This is a pivotal
turning point showing the failure of U.S. policy and also it is a slap in the
face to the U.S. soldiers who died there not to mention the tens of thousands
of Iraqis who have been and will be killed. Here is a summary of reports
on Ramadi’s takeover by ISIS (although it may be more than you want to read).
But it does show a wide consensus among policy analysts that the fall of
Ramadi is a disaster. Everything the administration has said and done is
quickly degenerating in the Middle East.
There is
plenty of criticism that can be leveled against George W. Bush’s decision to
invade Iraq in 2003, but he didn’t deliberately mislead the
country about Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
Democratic presidential
hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to
solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq
isn’t a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.
Even
as the Islamic State takeover of the capital city of Iraq’s largest province
seemed nearly complete on Sunday, the Pentagon continued to argue that the situation was still “fluid and contested.” That
assessment was countered by reports that “hundreds
of police personnel, soldiers and tribal fighters abandoned the city,” leaving
it and a “large store” of
American weapons in
ISIS hands. The BBC cited a statement “purportedly from IS”
claiming that the city had been “purged.”
It
was also a development that American officials not only didn’t prefer, but
evidently didn’t see coming a month ago, when a senior U.S. official told Foreign Policy it was unlikely that Shiite militias would fight the Islamic
State in Anbar. The Iraqi government’s
growing reliance on Shiite militias to fight ISIS has the potential to
undermine American-trained Iraqi security forces. And the fall of Ramadi
despite a U.S. air campaign aimed at blunting ISIS’s momentum shows the limits
of the American strategy.
A decade later and
after millions of American dollars, thousands of casualties, and seemingly
hundreds of different policies, Iraq is very much broken. Even though he has
boasted of "ending" the U.S. role in the war and even though he
didn't create the situation, Obama very much owns the mess. And he finds
himself on a timetable not of his choosing and very much at odds with his policy.
A
fair-minded reading of the facts, I think, shows that when Mr. Obama was sworn
in, the Iraq war had more or less been won. Things were fragile to be sure. But
the errors that were made during the occupation of Iraq following the fall of
Saddam, which were extremely costly, were corrected in 2007. That was when
President Bush made what is in my estimation his most impressive decision. In
the face of enormous political opposition, with the nation weary of the war,
Mr. Bush implemented a new counterinsurgency strategy, dubbed the “surge” and
led by the estimable General David Petraeus. It resulted in startling gains.
To
sum up, then: post-surge, Iraq was making significant progress on virtually
every front. The Obama administration said as much. The president was not
engaged or eager to sign a new SOFA. A full withdrawal was the right decision.
His own top advisers admitted as much. The president had long argued he wanted
all American troops out of Iraq during his presidency, and he got his wish. He
met his goal.
The
White House on Monday acknowledged the seizure represents a “setback” but
signaled it is unlikely to alter its approach to combatting ISIS, which relies
on U.S.-led airstrikes and training Iraqi security forces to fight the ground
war.
It seems as
though things couldn’t possibly get worse, but they almost certainly will. We
are seeing the fruit of a set of policies that were based on the false premise
that problems in the Middle East are mostly the fault of the United States. Not
only were such policies misbegotten, they have been executed incompetently. The
resulting collapse is occurring with sickening speed.
Pentagon:
Islam State on The Defensive, Just not in Ramadi: Foreign Policy. http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/05/18/pentagon-islamic-state-on-the-defensive-just-not-in-ramadi/ The Pentagon spins the situation, but where
do we have ISIL on the “defensive”?—Mosul has also fallen within the past year. What will happen if Baghdad falls? The Pentagon is shifting the blame to Iraqi
leaders, but the administration got rid of all of Bush’s Iraqi leaders for
these guys who they are now saying a bad leaders. Go figure.
The Islamic State’s capture of the Iraqi city of Ramadi is
sparking renewed criticism of Obama administration policies in the region --
from the decision to withdraw virtually all U.S. troops in 2011 to the current
anti-ISIS strategy that relies mostly on airstrikes.