Get PJ Media on your Apple

Ron Radosh

America has no good options in Iraq. The real possibility that the Maliki government could collapse reflects an epic failure of our foreign policy and will pose a severe national security threat to the United States.

Liberals and leftists put the blame for this dire situation on the administration of George W. Bush and his key officials, especially Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. Some conservatives agree, arguing that it was foolish and wrong for the United States ever to have intervened to remove Saddam Hussein from power. But most argue that the truth is that real gains were made in Iraq to create stability and the chance for a representative Iraqi government to emerge, after the military surge put into place by Bush — against the advice of many of his own team — proved effective.

There is truth in all sides. As Daniel Pipes put it, U.S. intentions were over-ambitious, and it was “George W. Bush [who] made the commitment to remake Iraq and … signed the ‘Status of Forces Agreement’ in 2008 that terminated the American military presence in Iraq at the close of 2011. For the Republican Party to progress in foreign policy, it must acknowledge these errors and learn from them, not avoid them by heaping blame on Obama.”

While the Bush administration may have made a call that turned out to cost far too many lives, both Iraqi and American, our intervention was based on false intelligence that was taken to heart by a bipartisan coalition of Democrats and Republicans. While Democrats attack the previous administration for its entry into Iraq, most prefer to forget that they too supported that intervention. At best, like Hillary Clinton, they acknowledge that they did, but say that they long since have publicly stated that they were wrong.

I think Dan Pipes is wrong, however, on one major point. A must-read article is out from the correspondent Dexter Filkins, a man widely acknowledged to be the best reporter and analyst on the region. Writing in the New Yorker blog yesterday, Filkins writes that when the U.S. first went into Iraq in 2003, “they destroyed the Iraqi state — its military, its bureaucracy, its police force, and most everything else that might hold a country together.” After many years of sacrifice, we worked to help the Iraqis reconstitute the state and maintain some stability. The failure of the Obama administration was not to keep a strong residual force in Iraq which would have provided a “crucial stabilizing factor,” training Iraq’s army, providing intelligence against Sunni insurgents, and curbing Maliki’s sectarian impulses. With our departure, Filkins concludes, we removed “the last restraints on Maliki’s sectarian and authoritarian influences.”

Most important, however, is the fact that the surge was successful, as was the military policy pursued by General David Petraeus. Ironically, the city of Mosul, which has now fallen to the Sunni extremist Islamic radicals, was in 2003 won by the classic counterinsurgency tactics initiated by the general. There — as his Wikipedia entry notes — his troops acted to “build security and stability, including conducting targeted kinetic operations and using force judiciously, jump-starting the economy, building local security forces, staging elections for the city council within weeks of their arrival, overseeing a program of public works, reinvigorating the political process, and launching 4,500 reconstruction projects in Iraq.”

These were substantial achievements, all of which have now gone down the drain.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Valerie Jarrett: "After we win this election, it's our turn. Payback time. Everyone not with us is against us and they better be ready because we don't forget. The ones who helped us will be rewarded, the ones who opposed us will get what they deserve. There is going to be hell to pay! Congress won't be a problem for us this time. No election to worry about after this is over and we have two judges ready to go."
33 weeks ago
33 weeks ago Link To Comment
Monday, January 6, 2014
An Epic Expression of Failed [Petraeus] COIN Strategy; Fallujah falls to Al Qaida Factions.

John Bernard: "For the better part of five years, I have been decrying the unconscionable use of the historically failed strategy of Counter Insurgency (COIN) in the midst of an ideological monolithic culture; principally of Islam.
What is so damnably frustrating about this is that too many of us to list, foretold of this, years ago. And if there were any left in this country who still held onto the belief that either our civilian leadership or the left-listing General Grade Officers which populate the upper echelon of our Military structure were somehow visionaries and intellectuals, this latest manifestation of a failure of foresight should hopefully drive a spike through the heart of that lingering belief.

Not once - but twice, Marines, Sailors and Soldiers were asked to lay down their lives, "liberating" Al Anbar and most specifically, Fallujah; the second time being tightly restrained by the rigid ROE (Rules of Engagement) borne of the incomprehensibly idiotic paradigm of COIN! And now, two years later, that effort and all that blood, proves to have been for naught!
Third, it is not our place, constitutionally or even morally, to save any people from themselves. Civil wars and internal strife are, by definition, internal. In our haste to re-establish some semblance of order in a country we had invaded, choices were made which changed the dynamics of the balance of power, giving control to the Shiite majority, placing that nation in league with Iran and at odds with Al Qaida which is principally Sunni.

It is clear, these years later, that Al Qaida and the Sunni population in Iraq do not intend to sit idly by, allowing the status quo to stand. Attacking Al Anbar, taking Fallujah and the capital, Ramadi, sends a clear message to Baghdad. It also should cause the "dead" in DC to take note. Where there were assurances made about the strategy shift to COIN and the naïve compartmentalization of Iraqi society during the war, it ought to be crystal clear now that those assumptions were wrought with error. It should also be clear that interfering in another nation's governmental business or trying to fix a perceived problem in that regard can yield unintended consequences."
33 weeks ago
33 weeks ago Link To Comment
Obama is unlikely to change advisers. These are his people, his clones. There is no Obama without Jarrett. They are one and the same.
33 weeks ago
33 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (68)
All Comments   (68)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
I wouldn't play politics with the Iraq crises: there is too much at stake.

Our involvement in Iraq changed the country completely from a Sunni dominated secular tyranny to a Shia dominated religious tyranny.

I would suggest that we concentrate on the now and the future and stop arguing about "who was at fault." The cause lies within the mideast itself, its history and geography as well as its demographics.

We need to recognize the dangers involved right now in doing nothing. We can't allow Iran to take over the country anymore than we can allow the Islamists to take over.
32 weeks ago
32 weeks ago Link To Comment
This is a cheap shot perhaps, but when do we have a responsibility to save people from themselves? What burden should we take on? Accepting responsibility for their madness? It does not make sense to lose lives to try and save others who have better things to do than save themselves.
EVERY country in the middle east should be quarantined. No humanitarian aid, no shipping, no flights, no cultural exchange, no banking access. Nothing.
Every country should look at their immigration policy and ask themselves: are these people worth accepting and putting our people at risk? A lot of people would gasp in horror but I ask them: would you rather gasp in horror at that or flinch every time a New York, or Boston, or London, or Madrid is attacked? Oil? We have plenty, thank you. What are the odds that Europe couldn't benefit from fracking? Energy is abundant.
What about Russia and China, you ask? What about them? Are they working in our interest? I think not. Would THEY want to open their borders as we have to the Muslim immigrants that bring with them their pestilent religion? I don't think so.
Who cares how the middle east map was drawn one hundred years ago? The only correct action the west has ever done in the middle east is to allow Israel to be born. If there were ever a correct action to take would be to use Israel as an aircraft carrier in a sea of hate and bomb them to smithereens. Let them crawl out of the rubble and ask themselves "Now what?"
From Morocco to the Sudan, and from Bosnia through Turkey to Afghanistan AND Pakistan, let them implode and be done with it.
33 weeks ago
33 weeks ago Link To Comment
Not a question of what we can do. The question is whether we should do anything at all. The history of this administration is nothing but foreign policy failure. The first rule when you're trapped in a hole is to stop digging.
33 weeks ago
33 weeks ago Link To Comment
Pipes is an optimist. Like David Goldman, an associate of his, he thinks that Arab nationalists could have kept the lid on Islamists. His 2003 article argued that once we had removed Saddam we should immediately put in a benign strongman, an Ataturk. That would have bought time but not much more.

The days of secular nationalists are almost over. Mubark was disposed and the Muslim Brotherhood easily got the votes. The military saw it had one last change and took control ... for now. Assad is under siege in Syria. Saddam presided over a nation that was becoming increasingly religious. Gaddafi is gone. It didn't take much to end the reign of these secular thugs.

Muslims are returning to Islam. It is known as the Islamic revival. Islamists got the votes in Algeria, Turkey and Egypt -- major Islamic nations, not backwater hillbilly territory like Afghanistan. This is a dynamic internal to their culture.

Neither Bush nor Obama is to blame for Islam. The Islamic civil war can't be avoided but we can keep out of it. We can only alter the timing or place. The decent into Islam has to play out.
33 weeks ago
33 weeks ago Link To Comment
That's the really great thing about making bad choices.

Eventually, you are left with zero GOOD choices.
33 weeks ago
33 weeks ago Link To Comment
Sunnis and Shiites fighting ... ... how is that bad for us infidels?

Now if we could just gather them up and put them fixed in Northern Mexico maybe we wouldn't have so many Mexicans and Central American third world invaders coming across our southern border as they wouldn't want to run that gauntlet.
33 weeks ago
33 weeks ago Link To Comment
No protracted war can fail to endanger the freedom of a democratic country. War does not always give over democratic communities to military government, but it must invariably and immeasurably increase the powers of civil government; it must almost compulsorily concentrate the direction of all men and the management of all things in the hands of the administration. If it does not lead to despotism by sudden violence, it prepares men for it more gently by their habits. All those who seek to destroy the liberties of a democratic nation ought to know that war is the surest and the shortest means to accomplish it. This is the first axiom of the science.- Alexis de Tocqueville

Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor damped, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent (Iraq and Afghanistan), other chieftains (Russia and China) will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue. - Sun Tzu

1. The United States should not commit its forces to military action
overseas unless the cause is vital to our national interest.
2. If the decision is made to commit our forces to combat abroad, it must be
done with the clear intent and support needed to win. It should not be a
halfway or tentative commitment, and there must be clearly defined and
realistic objectives.
3. Before we commit our troops to combat, there must be reasonable assurance that the cause we are fighting for and the actions we take will have the support of the American people and Congress.
4. Even after all these other tests are met, our troops should be committed to combat abroad only as a last resort, when no other choice is available.
- Ronald Reagan

But don't listen to any of these men as what did they know? Just let the Republican party become the party of perpetual war and the Chamber of Commerce crony capitalists and thier lobbyists.
33 weeks ago
33 weeks ago Link To Comment
"There is truth in all sides. As Daniel Pipes put it, U.S. intentions were over-ambitious, and it was “George W. Bush [who] made the commitment to remake Iraq and … signed the ‘Status of Forces Agreement’ in 2008 that terminated the American military presence in Iraq at the close of 2011. For the Republican Party to progress in foreign policy, it must acknowledge these errors and learn from them, not avoid them by heaping blame on Obama.”"

Yes, let us all completely ignore all the HATE that was poured on Bush, and blame the GOP for this mess in Iraq. Obama had nothing to do with it. He did his best to clean up the mess, but it was just too much.

33 weeks ago
33 weeks ago Link To Comment
I no longer remember the reason for invading Iraq. I know that it had to do with WMDs, and I know that Hussein (oh, how wonderful the simplicity of the name: no “Barack” ahead of it, and no “Obama” to be pronounced after it) did support some jihadist groups, but why did we go in again? We have satellite pictures to today of the WMDs being transported out by Russians prior to our invasion, so I know we (or our leaders) knew about it at the time, yet invaded anyway. So why did we do it, again? I remember building anger in the headlines whipping up public anti-Hussein indignation about something at the time, but I don’t remember what the indignation was about.

I doubt that anyone thought that Iraq could be transformed into a modern western free-market intellectually-diverse society of mini-skirted muslims parading in praise of Israel and the rest of the West, so what did the US expect to achieve?

And the US seemed content enough to over-fly northern Iraq and occasionally dodge a pot-shotted ground-to-air missile.

I do remember that after the fact, opponents defined US involvement as a criminal deception justifying destroying WMDs that did not exist.

The questions remain:
1- So why did we go in after the WMDs were taken out?
2- Why didn't Bush or his administration say WHY they didn't find any?
33 weeks ago
33 weeks ago Link To Comment
The headline poses two very simply answered questions. Who is responsible? Bush, Hillary Clinton, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Kerry, and all the Iraq warhawks. What can be done? Not a thing. Iraq needs to partition along natural lines, we can help it happen constructively or let let it happen willy-nilly...

The gates of hell were opened by Bush I andI II, Iraq suffers. Good luck Obama.
33 weeks ago
33 weeks ago Link To Comment
Nobody self-flagellates like a Republican and nobody follows them down to that whipping post like a conservative.

Nobody craps on the heads of conservatives, sounding EXACTLY like seditionist the Ron Paul/Buchanan isolationist crowd.

Bush is responsible? Six years after he left office, with no ability to make adjustments, adaptations, and decisions for six freaking years? And HE'S responsible for Syria, Libya, Iran, Ukraine, South China Sea? Give me a freaking break.

Who is responsible if the nut in the pajamas blows up a part of South Korea? Eisenhower?

If Russia grabs all of Eastern Europe? Reagan?

If China snaps up the Philippines? MacArthur? Truman?

If the Muslims drive Israel into the sea? Moses?

As I recall, the WORLD said Saddam had chemical and biological weapons. Weren't there 18 pending resolutions about them or some such thing? Didn't William Cohen go on the Sunday morning Susan Rice shows with a five pound bag of white powder. Didn't Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Madeline Albright, Sandy Socks Berger and Cohen say that Saddam was the greatest threat to world security?

That he could hand off weaponized chemicals to al Qaeda type gangs...offshoots of which were IN Iraq? Didn't they all say he had to be stopped?

Didn't Bush give Saddam an out? Let the inspectors in and NO attack would befall him?

Now...after Obama has let the Muslim Brotherhood and all the terrorists run roughshod over the Middle East....BUSH is the problem?

Get a freaking grip.

We had planes hijacked and slammed into our buildings. WAR WAS DECLARED ON THOSE CHARRED BODIES.

We RESPONDED to a declaration of war against us. The sissified Woodstock pullout, lead from behind and blame America crowd...along with the Ron Paul blame America crowd can go to hell.

We were not to blame. We had nothing to apologize for and the terrorists should have gotten their asses kicked then...and now.

BUSH is responsible? Get lost.

Obama and the Woodstock Jihadists are responsible for this, the cratering of the economy, the lack of jobs, the destruction of the free market, the assault on citizens rights, the demolition of the Constitution, the use of the IRS, DOJ, EPA and other agencies as weaponized attacks on conservatives, Republicans, Judeo-Christians and one skin color.

I don't want to hear it any longer. I'm sick and tired of the slanders and false attributions.

Obama and this criminal cabal posing as a political party are responsible. There is no "sharing" of blame. The arrow points all in the same direction.

Stop feeding the troll trough. And stop falling for the suckers lines. Ron Paul and his followers are no better than the seditionist left. They blame America and Israel and conservatives for everything. They can join the treasonous left in hell.
33 weeks ago
33 weeks ago Link To Comment
If you think opposing George "Islam is Love, not Hate" Bush's "Great Islamic Society Nation Building" in Iraq and Afcrapistan means someone must be a Ron Paul disciple, you are suffering from some very serious delusions.
33 weeks ago
33 weeks ago Link To Comment
You sure do dump on conservatives and Republicans quite a bit. And sound very much like a Soros leftist when doing so.

Much like Ron Paul does.

I call them as I see them.
33 weeks ago
33 weeks ago Link To Comment
Then you see but you do not observe and you hear but you do not listen. As to your "sissified Woodstock" crack above , I had just finished Field Artillery OCS (Class 13-69) at Fort Sill, OK a few weeks ago at the time. Where were you, Rambo?
33 weeks ago
33 weeks ago Link To Comment
I was putting traitors in jail.

You never made it out of training?

"Woodstock Jihadists" are small c communists. Is there a confession in your answer? Why would you take umbrage at that comment if it did not hit the mark with you?

How...precisely do you differ...if you now try to disentangle yourself?

How do you differ from Ron Paul?

I'm betting on a non-answer...aversion tactics.
33 weeks ago
33 weeks ago Link To Comment
Your reading comprehension sucks beaucoup and you sound more and more like just a silly teenager, maybe preteen.
33 weeks ago
33 weeks ago Link To Comment
You throw that Rambo crap around pretty loosely there, Audie Murphy. Oh I forgot, he was in the Big INF. I suppose you think Eisenhower got you into Vietnam too, right?
33 weeks ago
33 weeks ago Link To Comment
Ok, whatever. You are the anti-war guy.

I'm not interested in your résumé. And I won't give you mine.

We disagree. I'll leave it at that.
33 weeks ago
33 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 Next View All