With all the political oxygen taken up by the Iran nuclear agreement, missing was the coverage of outgoing Army Chief of Staff Raymond Odierno assessment on what lead to the rise of ISIS.
General Odierno was the overall ground commander in Iraq after the surge of U.S. forces which lead to the ultimate elimination of al-Qaeda in the country. When the last U.S. forces left Iraq, Gen. Odierno was a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff serving as the Army’s Chief of Staff, which he will soon relinquish.
Odierno and other current and former military leaders have openly stated that the lack of U.S. presence left a void which the Islamic State was able to fill, causing the current situation in Iraq today.
This candid assessment comes from the Army Chief of Staff, a former Commandant of the Marine Corps, former U.S. Central Command commander, former defense secretary in the Obama administration, and finally the current commander of U.S. Central Command, who also was the last ground commander in Iraq in 2011, and privately had reservations about that decision.
The Washington Times reported that military officials have said that a residual American air-and-land combat force could have steeled Iraqi Security Forces and blunted the Islamic State’s invasion of northern and western Iraq last winter and spring. The U.S. could have prevented the harm done to Iraq’s command structure by Nouri al-Maliki as prime minister, and helped quell bickering among Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds.
Gen. Odierno, in an interview last week commented, “If we had stayed a little more engaged, I think maybe it might have been prevented. I’ve always believed the United States played the role of honest broker between all the groups, and when we pulled ourselves out, we lost that role.”
Former Central Command Commander General James Mattis, appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee in January stated, “I would tell you that the military, the senior military officers, we all explained that the successes we’d achieved by 2010-2011 were — and this is a quote — ‘reversible,’ that the democratic processes and the military capability were too nascent to pull everyone out at one time.”
Even former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta commented that “I really thought it was important for us to maintain a presence in Iraq, and the decision was we ought to at least try to maintain
Now we cannot go back in time and re-debate the policy which led the U.S. to remove all combat forces from Iraq, we have to start now by formulating a strategy to defeat ISIS.
The questions that needs to be addressed of all candidates vying of the presidency in 2016, is what is your strategy for defeating ISIS? And what is your strategy for the broader Middle East?
Over the weekend Turkey granted the United State the use of the Incirlik air base to conduct military operations against ISIS.
Steven Cook of the Council of Foreign Relations reported that this development followed a year of negotiations, allowing the United States to use Incirlik airbase to conduct operations against the so-called Islamic State. In return, the Obama administration has agreed to the establishment of a “safe zone” in northwestern Syria that “moderate Syrian opposition forces” would protect, along with Turkish and American airpower. Second, Turkey undertook airstrikes against Islamic State positions in Syria and the forces of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) in northern Iraq.
This decision has changed the complexities of the conflict, with Turkey growing unease at the gains Kurdish forces have made against ISIS. Turkey has had long seeded hatred of the Kurds and is adamant against a homeland for the Kurdish people.
With this change in policy, the U.S. still has not articulated a strategy for Syria. What is the administration’s strategy for dealing with the Syria leader? Why has Turkey decided at this time to allow the U.S. to use the Incirlik airbase? What is their strategy, and is it in line with our strategy?
Now, back to the original question of military commanders at odds with the White House regarding the rise of ISIS, the situation has been confusing ever since.
Having spoken with military and civilian personnel at U.S. Central Command, many feel frustrated with the lack of a strategy from the White House. Far too often the White House wants a strategy from the Pentagon, and the president twice has mentioned, “We don’t have a strategy,” but the administration fails to understand the axiom articulated by Carl von Clausewitz. “War is nothing more than the continuation of politics by other means.”
With the presidential election in full swing, what strategy will both Republican and Democrats be willing to pursue to defeat ISIS? Military commanders repeatedly stress they need for guidance on what strategy the White house wants to pursue, it will be impossible to defeat ISIS without it.
Without a strategy, the situation against ISIS will continue, and if left unchecked will force the United States into a situation we do not want to be in.
Leave A Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.