Fall of Ramadi raises doubts about US strategy in Iraq

[webfact]

Fall of Ramadi raises doubts about US strategy in Iraq
By ROBERT BURNS

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Islamic State group's capture of Ramadi, a key provincial capital in western Iraq, calls into question the Obama administration's strategy in Iraq.

Is there a Plan B?

The current U.S. approach is a blend of retraining and rebuilding the Iraqi army, prodding Baghdad to reconcile with the nation's Sunnis, and bombing Islamic State targets from the air without committing American ground combat troops.

But the rout in Ramadi revealed a weak Iraqi army, slow reconciliation and a bombing campaign that, while effective, is not decisive.

On Monday, administration officials acknowledged the fall of Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province, as a "setback." They still maintained, however, the campaign would ultimately bring victory. They counseled patience and said periodic setbacks are to be expected in confronting the Islamic State.

But anything close to a victory appeared far off. In gaining control of Ramadi over the weekend, Islamic State fighters killed as many as 500 Iraqi civilians and soldiers and caused 8,000 people to flee their homes. On Monday the militants did a door-to-door search looking for policemen and pro-government tribesmen.

One alternative for the Obama administration would be a containment strategy — trying to fence in the conflict rather than push the Islamic State group out of Iraq. That might include a combination of airstrikes and U.S. special operations raids to limit the group's reach. In fact, a Delta Force raid in Syria on Friday killed an IS leader known as Abu Sayyaf who U.S. officials said oversaw the group's oil and gas operations, a major source of funding.

Officials have said containment might become an option but is not under active discussion now.

Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, issued a written statement Monday that suggested Ramadi will trigger no change in the U.S. approach.

"Setbacks are regrettable but not uncommon in warfare," Dempsey said. "Much effort will now be required to reclaim the city."

It seems highly unlikely that President Barack Obama would take the more dramatic route of sending ground combat forces into Iraq to rescue the situation in Ramadi or elsewhere. A White House spokesman, Eric Shultz, said Monday the U.S. will continue its support through airstrikes, advisers and trainers; he pointed to an intensified series of coalition air assaults in the Ramadi area, which included eight strikes overnight Sunday.

The administration has said repeatedly that it does not believe Iraq can be stabilized for the long term unless Iraqis do the ground fighting.

Ramadi may not be the most important prize in Iraq but it carries special significance to many in the American military because it was the scene of bloody battles against insurgents, costing many U.S. lives before the city was pacified in 2006-07.

Pentagon officials insisted Monday the current U.S. approach to combating IS in Iraq is still viable and that the loss of Ramadi was merely part of the ebb and flow of war, not a sign that the Islamic State had exposed a fatal weakness in the Iraqi security forces and the U.S. strategy.

"We will retake Ramadi," said Col. Steve Warren, a Pentagon spokesman. The timing, he added, will be up to the Iraqi government.

Analysts are skeptical. Stephen Biddle, a George Washington University professor of political science who periodically advised U.S. commanders in Iraq during the 2003-2011 war, said Obama has been trying to split the Sunni tribes away from the Islamic State while pressing the Iraqi government to foster and rely on non-sectarian military forces.

"That's clearly not working, or at least it's not making the progress we had hoped it would make," Biddle said.

The Institute for the Study of War, which closely tracks developments in Iraq, said Ramadi was a key Islamic State victory.

"This strategic gain constitutes a turning point in ISIS' ability to set the terms of battle in Anbar as well to project force in eastern Iraq," the institute said.

The full implication of Ramadi's fall is hard to define. But it almost certainly includes not only suffering for Ramadi's residents but also a delay in any Iraqi push to retake Mosul, the largest city in northern Iraq and an Islamic State stronghold since last June.

U.S. officials had said as recently as February that they hoped the Iraqis would be ready to march on Mosul by April or May, but those hopes had faded even before Ramadi was lost.
___

Associated Press writer Nedra Pickler contributed to this report.


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-05-19

[JockPieandBeans]

This headline is diabolical.

Ex Pm Nouri Maliki bears most of the responsibility for the current IS problem in Iraq. It was he, who forced the Coalition Forces from Iraq. Despite being advised to the contrary, he knew best. He thought it would be a great idea to announce Nationally that he would order and set a timeline for removing Coalition Forces from Iraq. He believed that this would consolidate his power.

Anyone that believes that the IA is / was capable of conducting operations against any sort of enemy is seriously deluded. They are not capable of fighting sleep. In fact, that is probably the only one of two thing that they are good at.

The other being corruption.

Abadi, who took power in September, is under pressure to stamp out the graft that flourished in the armed forces under his predecessor, Nouri al-Maliki. Widespread corruption has been blamed for contributing to the collapse of four of the army’s 14 divisions in June in the face of an offensive by Islamic State extremists.

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/dec/01/tp-50000-ghost-soldiers-on-iraqi-army-payroll/

[ALLSEEINGEYE]

why is it the USA's responsibility? All of the Arab nations in the region should be the only ones getting involved. It's their religion, it's their mess. Let them deal with it or live with it!!!

[realenglish1]

This is a sad state of affairs. Obama does not want anything to do with this no matter how much of a threat this is to the USA.

It is typical of Obama is is a Commander that has lost his way. It may not necessarily be the responsibility of the USA to oust ISIS with boots on the ground. I am 50% in favor of that. It is however the responsibility of the USA to show leadership and they are not. They should take over command and control of the boots on the ground and direct then how to beat ISIS . The arab countries need assurances from the USA that they will not walk away again.

So far Obama has shown more words then real leadership Remember he was drawing the line in the sand with Syria. It reminds me of that cartoon where you see the character actually draw a line in the sand and tellls tha person not to cross that line. After he does cross the character again draws another line in the sand and says in a deeper voice. Ok I dare you to step over that line too. And of course nothing happens when they do This is Obama. No one in the world community believes what he says anymore. To put it bluntly He lies.

Thank god there is an election next year Dem Or Republican we cannot do worse than Obama

[manarak]

Bombings are effective against forces that have been engineered and sophisticated to some degree. Bombs need targets.

Against loose infantry guerilla using light arms and light vehicles, bombings are at best an annoyance to the enemy command, because there are no targets of value.

One of the things I would do to defend territory against ISIS is to establish fortified points with hermetic security. Such medieval-like strong points would allow to maintain strength with fewer troops.

[thaibeachlovers]

Strategy, what strategy?

Obama is too busy trying to save what is left of his legacy to worry about what is happening in Iraq. After all, ISIS is only JV 555555555555.

Anyway, only US boots on the ground can save this, and quite rightly the US public would never wear that.

Now the US is reduced to hoping that Iran can save Iraq .

[chuckd]

Somebody on the ground with their eyes open might been of some help...even eyes in the sky?

This is the celebratory parade after the fall of Ramadi.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

A couple of Daisy Cutters would have worked wonders.

[Robby nz]

There may be those who would suggest there have been serious doubts about the US strategy in Iraq ever since a previous president decided that country needed a different leader.

Could the strategy back then have anything to do with why it now falls on the US to attempt to clean up the mess that (recently admitted) mistake has made ?

[bartender100]

They hate us, they hate each other, let them all kill each other if thats what they want, whoever wins will still want to sell the oil

[Suradit69]

raises doubts about US strategy in Iraq

Raises??

Yes, it wasn't until now that anyone had any doubts about the whole Iraq debacle. Of course, part of what "we know now" is that the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld Cabal manufactured the "intelligence" that was used as an excuse ... something that Marco Rubio artfully dodges.

Or as Rumsfeld demonstrated so clearly regarding strategy.

Now what is the message there? The message is that there are no "knowns." There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don't know. So when we do the best we can and we pull all this information together, and we then say well that's basically what we see as the situation, that is really only the known knowns and the known unknowns. And each year, we discover a few more of those unknown unknowns. It sounds like a riddle. It isn't a riddle. It is a very serious, important matter. There's another way to phrase that and that is that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It is basically saying the same thing in a different way. Simply because you do not have evidence that something exists does not mean that you have evidence that it doesn't exist. And yet almost always, when we make our threat assessments, when we look at the world, we end up basing it on the first two pieces of that puzzle, rather than all three.

Edited May 19, 2015 by Suradit69

[Chicog]

I think the strategy is great.

Let them use up all their weapons and money fighting each other.

Iran is crapping itself because it doesn't know how to deal with the threat (maybe that's why it wants a nuke).

Assad doesn't know who he's supposed to be fighting.

Saudi and the rest of the GCC are crapping themselves because they're scared of Iran *and* IS, even though it was them that gave IS real legs in the first place. Just crack open a beer, microwave some popcorn and sit back and watch the show.

It will be a lot easier to restore order when a few of the various factions have been eliminated.

Going in there now just makes you a target for all of them.

[MaxYakov]

I think the strategy is great.

Let them use up all their weapons and money fighting each other.

Iran is crapping itself because it doesn't know how to deal with the threat (maybe that's why it wants a nuke).

Assad doesn't know who he's supposed to be fighting.

Saudi and the rest of the GCC are crapping themselves because they're scared of Iran *and* IS, even though it was them that gave IS real legs in the first place.

Just crack open a beer, microwave some popcorn and sit back and watch the show.

It will be a lot easier to restore order when a few of the various factions have been eliminated.

Going in there now just makes you a target for all of them.

Yes! And the air strikes should be stopped as well because some planes might be shot down and pilots lost.

Besides, it was a mistake to invade Iraq in the first place.

And the Gulf War was also a mistake because it put the U.S. on a drawn-out, 10-year war footing with Saddam.

Having bad intelligence on Saddam was a mistake that led to the mistaken invasion of Iraq.

Forming the CIA was also a mistake because it couldn't provide good intelligence.

The Viet Nam War was a mistake because it didn't have anything we really wanted.

World War II was a mistake because it resulted in the development of nuclear weapons.

World War I was a mistake because nobody won and it set the stage for World War II.

The Civil War was a mistake because the Union won which led to a failed Reconstruction and Jim Crow laws.

The Mexican American War was a mistake because we never hear the end of from the Mexicans who want the American Southwest back.

The American Revolution was a mistake because it led to a irascible, imperialist American government.

... Unless I'm mistaken. Pass the popcorn, please.

[cookee68]

Let the Islamic terrorist take over a town and drive out all the people from it, then nuke it

[DaddyWarbucks]

Let the Islamic terrorist take over a town and drive out all the people from it, then nuke it

Great idea.

Who will step up to the plate and do the nuking?

The US?... Israel?... Pakistan?... India?

You may be joking, but it sounds like a possible way to win the War on Terror that hasn't been tried yet.

[Chicog]

Yes! And the air strikes should be stopped as well because some planes might be shot down and pilots lost.

Besides, it was a mistake to invade Iraq in the first place.

Yes it was, but that can't be undone.

But right now you have Iran and the Shi'a (who you don't like) fighting IS (who you also don't like).

Why even get involved?

Whoever wins is going to need to sell oil and buy sh$t.

It's a win-win.

[JakeSully]

I'd say the US's strategy should be, let the muslims fight it out between themselves. It's not our war.

Ofcourse neocons disagree which is why I'm thankful I'm past the congressional draft age.

[uptheos]

When it's clear hoards of ISIS are on the move, why haven't the been blown to smithereens as soon as identified?

[Scott]

Some off-topic posts have been removed.

Please stay on topic.

[ABCer]

Yes! And the air strikes should be stopped as well because some planes might be shot down and pilots lost.

Besides, it was a mistake to invade Iraq in the first place.

And the Gulf War was also a mistake because it put the U.S. on a drawn-out, 10-year war footing with Saddam.

Having bad intelligence on Saddam was a mistake that led to the mistaken invasion of Iraq.

Forming the CIA was also a mistake because it couldn't provide good intelligence.

The Viet Nam War was a mistake because it didn't have anything we really wanted.

World War II was a mistake because it resulted in the development of nuclear weapons.

World War I was a mistake because nobody won and it set the stage for World War II.

The Civil War was a mistake because the Union won which led to a failed Reconstruction and Jim Crow laws.

The Mexican American War was a mistake because we never hear the end of from the Mexicans who want the American Southwest back.

The American Revolution was a mistake because it led to a irascible, imperialist American government.

... Unless I'm mistaken. Pass the popcorn, please.

That's my man!

No, you are not mistaken. Big bucket of popcorn from me...

And... Do not forget the corrective measures: -

# Give Rome back to Greeks;

# Give England back to Celts;

# Give Palestine back to Babilon;

# Give Crimea back to Tartars;

# Give Russia back to Swedes;

# Give China back to Mongols;

# Give Australia back to Aborigines;

# Give US and Canada back to Cherokees;

# ... have I forgotten anything?...

And as a general universal gesture of Peace - go back to your caves!

Ooops, forgot! There will be no f&**^#g peace, anyway.

P.S. I was tempted to give all Muslims around the World a free ticket to ISIS, all Blacks from around the World a free ticket to Africa than sing "What a wonderful World!".

But I checked myself and realized how Politically Incorrect that would have been...

Edited May 20, 2015 by ABCer

[boomerangutang]

why is it the USA's responsibility? All of the Arab nations in the region should be the only ones getting involved. It's their religion, it's their mess. Let them deal with it or live with it!!!

Right. First thought: Saudis: they've got billions and state-of-the-art weaponry from faranglands. Dubai is also filthy rich. Get those lily-white milky-soft-handed military boys off their tuffs - and put them to work. Put aside the hooka and secret stash of Scotch, Achmed, and do something that might get your fingernails dirty. On 2nd thought, fogedabowdit. Easier to get the US to do the dirty work. Ok, go on back to stroking your camel.

[ABCer]

why is it the USA's responsibility? All of the Arab nations in the region should be the only ones getting involved. It's their religion, it's their mess. Let them deal with it or live with it!!!

Right. First thought: Saudis: they've got billions and state-of-the-art weaponry from faranglands. Dubai is also filthy rich. Get those lily-white milky-soft-handed military boys off their tuffs - and put them to work. Put aside the hooka and secret stash of Scotch, Achmed, and do something that might get your fingernails dirty. On 2nd thought, fogedabowdit. Easier to get the US to do the dirty work. Ok, go on back to stroking your camel.

Both of you guys are right to a certain (limited) extent.

I am not an American. I am not fiercely pro- or anti- american.

But I cannot but notice very strong anti-american moods among people of Europe who are supposed to be friends of USA. Not speaking here of China and Russia!

The only explanation I can see is USA external politics. IMHO it is terribly wrong for the last 50 years or so.

USA should stick to its natural friends and stop trying to make new friends among its natural enemies. Now I am talking about Russia, China and Muslim World.

The problem of USA is - they are not looking after National interests but after their Corporate Business interests. Please, do not tell me it is the same thing.

In relative terms USA position was the strongest after the end of WWII. They should have concentrated on strengthening their advantage instead of pissing it away.

Korea, Vietnam, North Africa, Middle East, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Arabs - all adventures were a failure. Economically and Politically. Losses without any advantages to show.

I could have continued, but what for?

[boomerangutang]

excerpt:

The only explanation I can see is USA external politics. IMHO it is terribly wrong for the last 50 years or so.

US foreign policy has made mistakes over the past 50 years. It's worth noting, on that topic, that the US belatedly got involved in 2 WW's in central Europe, and both times did the dirty job of whipping the German aggressors, which the Europeans couldn't do for themselves. Got pulled in to a concurrent war in the Pacific. Without the US, nearly all of SE Asia would likely be Japanese provinces.

However, let's take a cursory glance at the past 50 years:

Over-reached in SE Asia, though without US interference in the VN War, what would the map of SE Asia look like today? Same? Perhaps China would have more southern provinces. A lot of things look clearer in hindsight.

Got busy in two Gulf Wars. the first was generally supported by world community and wouldn't have happened without Bush Sr. Without that war, Kuwait would be a southern province of Iraq. The 2nd Gulf War looks to have been a failure, yet without it; Saddam would likely still be in power, with his dungeons and gassing provincial towns, and his son picking little girls out of Baghdad schools daily - to sexually abuse. Is Iraq better or worse without US's invasion? You decide.

Got involved with former Yugoslavia. Without US's involvement there, ethnic cleansing would have continued and possibly increased.

Helped E.Timor get free from Indonesia. Tried to enable rule-of-law in Somalia, ....the list goes on.

The US is generally pro-active in its foreign policy. It has the world's strongest military, and it puts it to use sometimes.

In contrast, China has a strong military, but only uses it to further it's land-grab plans. Never to assist another country grappling with oppression, like Kuwait or Sudan or E.Timor, Somalia (not even with Somalian pirates), or...?

[Steely Dan]

why is it the USA's responsibility? All of the Arab nations in the region should be the only ones getting involved. It's their religion, it's their mess. Let them deal with it or live with it!!!

Right. First thought: Saudis: they've got billions and state-of-the-art weaponry from faranglands. Dubai is also filthy rich. Get those lily-white milky-soft-handed military boys off their tuffs - and put them to work. Put aside the hooka and secret stash of Scotch, Achmed, and do something that might get your fingernails dirty. On 2nd thought, fogedabowdit. Easier to get the US to do the dirty work. Ok, go on back to stroking your camel.

The trouble for the Sunni Muslim kingdoms is that large elements of their populations are sympathetic to ISIS. This is demonstrated no better than by Jordan, who have warned the U.S it will take ground troops to defeat ISIS. Jordan is reluctant to commit troops as they may be needed to put down any insurrection in the South where many people are sympathetic to ISIS.

[konying]

SECRET documents obtained via freedom of information requests reveal the US military predicted the rise of IS well before the group began making headlines around the world.

http://www.news.com.au/world/middle-east/military-documents-reveal-us-predicted-rise-of-islamic-state/story-fnh81ifq-1227360918253

[Steely Dan]

SECRET documents obtained via freedom of information requests reveal the US military predicted the rise of IS well before the group began making headlines around the world.

http://www.news.com.au/world/middle-east/military-documents-reveal-us-predicted-rise-of-islamic-state/story-fnh81ifq-1227360918253

The plausible deniability that naivety or unpreparedness has enabled ISIS to spread is finally coming under scrutiny. The question remaining is why?

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/isil-islamic-state-obama-administration-television-networks-footage-117911.html

Edited May 20, 2015 by Steely Dan

[konying]

SECRET documents obtained via freedom of information requests reveal the US military predicted the rise of IS well before the group began making headlines around the world.

http://www.news.com.au/world/middle-east/military-documents-reveal-us-predicted-rise-of-islamic-state/story-fnh81ifq-1227360918253

The plausible deniability that naivety or unpreparedness has enabled ISIS to spread is finally coming under scrutiny. The question remaining is why?

If i had to guess, may be because ISIS is growing and becoming more unstoppable.

[boomerangutang]

there's an old saying: 'You make your bed, now you've got to sleep in it.'

The Islamists are making their beds: comprised of either extremist Islamists or fanatical Islamists (yes, I agree, not much difference). It all stems from a mean-spirited, sometimes cruel belief system which is so insecure that it needs constant witch hunts to punish any adherents who don't comply fully with the dogma of the control group - the group with the most weapons.

If I had the misfortune to have been born in the Middle East, I'd get my buns out of there a.s.a.p. ....to a decent country like Switzerland or a Scandinavian country, or Canada or NZ ......any place other than the dunes of despair known as the Middle East.

[ABCer]

there's an old saying: 'You make your bed, now you've got to sleep in it.'

The Islamists are making their beds: comprised of either extremist Islamists or fanatical Islamists (yes, I agree, not much difference). It all stems from a mean-spirited, sometimes cruel belief system which is so insecure that it needs constant witch hunts to punish any adherents who don't comply fully with the dogma of the control group - the group with the most weapons.

If I had the misfortune to have been born in the Middle East, I'd get my buns out of there a.s.a.p. ....to a decent country like Switzerland or a Scandinavian country, or Canada or NZ ......any place other than the dunes of despair known as the Middle East.

I have very little differences with your views, except:

* I'm afraid they make our beds and we will have to sleep with them ( about 45,000,000 of them).

* The ME buns are doing exactly what you proposed as we speak.

* The problem is they bring their misery and despair to decent countries like Switzerland, Scandinavia, ... etc, - all over the World.

[ABCer]

excerpt:

The only explanation I can see is USA external politics. IMHO it is terribly wrong for the last 50 years or so.

US foreign policy has made mistakes over the past 50 years. It's worth noting, on that topic, that the US belatedly got involved in 2 WW's in central Europe, and both times did the dirty job of whipping the German aggressors, which the Europeans couldn't do for themselves. Got pulled in to a concurrent war in the Pacific. Without the US, nearly all of SE Asia would likely be Japanese provinces.

However, let's take a cursory glance at the past 50 years:

Over-reached in SE Asia, though without US interference in the VN War, what would the map of SE Asia look like today? Same? Perhaps China would have more southern provinces. A lot of things look clearer in hindsight.

Got busy in two Gulf Wars. the first was generally supported by world community and wouldn't have happened without Bush Sr. Without that war, Kuwait would be a southern province of Iraq. The 2nd Gulf War looks to have been a failure, yet without it; Saddam would likely still be in power, with his dungeons and gassing provincial towns, and his son picking little girls out of Baghdad schools daily - to sexually abuse. Is Iraq better or worse without US's invasion? You decide.

Got involved with former Yugoslavia. Without US's involvement there, ethnic cleansing would have continued and possibly increased.

Helped E.Timor get free from Indonesia. Tried to enable rule-of-law in Somalia, ....the list goes on.

The US is generally pro-active in its foreign policy. It has the world's strongest military, and it puts it to use sometimes.

In contrast, China has a strong military, but only uses it to further it's land-grab plans. Never to assist another country grappling with oppression, like Kuwait or Sudan or E.Timor, Somalia (not even with Somalian pirates), or...?

Dear friend.

It's interesting how we look at the same things and see them different.

You think there are good and bad things in life. I believe in choosing between bad and worse.

To illustrate this - Qaddafi was a bad man but Libya was better off with him than now. Saddam was a bad man but Iraq was better off with him than now. Reza Pahlavi was a bad man but Iran was better off with him than now.

Your reference to Kosovo is lost on me and the world - religious intolerance has flared up again. And both sides have their just grievances. Sudan, Somalia, - come off it! They are getting not better but worse.

Yes, US is pro-active, yes it does have the world's strongest military, yes it does put it often to use, - but look at the results! All negative... to the extent that it looks deliberate. Sorry, I'm not convinced.

[thaibeachlovers]

I think the strategy is great.

Let them use up all their weapons and money fighting each other.

Iran is crapping itself because it doesn't know how to deal with the threat (maybe that's why it wants a nuke).

Assad doesn't know who he's supposed to be fighting.

Saudi and the rest of the GCC are crapping themselves because they're scared of Iran *and* IS, even though it was them that gave IS real legs in the first place. Just crack open a beer, microwave some popcorn and sit back and watch the show.

It will be a lot easier to restore order when a few of the various factions have been eliminated.

Going in there now just makes you a target for all of them.

Let them use up all their weapons and money fighting each other.

You just lost the plot on that one. The IS controls the banks and the oil in the territory they now own. They have no problem with money, and they capture all the weapons they need when the Iraqi army runs away.