Andrew Tilghman, Defense News/Military Times: This is the Pentagon's new strategy to defeat ISIS
It involves a lot of old-school war fighting and could require more Americans on the ground to support unproven allies. IRBIL, Iraq — The U.S. military headquarters here is outfitted with maps showing a "forward line of troops" — a FLOT, in military-speak — that divides northern Iraq's Kurdish region from territory held by the Islamic State group. The line is precisely drawn, following the contours of specific roads and berms. A mere 40 miles west, the terrain is pocked with trenches, fighting positions, razor wire and armed checkpoints. It's like a scene from Europe during World War I, one American official says.
It's a jarring change for the personnel who've spent much of their careers fighting on far more ambiguous battlefields. Steadily, though, they are coming to grips with it as, during the past several months, the Pentagon and the White House have fundamentally shifted their strategy for defeating ISIS. The way forward will mean potentially more key U.S. support troops on the ground to back friendly local forces who will wage the fight to retake ISIS-held territory.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: This was the same strategy that was used in defeating the Afghan Taliban in 2001 - 2002. Special forces allied with friendly militias backed by heavy U.S. air power. And while I am confident that with time this will probably produce the same result in the war against the Islamic State, the problem is what to do after the war .... which I suspect is not even being contemplated right now in the White House.
15 comments:
February is wet and muddy.
Let's see if they start before March 1st.
Some of us were expecting them to take Mosul after Tikrit fell.
But something was not right. Maybe it was the lack of logistics such as transportation or POL. Maybe it was a lack of will.
People criticized GWB for not having a plan after Hussein fell. Based on recent experience, there is no cacophony of loud voices criticizing Obama now?
Maybe golf is more important than planning the aftermath.
Doing the same thing over and over and over again is the definition of insanity right?.
Afghanistan has been such success that the best we can do is to do it again.
I think the pentagon should hire the Dallas cowboys cheerleaders and give them flowers to throw out to the jihadis ,you see I come with an strategy that have just about the some add to successfully complete the mission.
If the US and the Russians really wanted to defeat Daesh, they would have defeated them by now, but the problem is that both of them don't want to defeat them just yet, at the mommment daesh is too beneficent to the US and the Russians, both of them need daesh for their own sinister reasons/needs.
Come on lads, be open minded for God's sake.
Anonymous,
Failure to agree with your assessment of this does not mean one is not "open minded." The reasons it has taken so long to defeat ISIS/Daesh is not because the Russians and Americans do not want to but it is because, first and foremost, this a VERY strong enemy. Additionally, there is a lack of will to take the tough measures necessary to defeat this enemy in as speedy a manner as most would like to see.
Additionally there a number of differing opinions on how to best go about defeating this enemy and it seems like, while ISIS has made numerous enemies, no one is on the same page on a strategy to win. Most specifically the Russians and the Americans don't seem to be on the same page in regards to how best to defeat this enemy. Working on a way to bridge the differences in strategies and tactics between the United States and Russia would seem a great place to start in maximizing our efforts to defeat this enemy.
While ISIS is a very tough enemy comprised of some of the best fighters planet earth has ever seen, this enemy will eventually be defeated. They've made enemies now of pretty much everyone it seems but even under the most optimal circumstances it will take some time to defeat them and, while we pray there will be no more Paris style or 911 type attacks, barring some type of divine intervention there likely will be.
Failing to accept your position that, as you seem to imply, that Russia and/or America can easily defeat ISIS, does not make one un "open minded." It means they have a different read on this situation. With that said with Russia's involvement now I'd suspect this is putting more pressure on ISIS and will probably hasten their ultimate defeat. Russia has the best led, best trained, most motivated fighters, backed up by the best intelligence services in the world. It'd be nice if the US could get on their side. Hopefully we survive long enough for the next POTUS to work on this and hopefully they will do so.
"The reason, the president added, “that we did not just start taking a bunch of airstrikes all across Iraq as soon as ISIL came in was because that would have taken the pressure off of [Prime Minister Nuri Kamal] al-Maliki.”
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/08/09/opinion/president-obama-thomas-l-friedman-iraq-and-world-affairs.html?referer=&_r=0
"Sure, top U.S. generals – and vice president Vice President Joe Biden – have said that America’s closest allies support ISIS. And mainstream American media have called for direct support of ISIS.
But the declassified DIA documents show that the U.S. and the West supported ISIS at its inception … as a way to isolate the Syrian government. And see this."
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/05/newly-declassified-u-s-government-documents-the-west-supported-the-creation-of-isis.html
"ex to the report, not made public, described a secret agreement reached in early 2012 between the Obama and Erdoğan administrations. It pertained to the rat line. By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi’s arsenals into Syria. A number of front companies were set up in Libya, some under the cover of Australian entities. Retired American soldiers, who didn’t always know who was really employing them, were hired to manage procurement and shipping. The operation was run by David Petraeus, the CIA director who would soon resign when it became known he was having an affair with his biographer. (A spokesperson for Petraeus denied the operation ever took place.)"
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line
It does not really surprise me to learn that the US did not want to take pressure off of al-Maliki. As a close ally of Iran, who is an enemy of the US and since Iran poses an existential threat to the US, it would seem reasonable to try and find anyone who might assist us here.
Even with airstrikes of the type some would have liked it seems unlikely this would have made much a difference as this is a very powerful enemy. Given the nature of the threat posed by Iran it does seem that some might support elements that may turn out to be ISIS on the grounds of needing to confront Iran.
Nevertheless, at this point, it seems we have a common enemy in ISIS who is likely to tough for America to defeat alone and probably was from the beginning. It would seem reasonable for all parties to find ways to work together to defeat this enemy.
Much of any support for ISIS arose out of the need to confront Iran, to the extent it actually existed. We will need help with this. My suggestion would be somehow to try and find common ground with the Russians to get them to help us here. One possibility would be for us to support Russia's position on Crimea and announce in word and deed that we oppose sanctions on Russia and are going to act with all of our might to undermine. While I would not expect EU nations to follow suit, I think such actions would help to improve our relations with Russia and perhaps we can obtain their assistance with regards to Iran.
You'r right, my apologies to everyone, the last part of my comment was rather crude and if not immature. But I still stand by my opinion and respect yours as well :)
B. Poster,
The Confessional Lists system of elections that the Bremer Administration and the Junior College Republicans imposed on Iraq, was supposed to ensure that every Iraqi Government would consist of dozens of weak coelition Parties, and that Iraqi PM's would never have a "mandate". Instead, Iraqi PM's would constantly spend their time trying to keep their coelition in a majority position, instead of spending their time Governing.
After all, Inraq was always supposed to be ruled out of the Worlds Largest Embassy, (15,000 staff), and Iraq was supposed to be defended by 150,000 US troops permenently stationed on 14 Enduring Bases.
Unlike other Iraqi Politicians, Malliki, over several years, managed to use the ethnic divisions the US had imposed on Iraq to "divide and conquer" to his own advantage. He marginalized the Sunni, ( 15% of the population), sidelined the Kurds, ( 25% of the population) by co-opting Barzani, and he out maneuvered the other Shia Parties, and wound up with their base, giving him, when push came to shove, at least 55% of the vote.
This political strength, allowed Maliki to refuse a SOFA unfavourable to Iraqi Soverignity, ( forcing Obama to withdraw US forces), open closer ties to Iran to balance against US influence, and bring in FTA's that were more favourable to Iran's traditional trading partners and less favourable to US, Saudi and Kuwaiti Corporations.
So, Maliki had to go. Can't have Iraqi's actually running Iraq, not with all of our oil and gas under their sand.
From Afghanistan to Kosovo, jihadi's have been very usefull for US Foreign Policy goals, and the ISIS rampage into Iraq was no different.
The attacks on the Kurds broke the Barzani/Maliki cooperation, as heavy weapons for the Kurds was a no go for the Iraqi's, and US, Saudi and Turkish promises of weapons trumped the pre-ISIS deal.
The collapse of the US trained Iraqi Army, and the mobilization and successes of the Shia Militia's re-empowered Maliki's Shia political advisaries.
Maliki was forced to step down and the new Iraqi PM, Alwalli, is so weak that he is utterly reliant on the Shia Militia's to stay in power, and probably, only Iran, can put the Shia blocks back together. That project will probably take more than a few years.
Spot on this time, from a keyboard commando.
Jay,
in response to your first paragraph: I think this is how parlimentary democratic systems are supposed to work, have multiple political parties/factions. This way no one party is able to gain total control and impose tyranny. Mistakes were made in the assumptions on how this would work out.
Second paragraph: embassy staffs, sizes, and bases are a result of agreements between the soverign government of Iraq and other nations. Obviously the Iraqi govetnment and its military would need bases for their military needs and would want help in constructing them. 150,000 troops never would have been enough troops to control Iraq. Any military person would or should know this. As such, that wasn't the goal. As in other things invalid assumptions were made based upon how this would work out.
Third paragraph: the US and its coalition partners acted against the Saddam Huesian government in response to a major threat to US natiknal security and the coailition partners took ENORMOUS risks to assist us in any way they could. Unfortunately not enough thought was given to what would occur after the Huessein government was removed. Furthermore there was no certainty this actually could be done. Given the near exenstial threat the Huessein posed to the US, in retrospect its not hard to imagine that the US got outmanuverd by the Iranians. Furthermore Iran has Russia and China as the world's most powerful countries as allies.
Fourth paragraph: the US never wanted a permanent presence. Even if they did, the world and the coalition partners never were going to allow it. As i recall, the withdrawl date of 2010, was negotiated under the Bush Administration. Any attempts to alter this would have only been a half hearted face saving measure much like the troop "surge" was.
Fifth paragraph: the US was/is in no position to decide who stays or goex in Iraqi politics and hasn't been for over a decade. If Maliki had to go, this would have been a call made by the Iranians who control things there. As for controlling Iraq's oil, the government has been obsessed with destroying America's donestic oil indusrty for decades. As such, they aren't lkkely to try and control Iraq's. Even if they did, the world and the coalition partners would never allow it.
Sixth paragraph: "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." Right or wrong this philosphy often governs human behavior. Also, keep in mind during the Cold War the US was faced with an adversarry in The Soviet Union who was the most powerful mikitary juggernaut the world has ever seen. As such, it's not hard to imagine how the US could find itself in partnerships with some of these groups when common adversaries were faced.
Jay,
Seventh paragraph:The Kurds probably should have gotten more support from the US. Had the goal been a permanent prescence in Iraq or the goal been to break up Iraq this probably would have made sense. Since it wasn't and isn't the goal, others never would have allowed it, and the help that the Kurds can provide us with and the barm they can do to us is very limited, such assistance to them did not receive much consideration. The Kurds are likely unable and unwilling to provide us much help in fighting ISIS beyond their homeland.
Eighth paragraph: it should have come as no surprise the Iraqi army collapsed. Given the fact, that US adversaries have advantages in training and tactics, the US face restrictive rules of engagement, and hostile media coverage limited a US response, in retrospect, this was inevitable. This worked to Iran's advantage.
Ninth paragraph: The Iranians decide whose forced to step down and who isn't in Iraq. They must not have been happy with Maliki. It seems they have someone they prefer.
Since any attempts to fight ISIS in Iraq now primarily benefit Iran our and our most important ally Israel`s enemy, do we really want to help them defeat ISIS? We probably do as this is a common enemy but no one seems to be asking the question which js concerning. ISIS will eventually be defeated. As WNU points out not enough appears to be being thought tbrough on what happens when ISIS is defeated. At least fkr the "West" this seems to be the case. As for Iran and Russia, I'm pretty sure they have thought that through.
I think we can agree US foreign is a mess in needof radical change. Since you have seen many of my posts here, I think you probably have a good idea wg
What my proposals for change are.
WNU
I think that could be very useful to have some of the news you post here .
On a forum format so your readers can go back at anytime after you move on to the next page of fresh news , maybe by setting some tipe of rules like after some post gets 20 comments I don't know
just some of the readers have knowledge
That take's time to absorb.
1) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_system
http://www.lse.ac.uk/middleEastCentre/publications/Paper-Series/SaadJawad.pdf
2) http://wemeantwell.com/blog/2013/03/24/worlds-largest-embassy-soon-to-be-worlds-loneliest-embassy/
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2007/11/langewiesche200711
3) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/mar/20/saddam-hussein-iraq-war-legality
4) http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2005/03/digging
http://www.alternet.org/story/23755/operation%3A_enduring_presence
http://forusa.org/fellowship/2007/winter/enduring-us-bases-iraq/12371
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/revealed-secret-plan-to-keep-iraq-under-us-control-840512.html
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/washington/27military.html?referer=
http://cernigsnewshog.blogspot.ca/2007/05/iraq-occupationforever.html?m=1
5) http://cernigsnewshog.blogspot.ca/2007/05/iraq-occupationforever.html?m=1
http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2014/09/24/iraq-history-hahn
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/29/world/africa/29iht-baghdad.html?pagewanted=all
http://billmoyers.com/2014/06/20/an-iraqi-perspective-how-americas-destruction-of-iraqi-society-led-to-todays-chaos/
http://billmoyers.com/2014/06/20/an-iraqi-perspective-how-americas-destruction-of-iraqi-society-led-to-todays-chaos/
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/11/nouri-al-maliki-iraq-forced-out-prime-minister
6)https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/afghanistan/2005-10-01/blowback-revisited
http://www.sott.net/article/284834-The-mother-of-all-blowback-US-funded-ISIS-Jihadis-create-bind-for-lame-duck-Obama
http://www.sott.net/article/284834-The-mother-of-all-blowback-US-funded-ISIS-Jihadis-create-bind-for-lame-duck-Obama
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33345618
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33345618
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/09/sleeping-with-the-devil-how-u-s-and-saudi-backing-of-al-qaeda-led-to-911.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/kosovo/11818659/Inside-Kacanik-Kosovos-jihadist-capital.html
http://m.dw.com/en/jihad-made-in-kosovo/a-17874069
http://www.prisonplanet.com/us_supported_al_qaeda_cells_during_balkan_wars.html
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2014/01/10/the-historical-us-support-for-al-qaeda/
http://www.projectcensored.org/22-us-and-germany-trained-and-developed-the-kla/
Sometimes, the "enemy" of your "enemy" is not your friend, more so when your "enemy" is not your actual enemy, they just want their Soverignity respected, and their "enemy" wants to burn the whole world down, your house included.
7) a Kurdish state in Iraq is not viable. They have some oil, some gas, some mining and water, but they have no industry, no ports, and not enough airable land to feed the Kurds. The US has a long history of using and betraying the Kurds.
http://fpif.org/the-u-s-is-betraying-the-kurds-again/
http://www.wrmea.org/1991-may-june/the-kurds-suffering-is-rooted-in-past-betrayals.html
8) US trained armies, from South Korea, South Vietnam, Georgia, through Central America, to Africa and Iraq, always collapse. The initial goals of a US MTM is not to create a national armed force capable of peer combat, otherwise, the first thing that Military would do is kick the US out. Mali is a perfect modern example. Decades of US arms and training resulted in an anemic response to the Tuareg/AQIS uprising, a "sucessful" Military Coup toppling the elected Government and the loss of the entire North East to the Tuareg/AQIS under the Military Government. The key to any National Army is a strong National identity and Nationalism, which is an anthema to US goals.
9) Iranian influence in Iraq is considerably less than you think. The Kurds remember the Shah's betrayal during their revolts, and the Kurds remember their abandonment at the end of the Iraq-Iran War and the subsequent Anafal and their removal from their homelands.
The Sunni's hate them.
The Iranian Shia Clergy hold that Iraqi Shiasm is the parent of Iranian Shiasm and that the Iranians are Persians, not Arabs. The Shia Parties formed in exile in Iran, remember the Iranian Purges of their leaders, and many of the Shia, from Sadr City to the Marsh Arabs remember their losses and suffering, on behalf of Iraq, against the Iranians.
But every time the Iranians listen, nod, offer support with out conditions, their influence grows.
While US FP does need a reset, it will not happen for a generation or more. The US no longer embraces reality, the neocon's and Neo-Libs have their third generation of alocytes embedded in State, the Pentagon and the MSM, and the US prefers mythology over history.
Jay,
Thanks for the reply to my posts and for the many links. Time permitting I will try and review them. I am familiar with most of them. Very respectfully many of them you mention such as bbc, the Telegraph, Mother Jones, Washingtonsblog, etc and Wikipedia (when it takes a political viewpoint) are reflexively anti-American. As such, I believe other perspectives need to be sought in addition to these.
As for the various factions in Iraq, I'm well aware of them. The media and the US education systems has made sure every child over age five is familiar with this. The point I was trying to make is Iran and the groups it supports are in the lead role and have been for well over a decade.
Iran "death to America" is an enemy of America and the US media has made sure to make everyone aware of Iranian niceities, has worked tirelessly to undercut any type of military options to deal with this America may one have had, and has generally worked to advance Iranian interests at the expense of America. Basiclly Iran has numerous options at its disposal. In contrast, American options here are extremely limited.
I'd like to see some type of UN tribunal where we could resolve our difference. I see several problems with this though. 1.)I don't Iran is serious. They receive huge benefits from the current situation. 2.)Should the tribunal find for America in some fashion how do we collect? 3.)Where do we find judges/jurors that Iran and its allies cannot intimidate?
As for Kurdistan not being viable, this may be why in addition to other reasons I think I mentioned above why we never pushed for this. With that said industries can be developed and food items can be traded for. In any event, the other nations in the region are never going to allow this state to be created. As such, its a moot point. As for the betrayal aspect, they had unrealistic assumptions of what the US can/should do and the US government did not help matters by failing to dispel such false expectations.
As for the armies collapsing, American military tactics are generally behind our adversaries. As such, when faced with better led and better trained forces, it comes as little surprise that they collapse.
We are in agreement that American foreign policy does need a reset. I think its going to come sooner than a generation though. In a generation, America as we know it is unlikely to exist. Also, even if does still exist in some form a generation from now, the US dollar will lose its role as reserve currency long before then which will greatly change things.
Again, thank you for the dialogue on this.
Post a Comment