Monday, December 28, 2015
Iraqi Army Retaking Ramadi Doesn't Help Obama's No-Strategy Image
In a strange mix of news yesterday, successful Iraqi forces shared headlines with a cornered President Obama. ~~~~~ Iraq Prime Minister al-Abadi said Monday that in 2016 his forces will defeat ISIS, after his military achieved its first major victory since collapsing in the face of ISIS fighters 18 months ago. Iraqi forces raised the national flag at the main government complex in Ramadi, declaring they had "liberated" the city west of Baghdad that fell to ISIS fighters in May. Al-Abadi was euphoric : "2016 will be the year of the big and final victory, when Daesh's presence in Iraq will be terminated. We are coming to liberate Mosul and it will be the fatal and final blow to Daesh," al-Abadi added. Mosul, northern Iraq's main city, is the largest population center in the self-proclaimed ISIS caliphate in Iraq and Syria. The Iraqi army's capture of Ramadi is a milestone for US-trained forces that collapsed when ISIS ripped through Iraq in June 2014. Until this victory in Ramadi, since 2014 Iraq's armed forces operated mainly as support beside Iranian-backed shiite militias -- and we might ask how much al-Abadi is indebted to Iran, not the US, for the Ramadi victory. ~~~~~ President Obama, on vacation in Hawaii, received an update on the Iraqi forces' progress in Ramadi, according to the White House, which issued a statement : "The continued progress of the Iraqi Security Forces in the fight to retake Ramadi is a testament to their courage and determination, and our shared commitment to push ISIL out of its safe-havens." Baghdad has said for months that its forces were rebuilding and would halt ISIS advances in Anbar, a sunni province reaching from Baghdad's outskirts to the Syrian border. After encircling Ramadi for weeks, Iraqi forces launched an assault to retake it last week and made a final push on Sunday. Progress was slowed by explosives planted in streets and booby-trapped buildings. ~~~~~ Al-Abadi is a shiite, but he has said Ramadi will be handed over to local police and a sunni tribal force once it is secured, in an attempt to encourage sunnis to help resist ISIS. If al-Abadi follows through on this strategy, it would mimic the US military "surge" campaign of 2006-2007 that recruited and armed sunni tribal fighters against an ISIS predecessor. Anbar, including Ramadi, was a major focus of that surge campaign at the height of the 2003-2011 US war in Iraq. It was the President George W. Bush surge that brought Iraq under control -- until Obama unilaterally withdrew all US troops in 2011. ~~~~~ But, dear readers, President Obama and his White House advisors, even if they try to take credit for a GW Bush strategy, will still have to contend with the fact that Americans are not satisfied with how the war on terror is progressing. A new CNN/ORC poll finds that more Americans are now saying the terrorists are winning than at any point since the 9/11 attacks. The poll, conducted between December 17 and 21, found that 75% say they're dissatisfied following the terrorist attacks in San Bernardino and Paris, surpassing a high point of 61% in August 2007. However, only 40% of Americans say the terrorists are actually winning. In other findings, 59% of Democrats are dissatisfied with how the Obama White House fights terrorism, as well as 79% of independents, and 86% of Republicans. Yet, Americans hold out hope, CNN reports : 53% of Americans say the US can absolutely repel attacks, and 58% of Republicans say all attacks can be prevented, while 45% worry they or a family member will be a victim of terrorism. And, although 51% have at least moderate confidence in the White House's ability to protect citizens from terrorism, only 17% say they have a great deal of confidence. The dissatisfaction is reflected in Obama's approval ratings : 52% of Americans disapprove of his handling of the presidency, 60% disapprove of his handling of terrorism, and 64% disapprove of how he's handling ISIS. So, the retaking of Ramadi gives Obama little reason to brag about his 'non-strategy' in Iraq.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It will be the "lasting" control of Ramadi that will tell the tale of the Iraqi questionable ability to hold against ISIS.
ReplyDeleteOne battle a war it does not make. A victory at war is the culmination of many small victories strung together in a long line.
Ramadi may or may not be solidly in the win column for the Iraqi Army and the PM al-Abadi. If the forces of al-Abadi can hold Ramadi is another question.
ReplyDeleteThe main question is will PM al-Abadi a Shiite actually follows through on his promise to return control of Ramadi to the Sunni forces.
And another important question is will Obama step aside, stay out of the photo ops and allow the Iraqi’s take credit and move forward building on their new found victory in their country. When all is said and done it is the Sunni & Shiite Iraqis that will have to make peace between them and rebuild their country.
When Obama freely grant the enemy safe havens and/or announces troop withdrawal dates and refuses (via rules of engagement) to allow experienced soldiers to take the fight to the enemy, we’re set up for failure. We’re sowing weakness and reaping defeat.
ReplyDeleteBy my count Iraq & Afghanistan are two wars where Obama has squandered significant military advantages and put American on a path to defeat. In Afghanistan — with the exception of occasional spectacular attacks – tragedy has unfolded largely outside the public’s view. Violence has escalated, the Taliban control an increasing number of Afghan districts, and now ISIS even has a presence in the country. In 2008 there were 698 total fatalities from terrorist bombings. By 2011, that number exceeded 1,000. In 2012, it topped 2,000, and last year 2,284 people died by terrorist bombs.
In Iraq, the catastrophe has dominated world headlines, and American-allied forces have been slow to recapture lost territory even with American air support. The latest flag rising in Ramadi has yet to be proven to be permanent or just another diversion from reality.
There are some who would say that the recent record demonstrates that the Iraq and Afghan wars were unwinnable — that we never should have fought.
Societies like ours would not support military operations involving significant casualties unless they had both a clear and vital strategic purpose, and at least a reasonable chance of achieving that purpose. Public support for the war in Vietnam was not destroyed by the casualty lists themselves, but by the sense that the purpose of the war was unclear and that chances of success were minimal. It was not so much the loss of soldiers' lives, but the sense that they were being wasted.
ReplyDeleteThe conflicts that we find ourselves aimlessly wondering around in the Middle East is exactly on the same brink as the Viet Nam War, until San Bernardino massacre happened a few weeks ago.
Now the people of America needs straight forward answers – something which is not a trade mark of Obama or his Administration,
So instead of the mass street demonstrations of the 1970’s we may see a voters protest on November 8, 2016 – Presidential Election Day.