Obama, however, persists in evading it. As long as he refuses to recognize the self-professed motivation of our Islamist enemies, he cannot take steps to remove their support system among the too-silent majority of peaceful Muslims.
On the second level, the policy is foreboding. For Egypt, Jordan, Israel, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf States — all allied with America for the past half-century — our aligning with Iranian forces inside Iraq increases their concerns that America has switched sides. Obama is pleading with Iran for a deal about its nuclear-weapons program. It represents the last, best hope for his legacy in foreign policy, which he has botched. And so he will not upset Iran by frowning on its military presence and increasing influence inside Iraq. Our traditional allies in the region believe that the administration is allowing the balance of power to shift against them, as Iran consolidates its influence in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen.
Congress has a role to play. The administration has asked for funding and authorization to continue to use force against the Sunni Islamists in Iraq, Syria, and other countries. Congress should insist on three provisions relative to Iraq.
First, no aid, or bombing will be delivered, unless Iraq places limits on the number of Iranian military and on their linkages with Shia militias.
Second, insist on a compact with Iraq for a long-term American military presence. We should not fight and leave the political victory to Iran. Some in our military are whispering, “Don’t worry, the Iraqi mullahs don’t like the Iranian mullahs.” Perhaps true, but irrelevant. Their power positions are scarcely equivalent. Shia mullahs rule in Iran and pontificate in Iraq.
Third, all U.S. aid must flow directly to the end recipient, whether that be the Iraqi army or a Sunni or Kurdish tribe. The Iraqi government should be notified of our aid but not given control of it.
American air, aid, and advisers in Iraq must further American interests, not Iran’s.
— Bing West served in Vietnam as an adviser and has written three books about the Iraq war. Owen West served two tours in Iraq and wrote the book The Snake Eaters about his advisory team in Anbar Province, now controlled by the Islamists.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
Seems at least one of those ISIS-operated Abrams tanks survived the air strikes to find its way to another Iraqi faction:
Iraqi Shia militia spotted with Abrams tank
IHS Janes 360 - 28 January 2015
The convoy was made up of at least 130 vehicles, almost all of them flying the group's distinctive flag.
Most of the vehicles are civilian pick-ups, minivans and trucks, some converted into weapons platforms, as well as supporting tankers and ambulances.
It also included eight Iranian-made Safir jeeps, the majority of them carrying 107 mm multiple rocket launchers, as well as several Humvees and mine-protected armoured vehicles.
At least six M113 armoured personnel carriers and a lone M1A1 tank were carried by heavy transporters at the rear of the convoy.
While Iraqi militias have been seen operating Humvees, M113s and Soviet-designed tanks before, this is the first time that one has been seen with an M1A1, a type that is only operated by the Iraqi Army's 9th Armoured Division.
A still from a video that emerged on 22 January shows an M1A1 Abrams tank in a large convoy of vehicles flying flags of the Iraqi Shia militia Kataib Hizbullah.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
Mission creep?
These comments were similar to a statement made by Sen. McCain earlier this month, if I can recall correctly.
Military.com
These comments were similar to a statement made by Sen. McCain earlier this month, if I can recall correctly.
Military.com
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 127
- Points
- 710
krimynal said:
There has been a report on the UK's Daily Mail online ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-173168/Downed-US-pilot-captured-claims-Iraq.html ) that reports ISIS officials claiming this, and at the same time, the US denying any aircraft have been shot down.
midget-boyd91
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 230
George Wallace said:
GW, I can not find a date attached to the article you linked anywhere. Also, in the article itself it mentions that Iraqi Security Forces were responsible for "capturing" the pilot. With the Iraqi forces being an ally in this current fight I find it odd that the word "captured" was used. As well it that this was shortly after air raid sirens were sounded in Baghdad which AFAIK has not been subject to any of the recent strikes which leads me to believe that this is a very old article from either 2003, or earlier
- Reaction score
- 9,765
- Points
- 1,360
uncle-midget-Oddball said:GW, I can not find a date attached to the article you linked anywhere. Also, in the article itself it mentions that Iraqi Security Forces were responsible for "capturing" the pilot. With the Iraqi forces being an ally in this current fight I find it odd that the word "captured" was used. As well it that this was shortly after air raid sirens were sounded in Baghdad which AFAIK has not been subject to any of the recent strikes which leads me to believe that this is a very old article from either 2003, or earlier
You are correct
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 127
- Points
- 710
Shoddy website management on the part of The Daily Mail. At the top of the page they have today's date and weather: "Monday, Feb 2nd 2015 1PM -16°C 4PM -16°C "
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-173168/Downed-US-pilot-captured-claims-Iraq.html#ixzz3QbpRs1Kw
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-173168/Downed-US-pilot-captured-claims-Iraq.html#ixzz3QbpRs1Kw
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 127
- Points
- 710
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
- Reaction score
- 64
- Points
- 530
The situation is Anbar province is bad and getting worse.The Iraqi Army is close to collapse in the province.The Marines there will have to be reinforced IMO.Of course if the Iraqi Army abandon's the province then ISIS will be ready to move on Baghdad.The air campaign hasnt done much and US Apache gunships are now supporting our allies in Anbar.Its going to take a couple of heavy divisions to push ISIS out of Iraq.The decision to pull troops out of Iraq by the administration isnt looking good.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
Similar threads
