Anthony Cordesman is unhappy with President Obama’s “dribble-in” strategy in Iraq and Syria:
This approach does not address the general pointlessness of training 5,000 supposedly moderate rebels a year when our key Arab allies are supporting the non-ISIL rebel forces, when the last report on recruits for the 5,000 man force totaled all of 90, when there is no clear political goal or way of dealing with Russia and Iran, when Syria’s economy has collapsed, and when more than 11 million of some 19 million people are refugees or internally displaced persons within homes or jobs of their own.
The announcement does nothing to address the critical issue of Iran’s role in Iraq and Syria, or of countering its growing influence in Iraq and Syria. It could lead Iran to try to use Shi’ite militias and its advisory efforts to block U.S. efforts to reach Iraq’s Sunnis, and they certainly seem unlikely to have an end game where the United States creates an Iraq independent enough to stand up to Iran, or do anything to address the role of Iran and the Hezbollah in Syria. It also does nothing to strengthen the weak to non-existent bridges between the Iraq government and our major Arab allies, or raise their flow of aid to Iraq, as a counter to Iran.
It does not address Iraq’s deep and growing internal political and military divisions between Arab Sunni, Arab Shi’ite, and Kurd – divisions likely to be steadily fueled by Iraq’s much lower oil revenues, Iranian pressure, and the Kurdish seizure of new disputed territory in Ninewa and around Kirkuk. It has been clear from the start that success in Iraq required a far better solution to its internal problems – and quite possibly some form of federalism – as well as much more effective governance.
I’m dissatisified with it as well but for somewhat different reasons, namely it’s complete lack of coherence in terms of its foreign policy objectives. That lack of coherence drives one to the supposition that the president’s “incrementalism” is not intended to satisfy foreign policy objectives at all but just to enable the president to run out the clock until Iraq is somebody else’s problem.
Iraq the independent nation-state does not exist, and if it ever exists again, it will be under conditions the delusional hawks will not like. Iraq is the new Lebanon, and when Assad is gone, Syria will be Lebanon III.
The land that was once controlled by brutal dictators will now be controlled by even more brutal terrorists, and each terrorist group exterminated will be replaced by another more brutal terrorist group.
The way for Iraqis to take back the land is to draft Iraqi soldiers. The draftees are the frontline troops, and the elite troops are behind them. The conscripts can either win and go home, or they can lose and be shot. There was a reason Saddam used the methods he used.
If you cannot stomach it, stay the f*ck out. I am not asking or advising anybody to be a warmonger, but if you want to pretend to be one, you need to go all the way. Step number one is tossing your emotions out the window. Otherwise, you are just going to make things a lot worse.
Well, good news for Mr. Cordesman! The Donald promises to find the next Patton or MacArthur to kick ISIS’s butt just as soon as he’s elected.
…
In other, related, news, I’m waiting for The Donald to declare that he self-identifies as a Mexican lesbian. He could be the first Hispanic President, the first woman President, AND the first openly homosexual President ever!
With the worst comb-over. And the competition for that one is pretty stiff.
That’s no comb-over. That’s a tame, and very rare, miniature blond ant-eater living on his head.
Excuse me, HER head.
Our choices, looking at our 2016 candidates, is dribble-in, with no combat troops, or another invasion. While I would prefer less involvement, I certainly don’t want a lot more.
Steve
I reject those two alternatives, steve. If the only choice I have is between a candidate who supports building up our troops in Iraq gradually and one who supports building up our troops in Iraq quickly, I’ll vote third party or not at all.
Vote BLANK in 2016.
It sounds like you need a 2nd party choice. Your first two options are just the same party trying to hustle you. By masquerading as separate parties, they always win. When enough people refuse to play the game their way, a real 2nd party will emerge, and then, there will be a real choice.