Interesting perspective on Iraq

by **AKPirate** » Sun Aug 10, 2014 1:35 pm

Editor's note: David Sutherland is a retired Army colonel and co-founder and chairman of the Easter Seals Dixon Center for Military and Veterans Services. He served in the U.S. Army for 29 years and commanded the U.S. combat brigade in Diyala province, Iraq (2006-07), and served as special assistant to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (2009-12) with a focus on warrior and family support. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.

(CNN) -- As a former U.S. brigade commander of several thousand coalition forces during surge operations in Iraq, it is difficult to watch this country fall apart.

When I came home in 2007 after 15 months in Diyala province, I answered questions about what we accomplished there by explaining that we sowed stability and the seeds of self-governance in an Arab country that holds significant strategic interest for the U.S.

Now, as the U.S. commits to targeted airstrikes on top of the troops we sent last month to shore up the weakened country, I question everything. Were the losses my command suffered in the volatile Diyala province in 2006-07 worth it? How is it possible that the Iraqi military, well-trained to take over security duties, has performed so poorly?

Seven years ago, I would have agreed with the decision to return to Iraq. Today, I feel different.

We fought long and hard, spending over $25 billion to train and equip Iraqi security forces. We helped them develop a working government based on democratic principles. And while it might be wholly appropriate for the U.S. to provide humanitarian aid to those under siege, it's the responsibility of the Iraqis to protect Iraq. As someone who helped train these forces, I know they have the capability to stand and fight. The training wheels have to come off.

While it is frustrating and painful to watch militants take over a third of the country, we must focus on the here and now. The responsibility is to our soldiers who spent 13 years at war accomplishing what they were asked to do, often at a great cost.

I fought to help my Iraqi friends and fellow soldiers establish a rule of law, and we achieved remarkable results. Civilian casualties fell from an estimated 29,380 in 2006 to 4,153 in 2011. In Diyala province, we went from 1,500 violent acts a month to less than 250. What is happening now should not detract from that success.

But I came home to my family, my neighbors and my community. We cannot let the chaos in Iraq increase the disconnect between a war-weary American public and those veterans working through their transition back home.

The needs in Iraq evolved over time, and they didn't disappear when we left. This is also the case with the needs of our Iraq- and Afghanistan-era veterans and military families. I worry about the future of those who served in these wars five or 10 years down the road when the wars have receded from the minds of the American people. At a time when the need will be greatest, interest will diminish, and they may struggle in a peacetime status quo.

We need to focus on this generation, which has spent more than a decade at war. The National Center for Veterans Analysis and Statistics projects the number of veterans from recent conflicts to jump by 26% by 2016. They want to contribute in the same way to their communities as they did in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But even with thousands of organizations operating to help them, a 2012 report from the Center for a New American Security finds that veterans are not receiving the care and services they need to transition successfully.

They must have a chance to thrive where they live. This means education to transition beyond battlefield knowledge to private-sector careers and meaningful employment that pulls in a family wage. Along with their families, they require options for wellness and services. Caring for them includes understanding: listening to their service stories and future ambitions.

Adm. Mike Mullen, 17th chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said, "If you listen closely to the voices of our veterans, you understand that yes, they all returned from war changed, but what never changed is this: They never forgot your generosity. They never forgot the power of opportunity. They never forgot the American dream."

As much as it pains me to see Iraq reverting to chaos, that does not mean that we should turn our focus there anew. We now have a stake in supporting the future in front of us: the evolving needs of the phenomenal, confident and self-assured men and women who served in and out of combat for these many years.

by **RonE** » Sun Aug 10, 2014 4:51 pm

To me, that is a simplistic view and a Rah, Rah, Rah ........ Red, White and Blue, they want to be like me and you.

No matter what anyone does, it comes down to the fact that two Muslim factions hate each other.....Always have, always will.

Unless and until that can be overcome, there will be no peace in the middle east.

They DO NOT have the American Dream, they dream of eliminating one another.

How in hell did that guy get to be a Colonel?

by **assateague** » Sun Aug 10, 2014 4:58 pm

Here's the way I see it:

For those who say "we aren't the world's policemen", or "it's not out business", I agree to a point. Because eventually it IS our business. They claim to not want to interfere, but they don't really believe this. What they believe is "we don't need to interfere RIGHT NOW". What if all of the other countries in the world were taken over by ISIS, leaving just us? Is it our business to do something then, or is it too late? Somewhere on the spectrum of "they're in 1 country" to "they're in 192 countries", it becomes our business to "interfere". Where that point is varies from person to person, and opinion to opinion, but it always pisses me off to hear people say "not our problem". Because it is, it's just a matter of are we going to do something about it now, or wait.

Having said that, we should either be willing to take the figurative RonE approach, or nothing at all. Few things are as stupid and wasteful as fighting a half-assed war. When we dropped the total war approach in favor of incremental hostilities, that was when we almost assured ourselves that we would increasingly find ourselves in little bullshit situations like we find ourselves in now.

by **one2many** » Sun Aug 10, 2014 5:02 pm

by **AKPirate** » Sun Aug 10, 2014 5:06 pm

Well said Assa!

by **jehler** » Sun Aug 10, 2014 5:50 pm

I giggle every time I hear someone refer to isis, I don't watch or read the news, so I don't know what the hell people are referring to, and am almost certain that it's in poor taste to lol at hits reference, but for a guy that has seen ever episode of archer twice it is funny as hell

by **DeadEye_Dan** » Sun Aug 10, 2014 6:30 pm

It's nothing really. Just general shenanigans, beheading children, raping women and girls, and whatnot.

by **jehler** » Sun Aug 10, 2014 6:43 pm

DeadEye_Dan wrote:It's nothing really. Just general shenanigans, beheading children, raping women and girls, and whatnot.

so no different than any other Muslim group eh?

by **DeadEye_Dan** » Sun Aug 10, 2014 6:52 pm

by **RonE** » Mon Aug 11, 2014 12:05 am

Occupation.jpg

In truth, it should be the unjust occupation of Muslim land.

by **RickC** » Mon Aug 11, 2014 7:04 am

I spent 2 1/2 years there and lost good friends both out of my outfit and military units I lived and worked with. It is truely painful to see this happening but knew it would happen once they announced a total withdrawal.
Whats happening now while disgusting isn't anything that wasn't happening during our time there. It wasn't out of the norm to roll into a town and find kids beheaded and left in the middle if town, left there by AI. Having been involved in investigating several of the most heinous acts imaginable these happenings are just more of the same and will continue way past the day I leave this life.
They got everything we could give them and they will not stand up to this tide of insurgents and personally, and just my perspective, I dont want my son on the ground there. I'm extremely proud of him serving, but dont want to see him or any other fathers son or daughter put in that position for those that wont stand up for themselves.
Just my worthless .02

by **AKPirate** » Mon Aug 11, 2014 7:15 am

My experience as well Rick

by **assateague** » Mon Aug 11, 2014 7:56 am

Rick, I understand your perspective, but tend to disagree. It's not "for others" that we should go to war for, but to fight evil in this world. Much as we may not like it, the world IS a better place because we act as the world's policeman. For all of our faults, we are leaps and bounds ahead of the vast majority of others when it comes to giving a shit about our planet's condition. Can the Iraqis stand up for themselves? Nope. Could the French or English in WWII? They tried, but couldn't. So is that where the line of distinction should be drawn? If someone tries to stand up for themselves but can't? To a point, I agree. But if that is the case, does it matter if they not only won't stand up against it, but actively promote it? Because to agree with fighting it in a place where someone is promoting/sponsoring terrorism, but not agree with fighting it in a place where someone won't/can't do anything about it is a nonsensical distinction to me.

But in this case, just because they can't (or won't) doesn't necessarily mean it's not our problem. Islam most certainly is our problem. When you have a belief system which has sworn itself to our destruction, it is foolish and idealistic to imagine that it will go away just because it's on the other side of the world. Much as I dislike and even ridiculed W, there was much, much truth to his statement that we "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here". In my opinion, it is not a case of where we fight, or who we fight FOR, but HOW we fight against them. The fact that it is in Iraq (or substitute any other country) doesn't matter to me- we should be fighting to destroy evil, and thereby help a population, not fighting to help a population while tolerating that evil. Would you feel any different if your son was called to go fight them in Mexico or Canada? Where they are doesn't matter, and the lives of everyone will be better if evil such as this is eradicated, whether or not those "hosting" it can or will fight for themselves.

What if, in November 1941 we had known that millions of Jews were being marched into death camps- would it have been ok to intervene in the war for that, or would that have been wrong? If not, would the world have been a better/safer place if the Nazis were allowed to eradicate whomever they saw fit, and run the show in Europe? Because like the Iraqis, the Jews didn't "help themselves", either. Living in a world where we want the respect due us, and where we expect a certain degree of consideration demands certain sacrifices, and that's just the way it is.

by **RickC** » Mon Aug 11, 2014 9:58 am

Assa, the perplexing thing for me is that the Marine side of me agrees with you and would be happy to hunt these fellas down and drive a KBar between their eyes.
The father side of me though sees my son in the place of a soldier who died in my arms in a Humvee. And its not that I have a problem with helping the Iraqis or any others that need our help it's that our government sways to easily to the whims of political expediency and will give up hard won battles, won from blood and sacrifice, just to please a few.
Anyway I'm gonna paint some decoys and forget things.
Semper Fi

by **SpinnerMan** » Mon Aug 11, 2014 11:23 am

AKPirate wrote:Well said Assa!

x2. Your first post was very well said.

RonE wrote:
Occupation.jpg

In truth, it should be the unjust occupation of Muslim land.

In the U.S. Native Americans are the "victims" because they were here first and thrown off of their land by those that showed up millenia after they were already here.

In the Middle East, the Jews are the opprosers because they fight to keep a little piece of the land that they lived in millenia before Mohammed ever brought his brand of evil upon the earth.

Makes perfect rational sense :?:

RickC wrote:the perplexing thing for me is that the Marine side of me agrees with you and would be happy to hunt these fellas down and drive a KBar between their eyes.
The father side of me though sees my son in the place of a soldier who died in my arms in a Humvee.

How much of that is having a President that lacks seriousness about the most serious things such as this?

Obama pledged to "end" the war. What the hell does that mean? Surrender ends a war just as much as victory. Quitting and going home does NOT end the war, no matter how many times you say it or pretend like it does. Clearly, the war was not over and Obama did not end it as he proclaimed. Mission was not accomplished.

Given our commander-in-chief, I don't want to see us risk a lot of lives in Iraq. However, I don't think we can just pretend like these guys who are threatening us as Osama did before 9/11/01 can be ignored either. They are the same ilk with the same ambitions and now reinvigorated by their humiliation of America in Iraq. We need to degrade their capabilities and limit their advances until we get a serious and competent administration in place who can then decide if we should go further in rolling them back or simply continue killing them when and where it is convenient for us.

by **waterfowlman** » Wed Aug 13, 2014 8:53 pm

I read this entire thread and there are strong arguments made by several fellas here, however I prefer the world war two tactic of carpet bombing entire cities until the fuckers have had enough. :lol:

by **AKPirate** » Wed Aug 13, 2014 9:10 pm

waterfowlman wrote:I read this entire thread and there are strong arguments made by several fellas here, however I prefer the world war two tactic of carpet bombing entire cities until the fuckers have had enough.

I agree, go to war, kick there ass and kick it some more in the most violent manner. You could do anything you want to the enemy there, but as was said earlier, there ain't no one in that country that cares about the "country of Iraq". It is a bunch of factions and some of them overlap. There will be a power vacuum, that we created, there for awhile.

by **waterfowlman** » Wed Aug 13, 2014 9:28 pm

AKPirate wrote:
waterfowlman wrote:I read this entire thread and there are strong arguments made by several fellas here, however I prefer the world war two tactic of carpet bombing entire cities until the fuckers have had enough.

I agree, go to war, kick there ass and kick it some more in the most violent manner. You could do anything you want to the enemy there, but as was said earlier, there ain't no one in that country that cares about the "country of Iraq". It is a bunch of factions and some of them overlap. There will be a power vacuum, that we created, there for awhile.

If an entire ISIS stronghold city was reduced to ashes....and I'm talking about everything! Eventually a lot of those fuckers are going to question their choices....or die in the next city that's bombed.
Overwhelming, withering firepower has a way of convincing folks to rethink their decisions.

by **assateague** » Wed Aug 13, 2014 9:30 pm

AKPirate wrote:
waterfowlman wrote:I read this entire thread and there are strong arguments made by several fellas here, however I prefer the world war two tactic of carpet bombing entire cities until the fuckers have had enough.

I agree, go to war, kick there ass and kick it some more in the most violent manner. You could do anything you want to the enemy there, but as was said earlier, there ain't no one in that country that cares about the "country of Iraq". It is a bunch of factions and some of them overlap. There will be a power vacuum, that we created, there for awhile.

I don't really care about "the country of Iraq". I just want to make sure that they get the idea that they'll be incinerated if they don't stop acting like jackasses.

by **AKPirate** » Wed Aug 13, 2014 9:32 pm

waterfowlman wrote:
AKPirate wrote:
waterfowlman wrote:I read this entire thread and there are strong arguments made by several fellas here, however I prefer the world war two tactic of carpet bombing entire cities until the fuckers have had enough.

I agree, go to war, kick there ass and kick it some more in the most violent manner. You could do anything you want to the enemy there, but as was said earlier, there ain't no one in that country that cares about the "country of Iraq". It is a bunch of factions and some of them overlap. There will be a power vacuum, that we created, there for awhile.

If an entire ISIS stronghold city was reduced to ashes....and I'm talking about everything! Eventually a lot of those fuckers are going to question their choices....or die in the next city that's bombed.
Overwhelming, withering firepower has a way of convincing folks to rethink their decisions.

I agree, We did it in Fallujah. The next faction has now come into the vacuum.

by **AKPirate** » Wed Aug 13, 2014 9:33 pm

assateague wrote:
AKPirate wrote:
waterfowlman wrote:I read this entire thread and there are strong arguments made by several fellas here, however I prefer the world war two tactic of carpet bombing entire cities until the fuckers have had enough.

I agree, go to war, kick there ass and kick it some more in the most violent manner. You could do anything you want to the enemy there, but as was said earlier, there ain't no one in that country that cares about the "country of Iraq". It is a bunch of factions and some of them overlap. There will be a power vacuum, that we created, there for awhile.

I don't really care about "the country of Iraq". I just want to make sure that they get the idea that they'll be incinerated if they don't stop acting like jackasses.

Drop a nuke. Next asshole will surface. The people there don't care to fight for themselves.

by **assateague** » Thu Aug 14, 2014 12:10 am

It doesn't matter if they will or not. These type of people MUST be fought against. It's a pipe dream to think that war/conflict is going to go away, so the goal should be to win it as quickly and decisively as possible.

by **waterfowlman** » Thu Aug 14, 2014 12:13 am

assateague wrote:It doesn't matter if they will or not. These type of people MUST be fought against. It's a pipe dream to think that war/conflict is going to go away, so the goal should be to win it as quickly and decisively as possible.

Exactly the point I was trying to make.

by **AKPirate** » Thu Aug 14, 2014 12:17 am

assateague wrote:It doesn't matter if they will or not. These type of people MUST be fought against. It's a pipe dream to think that war/conflict is going to go away, so the goal should be to win it as quickly and decisively as possible.

You win the ground as long as you have a soldier standing on it, nothing more. Drop bombs with SF lasering them in all day, once they leave, it will go back again to chaos. I would agree to go there and use them for targets like we are already doing. But win? If they said we are going to protect the Christians and the Kurds, then that is another thing. Let's make an Israeli type enclave for those two groups and defend that with America's treasure.

by **SpinnerMan** » Thu Aug 14, 2014 9:08 am

AKPirate wrote: Drop bombs with SF lasering them in all day, once they leave, it will go back again to chaos.

Dead terrorist take back nothing. Chaos is fine. Organized terrorists are not chaotic. There is nothing chaotic about what is going on over there. They are saying what they are going to do and doing what they say. We've been here before and not that long ago.

If Clinton would have blown the hell out of bin Laden and Al Qaeda instead of dropping a few laser guided bombs, would it have solved the problem? No, but it may have saved 10's of thousands of lives or more.

Would the world have been better off if we sent in some special forces, AC130 gunships, or whatever it took to blow the hell out of a whole bunch of them, even if it cost us 50 or 100 lives? Would the world have been outraged? Would Americans have been outraged? Would we still be hearing how Clinton failed and it cost all these American lives and innocent foreign lives and how Osama bin Laden and all those killed were really not that bad? They'd probably still be having conferences about it on the 100th floor of the World Trade Center.

These are the same crazies saying the same thing with essentially the same goals, but don't worry, this time is different :roll:

We know in hindsight what Clinton should have done, so let's do the same thing because it worked so well last time :evil:

Bush screwed up by pretending like Iraq could have a powerful central government. It would not have worked in American in the late 18th century and it sure as hell was not going to work in Iraq. Cultures that different will never get along. We should still be occupying that country with Iraqis having local control and the U.S. to make sure that doesn't mean execute the people you do not like and basic things we take for granted and beyond that, let them run things, and if you don't like it, move. The central Iraqi government should have been very weak. The oil and other resources owned by the federal government should have been turned into public companies with shares distributed to every Iraqi with the government acting nothing but regulator with no special taxes. A $1 of oil or a $1 of rice sold, all taxed the same.

We should have gave the Iraqi's the same say in when we leave as we gave in when we came. We need bases in that region, what better place to put them? Force them to not kill each other. Force them to get an education. Don't fantasize about them being ready for a European style parliamentary government. That was just plain stupid. Adapting the American model made a lot more sense, but hey, why would an American President be expected to use the American model of government in a nation that they just liberated from evil men. :roll:

We especially screwed up given that the real concern in the region is Iran. The true big concern in the axis of evil. A stable, economically improving Iraq, with a whole bunch of battle hardened Americans sitting on the Iraq/Iran and Afghanistan/Iran border will provide a lot of pressure on the crazies in Iran to stop building nuclear weapons and the bases of operation to gather the intelligence and do what is necessary to make damn sure the crazies in Iran do not get a bomb.

by **assateague** » Thu Aug 14, 2014 10:09 am

These crazies are worse. Al Qaeda kicked them out, for being too crazy. That's a pretty valid indicator, in my book. :lol:

by **assateague** » Thu Aug 14, 2014 10:12 am

And you know what's sad? They're going to win, because nobody that can do anything about it will do anything about it. They've now dissolved the border between Iraq and Syria, they are issuing official paychecks to bureaucrats and administrators running the Islamic State (as they prefer to be called), they have a military, and they have policy. They are a de facto nation state. I'd be surprised if they didn't head into Lebanon next, and if they can convince enough of the crazies in Saudi Arabia to rise up against the family there (something that has been very, very close to happening for almost a decade), then we'll REALLY start to see the end result of our foreign policy failure.