Tag Archives: iraq

Support for Ground War Against ISIS Keeps Growing

by JoshuaCBAwm Posted on October 2, 2014

Mother Jones

“So much for war weariness,” crows Ed Morrissey today, and unfortunately it’s hard to argue with him. Here’s the latest:

This is a Fox poll, so maybe we have to take it with a grain of salt. Question 22, after all, is about whether Barack Obama has been too tough or too soft on radical Muslim extremists, and that probably primes the ol’ military aggression pump a wee bit. Still, these are the highest favorability ratings I’ve seen yet for ground action against ISIS, and they seem to rise with every new poll.

So will these numbers just keep going up, until the whole country is good and lathered up for Iraq War 3.0? Or, after a few months, will Americans get tired of the whole thing and lose interest? The evidence of history can point either way. In the meantime, however, I reserve the right to remain very, very nervous about Obama’s ability to hold out against the tide of war.

Link: 

Support for Ground War Against ISIS Keeps Growing

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Support for Ground War Against ISIS Keeps Growing

$26 Billion in US Aid Later, the Iraqi Military Is a Total Disaster

by TwylaDutton Posted on September 25, 2014

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

As US bombs rain down on ISIS targets in Iraq and Syria, analysts agree that this war will ultimately be won on the ground. Too bad the Iraqi defense forces are a shambles. The New York Times reports that the United States still has to train the country’s 26 “intact and loyal” brigades. And the Iraqi government has yet to recruit and set up national guard units. “It is not going to be soon,” says a State Department official.

Sound familiar? Following the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, the US government spent billions trying to rebuild Iraq’s security forces so they could fight insurgents such as ISIS. By the fall of 2012, about a year after the full withdrawal of American troops, this effort had consumed about half the money the US government spent on Iraq’s reconstruction, according to the final report of the Special Investigator General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR).

Here’s where that money went:

Training the Iraqi military: $1.32 billion
SIGIR says: “As with the police force, the number of troops reporting for duty continually fell below desired levels, with AWOL rates exceeding 3% per month.”
Providing military, logistical, and maintenance support for the Iraqi military: $2.6 billion
Renovating and building Iraqi military bases: $4.1 billion
Supplying the Iraqi military with aircraft, boats, tanks, armored personnel carriers, and other gear: $3.4 billion
Developing an elite counterterrorism force: $237 million*
Maybe: Since the US government did not keep track of this specific expenditure, SIGIR says “the total costs of the program remained unknown.”
Training, staffing, and supplying Iraqi police: $9.4 billion
Developing the “Sons of Iraq” program to train to provide jobs for about 100,000 mostly Sunni insurgents: $370 million
SIGIR says: “Financial controls were weak, program managers could not tell whether SOI members received their US-funded salaries, and the Pentagon was unable to provide evaluations of the program’s outcomes.”
Developing other infrastructure security programs: $300 million
Shoring-up Iraq’s courts: $681 million.
SIGIR says: “The court system contends with human rights issues, including reported acts of torture and retaliatory prosecutions by police and military authorities.”
Building prisons, including the never-completed Khan Bani S’ad prison: $165 million

Total cost of rebuilding, training, supplying the Iraqi military, police, and justice system: Around $26 billion

Meanwhile, the estimated cost of the new war in Iraq? Around $15-$20 billion. That’s according to a recent estimate by Gordon Adams, Bill Clinton’s defense budget confidant and a professor at American University. But that could change quickly. Two weeks earlier, Adams estimated this campaign would cost $10-$15 billion.

See more here:

$26 Billion in US Aid Later, the Iraqi Military Is a Total Disaster

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on $26 Billion in US Aid Later, the Iraqi Military Is a Total Disaster

A Wee Question About That Residual Force Everyone Keeps Blathering About

by ZenaidaNeblett Posted on September 11, 2014

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Here’s something I don’t get. Republicans seem to universally hold the following two opinions about Iraq and ISIS:

  1. President Obama is to blame for the military success of ISIS because he declined to keep a residual force in Iraq after 2011.
  2. In the fight against ISIS, we certainly don’t want to send in combat troops. No no no.

“Residual force” has become something of a talisman for conservative critics of Obama’s Iraq policy. It’s sort of like “providing arms,” the all-purpose suggestion for every conflict from hawks who know the public won’t stand for sending in ground troops but who want to support something more muscular than sanctions. It’s a wonderful sound bite because it sounds sensible and informed as long as you don’t think too hard about it (what arms? for whom? is anyone trained to use them? etc.). Luckily, most people don’t think too hard about it.

“Residual force” sounds good too. But if we don’t want boots on the ground in the fight against ISIS, what exactly would it have done? Hang around Baghdad to buck up the morale of the Iraqi forces that came fleeing back after encountering ISIS forces? Conduct ever more “training”? Or what? Can someone tell me just what everyone thinks this magical residual force would have accomplished?

Link: 

A Wee Question About That Residual Force Everyone Keeps Blathering About

Posted in Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on A Wee Question About That Residual Force Everyone Keeps Blathering About

Here’s Why Congressional Approval for War Is So Important

by DwightPILbeb Posted on September 11, 2014

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

In my previous post, I complained that I wasn’t sure what would prevent further escalation in Iraq “aside from Obama’s personal convictions.” A friend emails to ask just what I’d like to see. In the end, aren’t the president’s personal convictions all that prevent any military operation from escalating?

It’s a fair point, and I’m glad he brought it up. The answer, I think, lies in congressional approval for military action, and this is one of the reasons I think it’s so important. If Obama is truly serious about not sending combat troops into ISIS-held areas in Iraq, then let’s get a congressional resolution that puts that in writing. Let’s get an authorization for war that spells out a geographical area; puts a limit on US troop deployments; and specifically defines what those troops can do.

Would this be airtight? Of course not. Presidents can always find a way to stretch things, and Congress can always decide to authorize more troops. But nothing is airtight—nor should it be. It’s always possible that events on the ground really will justify stronger action someday. However, what it does do is simple: It forces the president to explicitly request an escalation and it forces Congress to explicitly authorize his request. At the very least, that prevents a slow, stealthy escalation that flies under the radar of public opinion.

Presidents don’t like having their actions constrained. No one does. But in most walks of life that deal with power and the use of force, we understand that constraint is important. Surely, then, there’s nowhere it’s more important than in matters of war and peace. And that’s once of the reasons that congressional authorization for war is so essential.

Jump to original: 

Here’s Why Congressional Approval for War Is So Important

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here’s Why Congressional Approval for War Is So Important

The ISIS Speech: Obama and the Dogs of War

by EugeniaScholz Posted on September 11, 2014

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Here is President Barack Obama’s challenge: how to unleash the dogs of war without having them run wild.

This dilemma applies to both the political and policy considerations Obama faces, as he expands US military action in Iraq (and possibly Syria) to counter ISIS, the militant and murderous outfit that now calls itself the Islamic State and controls territory in northern Iraq and eastern Syria. In a speech from the White House on Wednesday night, Obama announced what was expected: the United States would widen its air strikes against ISIS in Iraq, “take action” of some sort against ISIS in Syria, ramp up military assistance for the Syrian opposition, keep sending advisers to assist the Iraqi military’s on-the-ground-campaign against ISIS, and maintain pressure on Iraqi politicians to produce a national government that can represent and work with Sunnis and, consequently, undercut ISIS’s support and appeal in Sunni-dominated areas of the country—all while assembling a coalition of Western nations and regional allies. (He gave no details about the membership of this under-construction alliance.) The goal: to “degrade and ultimately destroy” ISIS. There were no surprises in the speech, and this strategy of expanded-but-limited military intervention—Obama referred to it as a “counter-terrorism campaign” different from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan—has a fair amount of support from the politerati and the policy wonks within Washington and beyond, as well as from the public, per recent polling. But whatever he calls it, the president is attempting a difficult feat: waging a nuanced war.

Continue Reading »

Continued here:

The ISIS Speech: Obama and the Dogs of War

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The ISIS Speech: Obama and the Dogs of War

Liberal Dems Are Split Over Obama and ISIS

by crosby7647 Posted on September 10, 2014

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

On Wednesday night, President Barack Obama will lay out his plan to take down ISIS, the Islamist group that has conquered vast swaths of Iraq and Syria and recently beheaded two American journalists. Obama is expected to outline a strategy that will involve working with a coalition of other nations, continuing air strikes, and training and advising the Iraqi military—but not reintroducing US ground troops. Yet even before the speech, a group of progressive lawmakers in Congress were voicing opposition to greater US military intervention in Iraq and Syria, while other liberal Democrats were supporting Obama’s steps toward more extensive, though limited, military action against ISIS. Though recent public opinion polls show a majority of Americans supporting air strikes against ISIS and the sort of military action Obama is adopting, his expansion of the US military role in Iraq (and possibly Syria) is threatening to split his own party.

Progressive Democrats opposed to greater US military intervention in Iraq tend to note that they share the widespread revulsion for ISIS, but they maintain that ramping up US military action is not necessary to protect US national security, would likely be ineffective, and could enmesh the nation (once again) in a prolonged and costly conflict. “While the US has an obligation to prevent imminent genocide, military force is not an effective solution to the broader strife afflicting Iraq,” says Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC). A July letter signed by 51 CPC members cautioned that “any solution to this complex crisis can only be achieved through a political settlement.”

Continue Reading »

Continue reading: 

Liberal Dems Are Split Over Obama and ISIS

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Liberal Dems Are Split Over Obama and ISIS

Is It Time For Yet Another War?

by Chet66Bkpm Posted on September 9, 2014

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Dave Weigel sums up the recent American reaction to ISIS:

On August 18, the airstrikes helped Iraqi forces take back the Mosul dam from ISIS. The next day, ISIS released a video of captured journalist James Foley being beheaded by one of their men.

The video, surely meant to sow fear and breed over-reaction, succeeded magnificently. The panic showing up in polls, in which the number of Americans favoring airstrikes in Iraq and Syria has surged, has been matched by a return of panic-first politics….The long Democratic dream, from Kerry to Obama, of reducing terrorism from an existential threat to a managable nuisance, is just not an election-winner.

This is, sadly, not surprising at all. For years, the conventional wisdom has been that Americans are weary of war, and the conventional wisdom is largely correct. At the same time, it’s always been obvious that Americans remain easily susceptible to the same kind of bloody-shirt waving that got us into the Iraq war in the first place. The only thing that’s saved us is the fact that President Obama isn’t a bloody-shirt waver. Even when he’s initiated military action, his public persona has been quiet and reluctant.

But now we’re seeing just how easy it is to whip Americans into a war frenzy yet again. Even with Obama striking his usual no-drama pose, the public is becoming increasingly belligerent. All it took was a carefully stagecrafted beheading video and the usual gang of conservative jingoists to exploit it. For now, the lack of presidential blood lust is holding back the tide—barely—but that’s a thin reed. If Obama wanted to go to war, it would be the work of a moment to whip up a war frenzy in a solid majority of the country.

And just think about how tempting it must be. A full-blown military assault on a loathsome enemy like ISIS would almost certainly be a big campaign winner for Democrats this fall.

War weary? Sure, as long as the president keeps a low profile. But if he decides to change his mind, the American public will back him up. After all, Americans have historically gotten a little restless if they don’t have a new war every four or five years, and it’s been about that long since we pulled out of Iraq. Maybe we’re due.

Read article here – 

Is It Time For Yet Another War?

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Is It Time For Yet Another War?

ISIS is a Test of Leadership. Real Leadership.

by MelbaHausmann Posted on September 4, 2014

Mother Jones

From Ron Fournier, writing about President Obama and the threat of ISIS:

A columnist should never admit uncertainty, but here’s mine: I’m not ready to side with the hawks or the doves.

It’s conventional wisdom that columnists should always be self-assured. But can someone explain why? I know that sounds naive, but seriously. Why? Why should opinion mongers be expected to have firm, considered, immediate views on every possible subject? I get that nobody wants to read someone who dithers about everything, but shouldn’t we be equally suspicious of those who somehow manage to cobble together unflinching insta-opinions about everything under the sun?

In any case, Fournier is making the—obvious?—point that there’s nothing wrong with Obama taking time to figure out what to do about ISIS. That’s doubly true since he’s working in the shadow of the lies and incompetence that brought us the Iraq war:

President Obama is a living reflection of this psychological context. Uncertain and contradictory, Obama is grasping for the right mix of hawk and dove to rally Americans, unite the world, and confront ISIS without locking the United States into another unholy mess.

God bless him. It’s a hellish task. Obama’s lack of clarity so far has drawn criticism from the across the political spectrum, including from me (here and here). Two loyal readers remind me by email, and for different reasons, that Obama needs time to get this right.

Yes indeed. Sometimes you have to make a fast decision, even if you have limited knowledge. That’s life. But other times you don’t, and you’d be foolish to lock yourself into a decision when you have time to collect more intelligence. This is the true lesson of leadership: Make decisions as fast as possible, but no faster. That’s what Obama is doing.

Follow this link: 

ISIS is a Test of Leadership. Real Leadership.

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on ISIS is a Test of Leadership. Real Leadership.

ISIS is a Problem That Only Iraqis Can Solve

by Arlen23Bbfkswz Posted on September 2, 2014

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Christopher Paul and Colin Clarke have studied 71 insurgencies during the post-WWII period and have concluded that every successful counterinsurgency shared several characteristics. They apply the results of their research to the problem of the ISIS insurgency in Iraq:

First, we found that in every case where they succeeded, counterinsurgent forces managed to substantially overmatch the insurgents and force them to fight as guerrillas before getting down to the activities traditionally associated with counterinsurgency….U.S. air power could make a significant contribution toward that end. Airstrikes will help curb Islamic State advances in strategically important parts of Iraq and thus, help bolster the Iraqi government and security forces, at least in the short term.

Second, we concluded from the research that “effective COIN practices tend to run in packs”….Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) techniques identified three COIN concepts critical to success. These three concepts were implemented in each and every COIN win, and no COIN loss implemented all three: Tangible support reduction; commitment and motivation; and flexibility and adaptability.

….U.S. support to an Iraqi counterinsurgency strategy to defeat the Islamic State must focus on reducing tangible support to the insurgents, increasing the commitment and motivation of the Iraqi military and security forces and increasing the government’s legitimacy among Iraqi Sunnis.

It’s been a long time since I spent much time reading about COIN and COIN strategies, but this basically sounds right to me. And it should send a shiver down the spine of anyone who thinks the US should get deeply involved in fighting ISIS.

Here’s why. One of the key factors that I remember identifying during the height of the Iraq insurgency was local commitment. In a nutshell, it turns out that virtually no postwar COIN effort led by a big Western country has been successful. Western help is OK, but the COIN effort has to be led by the local regime. It’s not a sufficient condition for success, but it’s a necessary one.

Paul and Clarke are basically confirming this. Sure, American air strikes might help in terms of the sheer firepower needed to successfully fight ISIS. But of the other three key COIN practices, two are purely local and the third is mostly local. There’s very little the United States can do to help out on these fronts. Only the Iraqi government can increase its legitimacy among the Sunni minority, and only the Iraqi government can properly motivate its military. (The US can provide training and materiel, but it can’t provide commitment and motivation.) Even the problem of reducing tangible support for the ISIS insurgents is mostly something only the Iraqi government can do. The US can help, but only if Iraqis are leading the way.

At the moment, there’s little evidence that the Iraqi government is capable of doing any of these three things. The new government of Haider Al-Abadi might be able to make progress on these fronts, but it hasn’t demonstrated that yet. Until it does, more US help is almost certainly doomed to failure.

Instinctive hawks should think long and hard about this. The record of the United States in counterinsurgencies is dismal. If the conditions are just right, we might be able to do some good in Iraq. At the moment, though, the conditions are appalling. We can put a few fingers in some dikes, but unless and until the Iraqi government steps up to the plate, there’s virtually no chance that deeper US involvement will turn out well.

Visit site: 

ISIS is a Problem That Only Iraqis Can Solve

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on ISIS is a Problem That Only Iraqis Can Solve

Quote of the Day: Let’s Just Drop a Few Bombs and See What Happens

by LettieOdum Posted on August 27, 2014

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

From Bill Kristol, during an appearance on conservative radio host Laura Ingraham’s show, bringing his megawatt analytic powers to bear on the problem of ISIS in Iraq:

What’s the harm of bombing them at least for a few weeks and seeing what happens? I don’t think there’s much in the way of unanticipated side effects that are going to be bad there.

You can’t make this stuff up. We liberals often accuse folks like Kristol of mindlessly advocating military action all the time, no matter what. But we’re exaggerating, aren’t we? Nobody literally wants to unleash an air campaign just to see what happens. Nobody just casually ignores the possible drawbacks. That’s ridiculous! Why do we insist on juvenile caricatures like this?

I don’t know. Why do we?

Continue reading:

Quote of the Day: Let’s Just Drop a Few Bombs and See What Happens

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Quote of the Day: Let’s Just Drop a Few Bombs and See What Happens