In Washington, a town in which most people, both government and non-government employees, are involved, one way or another, in public relations spin, the thing that will get you in the most trouble is telling the simple truth. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter recently stepped in it by stating what should have been obvious to the world: He blamed Iraqi forces for the loss to ISIS of Ramadi, an important Iraqi provincial capital, telling CNN that, The Iraqi forces just showed no will to fight. They vastly outnumbered the opposing force and yet they withdrew from the site.
Although evidence that Carters conclusion was not rocket science came in the form of video showing Iraqi military vehicles fleeing at high speeds from the town, Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi diplomatically rebuffed the provider of U.S. military assistance to his forces by saying, I am sure he was fed with wrong information. Yeah, right.
In classic Washington form, Vice President Joe Biden had to call Abadi to clean up Carters truthful indiscretion. The White House issued the following statement: The vice president recognized the enormous sacrifice and bravery of Iraqi forces over the past eighteen months in Ramadi and elsewhere. Although episodes of sacrifice and bravery on the part of the Iraqi troops very well could have occurred, these forces, which the United States spent eight years training, cut and ran in critical situations when ISIS forces, inferior in number, initially took over about one-third Iraq last year and in Ramadi more recently.
If all of this wasnt enough, Gen. Qassim Suleimani, the head of Irans elite Revolutionary Guards Quds Force, which is helping the Shiite Iraqi government defend against ISIS, countered that the United States has no will to fight against ISIS and was leaving everything up to the Iranians and Iraqis. He then added that the United States didnt do a damn thing to stop ISISs advance on Ramadi.
There is some truth to Suleimanis second allegation. Ramadi was besieged for a long time, but neither the United States nor the Iraqi government did much to send assistance. In the case of the Iraqi government, it was scared to arm Sunni tribes to fight ISIS because it was afraid those weapons could later be used for Sunni resistance to the oppressive Shiite government. As for Suleimanis first allegation, that has some truth to it too. U.S. public opinion is tired of overseas military quagmires, especially in Iraq. The American people, reacting to ISISs beheading of a few Americans after the United States had commenced bombing the group, seemed to want some U.S. action against the group, as long American military casualties werent high and the operation didnt turn into another quagmire on the ground. That is why the Obama administration has confined itself to ineffectual, and maybe even counterproductive, air strikes instead of reinserting large numbers of ground forces back into Iraq.
Yet, Suleimanis snide comments, although largely correct, beg the question of why the United Statesbeing on the other side of the world from the conflictshould be involved at all. However, the Iraqi government should be concerned about ISIS, which is largely a threat to the Middle East region, and so should neighboring Iran. The major reason that ISIS could encourage lone wolf terrorists (of much less threat than organized groups, such as al Qaeda or its regional affiliates) to launch attacks on American soil is to get non-Muslim (read: U.S.) forces out of the Middle East. (Come to think of it, that is al Qaedas main gripe with the United States, too.) In the 1980s, Hezbollah, a Shiite group that was created to counter non-Muslim Israels invasion of Lebanon, also attacked U.S. targets until the United States withdrew its troops from that country, then on a one-sided peacekeeping mission to help Israel and its Christian allies there. Once U.S. forces pulled out, Hezbollah attacks on the U.S. targets gradually dissipated. The same likely would happen with any lame lone wolf attacks against U.S. targets by ISIS, which is mainly concerned with setting up an Islamist state in Iraq and Syria.
Islamist terrorism against the United States is primarily caused by the fact that its a non-Islamic country attacking or invading Muslim lands. One doesnt need to agree with the terrorists methods to scrutinize their motives for attacking. Since the 9/11 attacks in 2001, the Bush and Obama administrationsand Americans in generalhave not had the courage to examine this question. Instead, subsequent to 9/11, they merely doubled down and attacked or invaded more Islamic countriesseven to be exactthus helping to proliferate and strengthen Islamist terrorist groups around the region.
Perhaps the fall of Ramadi will be similar to the Tet Offensive in Vietnam in 1968. The Viet Cong, backed by the North Vietnamese, invaded South Vietnam. U.S. and South Vietnamese forces defeated the Viet Cong militarily, but politically the war effort lost much steam at home because the U.S. government had assured Americans that the United States was winning there. The massive enemy offensive belied that claim. Up until Ramadi in Iraq and Palmyra in Syria were overrun by ISIS, the U.S. government was once again telling Americans that the enemy was on the run. This time, the enemy didnt just win politically, but militarily, too.
If a Tet Offensive-style effect eventually stopped U.S. bombing of ISIS, and all U.S. forces were withdrawn from non-strategic Iraq and Syria, the United States and its people actually would be safer. However, now no military draft exists to involuntarily send young men (and now maybe women) to fight and die in faraway lands for no reason, as there was during the Vietnam War. The only downside to this improvement in policy is that the full cost of war is felt by only the small percentage of the population in the voluntary American militarys families. Thus, unfortunately, the United States probably will continue muddling along in Iraq and Syria, and may even gradually get sucked into another ground quagmire.
|Ivan Eland is Senior Fellow and Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at the Independent Institute. Dr. Eland is a graduate of Iowa State University and received an M.B.A. in applied economics and Ph.D. in national security policy from George Washington University. He spent 15 years working for Congress on national security issues, including stints as an investigator for the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Principal Defense Analyst at the Congressional Budget Office.|
Taking a distinctly new approach, Ivan Eland profiles each U.S. president from Washington to Obama on the merits of his policies and whether those strategies contributed to peace, prosperity, and liberty. This ranking system is based on how effective each president was in fulfilling his oath to uphold the Constitution.