Obama Wars
See other Obama Wars Articles
Title: The Iraqi Army No Longer Exists
Source:
DefenseOne
URL Source: http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/201 ... exists/114607/?oref=d-topstory
Published: Jun 7, 2015
Author: Barry Posen
Post Date: 2015-06-09 07:34:20 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 4523
Comments: 21
The fog of war lies thick over the battlefields of Iraq and Syria. Deliberate enemy deception, willful self-deception, and the complexity of large-scale combat ensure that the truth about war is almost always obscured by a kind of fog. Occasionally a major event parts the clouds and reveals a few fragments of truth, only to have the fog close in again. The collapse of Iraqi defenses in Ramadi is one such event. But we must look quickly to learn anything at all. The most important fact revealed by ISIS’s victory is that the “Iraqi Army” no longer exists. This is a different observation from that of Secretary of Defense Carter, who avers that they lost the will to fight. Some people did lose the will to fight in Ramadi. But, we should ask a more fundamental question. Ramadi was under siege for months. How is it that few if any reinforcements were sent to defend a city deemed critical to the defense of Baghdad itself? Public sources reported some fourteen divisions in the Iraqi Army in 2014. Between three and five were destroyed in Mosul, leaving nine. At most one was defending Ramadi. Where were the rest? Indeed, where are they now? How is it that Shiite militias must be called upon to liberate Ramadi? If the Iraqi Army has evaporated, or perhaps more accurately deteriorated into a collection of local militias and palace guards, then the U.S. "re-training" mission in Iraq is vastly more difficult than we have been led to believe. Having claimed to build an Iraqi Army, which seems not to exist, and which one doubts ever really existed, the U.S. military is now trying to build another one, from the ground up. Why will things turn out better this time? ISIS’s victory in Ramadi also reveals that it is quite capable, not merely tactically, but at the “operational level.” Put another way, it is good not merely at fights, which require committed fanatics who are good with a gun, but at campaigns, which require canny commanders, logistical support, coordinated mutually supporting battles, movement, and intelligence. In Ramadi, despite U.S. command of the air, ISIS was able to sustain its forces for many months. They were able to manufacture very large truck bombs, requiring tons of explosives, to support their final offensive. They attacked under the cover of a sandstorm, which helped neutralize U.S. air power. Finally, in light of ISIS’s success in Ramadi, we must revisit claimed coalition successes such as the fight at the Syrian border town of Kobani, and the “victory” in Tikrit. It was a mystery why ISIS fought so hard for a worthless border town, in the face of waves of U.S. air attacks. In retrospect, one suspects that they were “going to school” on us—spending lives and equipment to learn how to operate in the face of sustained U.S. air attack, which they apparently have figured out how to do. Central Command has claimed that since the campaign began air attacks have killed 8,500 ISIS fighters. These claims seem implausible. The battle of Tikrit, viewed in light of the Ramadi success, now appears as a matador’s cape, a diversionary operation to draw the attention of Iraqi government forces, militias, the Iranians, and the U.S. away from Anbar province and ISIS’s preparations for the attack on Ramadi. Press reports of ISIS casualties in Tikrit do not suggest large losses. Tikrit was well defended, but not heavily defended — an economy-of-force operation, reliant largely on IEDs. If so, the amount of time and energy and collateral damage it required to re-take that town bodes ill for future attacks on places that ISIS might heavily defend, such as Mosul. Of course, the fog of war only lifted briefly, and we still cannot see the whole picture, which may be worse, or for that matter, better. But the notion that the Iraqi Army, and the supporting U.S.-led coalition, can soon go on the offensive against ISIS seems a fantasy. If instead, an offensive is launched with the collection of Shia militias that now forms the core of the Iraqi government’s military power, heavily supported by U.S. airstrikes, then we can be sure that any victories they might enjoy will be immensely destructive to the local infrastructure, and will be followed by the most brutal repression of the local Sunni Arab population — not the victory for Iraqi civil society U.S. leaders seek, but rather a guarantee of new waves of recruits for jihad. What policy therefore ought the U.S. to follow? The ingredients exist in the region for a loose ring of containment around ISIS. That ring strengthens when ISIS pushes into areas populated by other ethnic or religious groups. The U.S. should buck up these defenders with weapons, money, intelligence, and air strikes, when they are under pressure, but should be under no illusions about their capability to defeat ISIS, re-occupy huge swathes of Iraq, and bring those areas into a cohesive Iraqi political community. Poster Comment: 
"Run away...run away!"
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 17.
#1. To: TooConservative (#0)
Perhaps they aren't interested in fighting for a U.S backed democracy. Maybe they prefer the Koran and it's barbaric code for society.
Not a democracy. It was more of a democracy under Saddam with enforced tolerance of minority religions and broad integration of different minorities (including Jews and Christians) in many neighborhoods. We gave them a constitution which enshrined Islam as Iraq's official religion. So it became a question of which Islam was to rule Iraq. The Shi'a are a majority of over 60% in Iraq. Two-thirds of the 1.5 million Christians have fled, many to seek refuge with the Kurds. The small ancient Jewish community, dating back to the Babylonian captivity, are all gone now. The great surprise here is how completely inept and disloyal the Iraqi army is, considering the billions we spent on training it. And, contrary to the spin the GOP candidates are trying to apply, leaving a residual force of 10,000 in Iraq would not have saved the regime at all. It would only have drawn us back into the civil war that started because we took the violent dictator, Saddam, out of the picture and unleashed the inevitable civil war that would follow, exactly as Bush Senior and James Baker thought it would when they refused to topple Saddam after Gulf War I for exactly that reason.
How many of them were there only to collect a paycheck?? And I would imagine since we pulled out the paychecks got fewer and further between.
Actually, many of them were not there and still collected paychecks. Apparently, many soldiers didn't think they were getting paid enough so they covered for each other in being AWOL while they worked other jobs in the civilian sector, often hundreds of miles from where they were (supposedly) stationed. While it is true that many Iraqi army soldiers did retreat from ISIS assaults, many of them simply were not at their assigned posts to begin with. You may recall in previous major actions like the Mosul conquest, the soldiers woke up and found all their generals and commanders had fled during the night. Combined with all their fellow-soldiers who were off moonlighting for extra cash in Baghdad, it's easy to see why the rest decided to flee as well.
Apparently, many soldiers didn't think they were getting paid enough so they covered for each other in being AWOL while they worked other jobs in the civilian sector, often hundreds of miles from where they were (supposedly) stationed. While it is true that many Iraqi army soldiers did retreat from ISIS assaults, many of them simply were not at their assigned posts to begin with. You may recall in previous major actions like the Mosul conquest, the soldiers woke up and found all their generals and commanders had fled during the night. Combined with all their fellow-soldiers who were off moonlighting for extra cash in Baghdad, it's easy to see why the rest decided to flee as well. The above is a trait of many of the Arab armies. Arab 'leaders' have one solution for such. Public flogging or execution. That keeps the AWOL and desertion rate down in their culture. Early in the war in the summer of 2003 one of my unit missions was to train Iraqi national guard soldiers. Basically to be employed as fixed site security and patrolling market places. Providing an Iraqi presence in everyday Iraqi life. I put one of my CPTs in charge of the academy as a command for him. When it came to the point where they were to all go on leave for 96 hours he refused to pay them. So I was called in to mediate. They still had another two weeks of training to conduct. So the CPT reminds me he is "Texican" and lived in south Texas all his life and experienced the migrant workers from Mexico in his town. So he tells me that if we pay the Iraqis for 'half a job' and let them go, they will never come back. Which was his experience with Mexican workers. I thought that was a good analysis so checked the regs and there was some wiggle room. The agreement said we did not have to pay them until the job was done, but could pay them a stipend to support their family. So we paid them enough to support their families. They all came back on time. So much to opine on with regards to the posted article. Hope to comment more later.
I think it is more and more apparent that the Iraq army would have fallen apart even if we had left the 10,000 soldiers there that Obola pulled the plug on.
Hard to tell. We do know what the effect IS for leaving when we did. Don't get me wrong, we needed to get out of that crap hole. Flip side is we did leave them at best with three highly rated divisions, most intermediate level and the rest just standing up. The training was not the issue. A lot of these men (and women) were trained in some fashion under Saddam. It was taking former militia commanders and trying to integrate them as leaders (officers) along side former regime leaders. This did not mix well. So from a US military perspective the grunt training is not the issue. It is a leadership issue. As you noted, if your commander runs or is inept at the tactical and operational levels of war, soldiers run or die---in their culture. This is foreign to Americans because if a leader is not up to snuff they are relieved and another takes his/her place. But we have centuries of military academies, leader schools, and most importantly probably the best senior leader mentorship programs in existence. This is where we really tried to help the Iraqis the most. Any goon can train a guy to point a rifle, pull a lanyard, drive a tank. The leadership portion of fighting is what brings victory. The Iraqis come from a culture where their military leaders were boot licks of the dictator Saddam. He ordered they did it and if a general was not successful they died or worse put in Uday's prison. If the soldiers did not comply they were punished or killed. It is what keeps these Arab armies 'functioning.' I don't think our top advisory teams in country truly believed this is how it is, but it is how it is. So the GOP argument has merit but for the wrong reasons. Where their argument falls apart is 'how long' it would take to stand up what 'we' think is a viable Iraqi army. My take? A whole generation of properly trained leaders who not only have training but leadership experience in combat. Maybe some of those leaders are being developed 'by fire' now but because they are not in the right Shia 'social club' they will never rise as did peasants in Napoleon's army. So of course we are not expected nor would anyone (not even the GOP candidates) want to sign up for a 'generation' of advising and shedding blood in Iraq. So we left but now so silently are coming back (where are the articles on that bit of news). Add to the above the Iraqis are in contact with the enemy NOW. No such advising to build for its future is in sight when the enemy is here NOW. What we are left with is a decision no Dimwit or Pub wants to make and I don't blame them...The decision being we just tread water infuse some arms, a bit of training and combat advising, some airpower and hope ISIS does not sweep the country. This is what we are doing NOW. Or just let the Iraqis figure it. Which will eventually lead to Iran coming in to bail out the Shia government. Or the most unpopular of all...redeploy combat Brigades in Iraq engaged in direct combat. Those are the choices. Each one has its snare and consequences. Some consequences immediate and some potentially fatal in the future. I don't envy the choices or lack there of. That is why Obolo keeps saying for two years now he is 'waiting for options from the Pentagon.' He's not waiting. He probably has been given at least a dozen OPLANs which address the three main positions above; Keep doing what we are doing; do less; do more; do even more; do even, even more. He does not like what he is seeing because he campaigned to end the war there period. So he is stuck with status quo right now and won't make any other decision. Now Maliki. When we left Maliki he had an army and security force which could handle the small pockets of insurgency and terrorism in his country. He did not have an army to fend off an invasion from another country or a sustained open terror campaign. The largest threat to Maliki was Anbar and Nineveh provinces, the heavily Sunni areas. He knew he would be facing a tough fight still (even in 2011) in Mosul (Nineveh) but Anbar was peaceful due to the "sons of Iraq" movement in 2007 where Sunni insurgents abandoned AQI to fight with coalition forces and the Iraqi army against AQI. Promises from Maliki and the Shia dominated government were made, and in my last tour we watched Maliki break every one of those promises. This created a vacuum of young men out of work AGAIN, and open for ISIS recruiting. Now we are seeing the 'fruits' of Maliki's betrayal. There are probably some 'old hands' in Washington's foreign policy elite who are saying to themselves "Maliki and the Shia's are getting exactly what they deserve." So, there's more to this than a 'properly' trained Iraqi army. The leadership is key to any Army..That is why every army tries to kill each other's command posts and leaders with it. Especially Arab armies. And as I mentioned Maliki failing to meet the promises of the 2007 accord with the Anbar Sunni leaders. With Arabs "a contract is a contract is a contract." Break the contract and all hell breaks loose. So the GOP and Dimwit field of pols have to answer the tough questions: If Iraq falls to ISIS is that a threat to our national security and interests? If we do deem it is an interest, they need to state 'the why' and 'how' to get there. Every 'how' must pass the FAS test not a hysterical call to arms against something that 'may' happen down the line. This is how National Security Strategy was done before 9/11. It is the type of gritty defense planning not seen since Ronald Reagan's administration. Since then the formal process of national security planning and defense planning guidance to support it, have been given lip service or a knee jerk reaction to conflicts not knowing the 10-20 years and beyond implications. So that is the heavy stuff the candidates need to answer. Not the fluff they get from the left 'MSM' and even Fox News. Also, the blame game of past presidents, even Obolo may work in the political arena, but that dog don't hunt in the world of reality. We have a mess and the next president is going to have to call out the cleaning crew, or hand someone else a broom or just leave the house entirely. Stay tuned to what they say.
Subtext: don't mix new Shi'a leaders with the established old guard of Saddam's Ba'athist general staff. IOW, the worst features always present in any poorly led conscript army. With competent leadership, even conscript armies can do amazing things. Without that leadership, you get the present Iraqi army. Or the Ukrainian army. Or most of the old Soviet army (most of who would have been put under guard by Russians had the Soviets and NATO ever gone to war). Jack Keane said the same on FNC today. He also mentioned that even with the airstrikes that have been authorized that Obola has tied their hands with ROE that no civilians can die in these strikes at all. Surely no military campaign has ever been fought that way because the enemy quickly learns to shield themselves with civilians to be immune from airstrikes. Absolutely. An ISIS/al-Qaeda homeland must be averted, no matter what. I think we should be bombing all the oil wells, the bandit refineries, and electrical facilities. Send ISIS back to the 7th century and all who have welcomed them into their towns. We must not allow ISIS to prosper in any way. We also need to ratchet up pressure on Turkey to close its border and apprehend any terrorists passing through.
I think we should be bombing all the oil wells, the bandit refineries, and electrical facilities. Send ISIS back to the 7th century and all who have welcomed them into their towns. We must not allow ISIS to prosper in any way. We also need to ratchet up pressure on Turkey to close its border and apprehend any terrorists passing through. Perhaps the Saudis and Jordanians should pony up a bit more to fighting and defeating ISIS. They seem to have a much higher stake in this than we do. Knowing Papa Bush is not popular, he did get an Arab alliance together during DS/DS. That was to put an Arab 'face' on an alliance. However, this time the Arabs need to fight and be in the lead. I think we should be bombing all the oil wells, the bandit refineries, and electrical facilities. Send ISIS back to the 7th century and all who have welcomed them into their towns. Such an operation requires some ground exploitation after the air attacks. Something this nation and pols out there today will not subscribe to. Von Clauswitz is often quoted on instructor power point slides, but he did get that 'triangle' thing right. No nation even in the 21st century can endure any war if the pols, people and military are not unified in a national effort. The US is presently in a state where they don't want any conflict at all. The people don't want more blood shed, dead GIs and more Warrior Project commercials; the pols know any war is toxic to their popularity ratings; and the military frankly wants to recover from 15 years of continuous deployments. That's where we are realistically. Which means we are ripe for a large complex and coordinated attack on our home soil sometime soon.
The Jordanians are blameless. Qatar got this ISIS mess started with their funding, the Saudis joined in with Turkey serving as portal and British and French intel agencies hovering. Also key to ISIS was extensive funding from the Kuwaiti elite, apparently including some members of the royal family. Jordan is blameless over ISIS, IMO. As is Israel and Egypt.
There are no replies to Comment # 17. End Trace Mode for Comment # 17.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: A K A Stone (#1)
(Edited)
Perhaps they aren't interested in fighting for a U.S backed democracy.
#3. To: TooConservative (#2)
The great surprise here is how completely inept and disloyal the Iraqi army is, considering the billions we spent on training it.
#4. To: CZ82, redleghunter (#3)
How many of them were there only to collect a paycheck?
#5. To: TooConservative, CZ82 (#4)
Actually, many of them were not there and still collected paychecks.
#6. To: redleghunter (#5)
#7. To: TooConservative, CZ82, GarySpFc, tomder55 (#6)
I think it is more and more apparent that the Iraq army would have fallen apart even if we had left the 10,000 soldiers there that Obola pulled the plug on.
#8. To: redleghunter (#7)
A lot of these men (and women) were trained in some fashion under Saddam. It was taking former militia commanders and trying to integrate them as leaders (officers) along side former regime leaders. This did not mix well.
He ordered they did it and if a general was not successful they died or worse put in Uday's prison. If the soldiers did not comply they were punished or killed. It is what keeps these Arab armies 'functioning.'
That is why Obolo keeps saying for two years now he is 'waiting for options from the Pentagon.' He's not waiting. He probably has been given at least a dozen OPLANs which address the three main positions above; Keep doing what we are doing; do less; do more; do even more; do even, even more. He does not like what he is seeing because he campaigned to end the war there period. So he is stuck with status quo right now and won't make any other decision.
If Iraq falls to ISIS is that a threat to our national security and interests?
#14. To: TooConservative, GarySpFc (#8)
Absolutely. An ISIS/al-Qaeda homeland must be averted, no matter what.
#17. To: redleghunter (#14)
Perhaps the Saudis and Jordanians should pony up a bit more to fighting and defeating ISIS.
Replies to Comment # 17.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]