home

U.S. Blames Ramadi on Iraqi Forces

By Jeralyn, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Sun May 24, 2015 at 03:23:27 PM EST
Tags: ISIS, Iraq. Syria (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

U.S. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter says the Iraqi Forces are to blame for ISIS' recent takeover of Ramadi. He says they lack the will the fight.

They were not outnumbered. In fact, they vastly outnumbered the opposing force and yet they failed to fight and withdrew from the site,” he said. “That says to me and, I think, to most of us, that we have an issue with the will of the Iraqis to fight ISIL and defend themselves.”

[More...]

Is a strategy shift underway?

“If there comes a time when we have to change the kinds of support we give, we will make that recommendation,” Mr. Carter said. “But what happened in Ramadi was a failure of the Iraqi forces to fight, and so our efforts now are devoted to providing their ground forces with the equipment, the training, and encouraging their will to fight so that our campaign enabling them can be successful — both in defeating ISIL and keeping ISIL defeated in a sustained way.”

< Friday Open Thread | India Prepares 28k Chargesheet Against Shami Witness >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    U.S. Blames Ramadi on Iraqi Forces | 21 comments (21 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    This year marks the 40th anniversary of the ... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun May 24, 2015 at 04:29:20 PM EST
    ... fall of Saigon and the end of the Vietnam War. When the U.S. military departed South Vietnam in 1973, that country was left equipped with the fourth largest standing ground and air forces in the entire world. The South Vietnamese nevertheless collapsed within 27 months' time, for much the very same reasons offered by Ashton Carter about the Iraqi forces.

    When one side is completely demoralized while the other possesses strength of determination and will, the resultant and respective emotional / mental dispositions of the combatants will more often than not dictate the ultimate course of battle and conflict, far more so than any preponderance of technology and equipment in the field on one side or the other.

    Unless we can either convince our Arab allies that this is actually their fight more than ours, and / or make peace with Iran and work in concert with Iranian forces to counter ISIS / ISIL, it's time to pull the plug on Iraq and develop a comprehensive strategy of containment for that self-styled caliphate, rather than seek its annihilation either directly or by proxy.

    Aloha.

    That's just it (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Sun May 24, 2015 at 06:08:16 PM EST
    That is what our Peesident is convincing them of.  And Iraq needs to answer the question about why their forces lack the will to defend the sovereignty of Iraq.  I think the answer is multi pronged.  Iraq has left their troops unpaid for as long as six months and there is no hope of equal protection and opportunity in Iraq.  Perhaps it is time for Iraq to split into the three nations it really is.  There will probably be wars over the oil fields then, such is life.

    Even if Sunnis hadn't been demoralized by the existing Shia Iraq government, I'm not convinced there still wouldn't be a sectarian war underway immediately after the disruption of the existing power infrastructure.  I think that was probably a given no matter what the hell anyone did because neither Saudi Arabia or Iran was just going to sit there, Iraq is a buffer property between the two enemies.

    Parent

    Split into 3 nations (none / 0) (#5)
    by christinep on Sun May 24, 2015 at 06:39:41 PM EST
    A split may be inevitable IF the Sunni portion does not take hold.  VP Biden spotted that potential solution early on.  My only question there: What should be the standard or touchstone for determining that that is the preferred solution?  And, while outside powers principally imposed the first solution of a unified nation-state, should outside forces be the decider this time as well.

    It is somewhat depressing--the staying power (so far) of ISIS.) Yet, the school of thought that things must resolve soon if not yesterday seems unrealistic in a region beset by strife for years. What I'm wondering is what "containment" or some relative of that strategy would look like?  It is one thing to insist on the boots-on-the-ground of the impatient Lindsay G variety ... and it is also another kind of abnegation thing in an explosive area to ignore anything that is too troubling ... but, given our history with expansive forerunners like the USSR, I'm wondering what lesson we can take from that and what ameliorative steps might be rational???

    Thinking, rather than jumping; scoping a full range or options rather than either-or; and, choosing an approach do seem key.  In that process, better communication at all levels has got to occur.  I'm sure that you will understand, MT, when I say that:  Bush was all about bravado (and that was a military mess and humane disaster); and, now, Obama may be taking the taciturn tactic & reaction to a frustrating level.  IMO, the communication of our approach--containment or whatever--has to be honed and stepped up.  Defense Secretary Ash Carter made a clear and compelling statement, for starters, when he stated today on CNN that we cannot substitute for the Iraqis in their fight to protect their land.

    Parent

    JSOC has been in Baghdad for over a year and (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Sun May 24, 2015 at 07:28:19 PM EST
    A half now, so I don't see that the President is taking any different tack.  He has been present in the background with what really is a fearsome force and he is collecting intel constantly and making no move that saves anyone from experiencing the consequences of their actions. I have always known he had special operations boots on the ground.  We all have.  I don't see that he is offering to rescue Ramadi, what I see is that now we are going to have a discussion about how and why ISIS now claims Ramadi.

    Ramadi is a very large city, so it is hard for me to consider the whole of Ramadi belonging to ISIS in a very meaningful long term way.  Their claim is only shock troops short term. If ISIS thinks they can rule Ramadi with a caliphate iron fist they have another think coming, you know....that hearts and minds stuff.

    If Obama really wanted ISIS gone from Ramadi, it would be done, at the expense of our blood and our treasure.  He has the troops in Kuwait to do that.  This isn't his problem though and he knows it.  He isn't going to send regular troops into Anbar ever again.  He's not stupid.  If the powers that be are willing to evolve and grow up, he might have some assistance for them.  If they can't get their $hit together, he's content to watch and collect intel until the powers coming begging...then there are terms.

    As for Iraq splitting, why should anyone at this point do anything other than allow the inevitable to make its approach?

    Parent

    Thank you, MT (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by christinep on Sun May 24, 2015 at 07:36:20 PM EST
    I find your explanation here more helpful than all the other semi-talk so far.  Your background is central to making sense of this maze.

    Parent
    %%norm_font%