Iraq

60 Minutes on ISIS

/ Matthew Clemente / Leave a comment

This Sunday, 60 Minutes devoted two segments to ISIS.  The first chronicled ISIS from the ground in Iraq.  Here how that segment began:

Today, America’s top military officer, General Martin Dempsey, said the U.S. and its allies will attack ISIS from many directions. “We want them to wake up every day realizing they’re being squeezed,” he said. American pilots have hit the Islamic extremist group in Iraq nearly 200 times now, and soon the U.S. will be bombing ISIS in Syria.

America was drawn back into war when ISIS began to overrun part of northern Iraq called Kurdistan. Kurdistan is semi-autonomous with its own military called the Peshmerga. With American air support, the Peshmerga are holding a tense front line against ISIS.

Earlier this month, we started our reporting on that front line to explain ISIS; what it is, where it came from and how it blitzed through two countries. In June, the leader of ISIS declared himself ruler of a new nation, which he calls The Islamic State.

The second segment discussed the “repercussions” of ISIS with former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and King Abdullah II of Jordan.  Here is how that segment began:

President Obama’s plan hinges on arming and training moderate Syrian militias to defeat ISIS. The president has been criticized for not doing that sooner. You’re about to hear from two men who saw the threat early, former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and King Abdullah II of Jordan.

Jordan is a moderate, American ally, nearly surrounded by war, with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to its west, Syria to its north and Iraq to the east.

Today we spoke to King Abdullah in New York before this month’s U.N. General Assembly meeting. For hundreds of years, his family ruled the holiest shrines in Islam. And the king was nearly at a loss for words today when we asked him about the head of ISIS, who claims to lead all Muslims.

60 Minutes on ISIS

/ Matthew Clemente / Leave a comment

This Sunday, 60 Minutes devoted two segments to ISIS.  The first chronicled ISIS from the ground in Iraq.  Here how that segment began:

Today, America’s top military officer, General Martin Dempsey, said the U.S. and its allies will attack ISIS from many directions. “We want them to wake up every day realizing they’re being squeezed,” he said. American pilots have hit the Islamic extremist group in Iraq nearly 200 times now, and soon the U.S. will be bombing ISIS in Syria.

America was drawn back into war when ISIS began to overrun part of northern Iraq called Kurdistan. Kurdistan is semi-autonomous with its own military called the Peshmerga. With American air support, the Peshmerga are holding a tense front line against ISIS.

Earlier this month, we started our reporting on that front line to explain ISIS; what it is, where it came from and how it blitzed through two countries. In June, the leader of ISIS declared himself ruler of a new nation, which he calls The Islamic State.

The second segment discussed the “repercussions” of ISIS with former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and King Abdullah II of Jordan.  Here is how that segment began:

President Obama’s plan hinges on arming and training moderate Syrian militias to defeat ISIS. The president has been criticized for not doing that sooner. You’re about to hear from two men who saw the threat early, former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and King Abdullah II of Jordan.

Jordan is a moderate, American ally, nearly surrounded by war, with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to its west, Syria to its north and Iraq to the east.

Today we spoke to King Abdullah in New York before this month’s U.N. General Assembly meeting. For hundreds of years, his family ruled the holiest shrines in Islam. And the king was nearly at a loss for words today when we asked him about the head of ISIS, who claims to lead all Muslims.

Fareed Zakaria on “How to defeat ISIS”

/ Matthew Clemente / Leave a comment

Last weekend, Fareed Zarakia began his CNN show, Fareed Zakaria GPS, by discussing President Obama’s speech on ISIS.  Zakaria provided his “take” on “how to defeat ISIS.”

Here is a description of the segment from the CNN website:

President Obama’s speech Wednesday night outlined a tough, measured strategy to confront ISIS. But let’s make sure in the execution of this strategy that the U.S. learns something from the 13 years since September 11, 2001 and the war against al Qaeda.

Here are a few lessons to think about:

One – Don’t always take the bait. The United States has to act against this terror group. But it should do so at a time and manner of its choosing rather than jumping when ISIS wants it to jump.

Lesson two: Don’t overestimate the enemy. ISIS is a formidable foe, but the counterforces to it have only just begun…While ISIS is much more sophisticated than al Qaeda in its operations and technology, it has one major, inherent weakness. Al Qaeda was an organization that was pan-Islamic, trying to appeal to all Muslims. This group is a distinctly sectarian organization. ISIS is anti-Shiite as well as deeply hostile to Kurds, Christians and many other inhabitants in the Middle East. This means that it has large numbers of foes in the region who will fight against it, not because the United States wants them to but in their own interests.

Lesson number three: Remember politics. The Obama administration has mapped out a smart strategy in Iraq, pressing the Baghdad government to include more Sunnis. But that is yet to happen – the Shiite parties have dragged their feet over any major concessions to the Sunnis. This is a crucial issue because if the United States is seen as defending two non-Sunni regimes – Iraq and Syria – against a Sunni uprising, it will not win.

Watch the video for the full Take, or read the WaPo column

Fareed Zakaria on “How to defeat ISIS”

/ Matthew Clemente / Leave a comment

Last weekend, Fareed Zarakia began his CNN show, Fareed Zakaria GPS, by discussing President Obama’s speech on ISIS.  Zakaria provided his “take” on “how to defeat ISIS.”

Here is a description of the segment from the CNN website:

President Obama’s speech Wednesday night outlined a tough, measured strategy to confront ISIS. But let’s make sure in the execution of this strategy that the U.S. learns something from the 13 years since September 11, 2001 and the war against al Qaeda.

Here are a few lessons to think about:

One – Don’t always take the bait. The United States has to act against this terror group. But it should do so at a time and manner of its choosing rather than jumping when ISIS wants it to jump.

Lesson two: Don’t overestimate the enemy. ISIS is a formidable foe, but the counterforces to it have only just begun…While ISIS is much more sophisticated than al Qaeda in its operations and technology, it has one major, inherent weakness. Al Qaeda was an organization that was pan-Islamic, trying to appeal to all Muslims. This group is a distinctly sectarian organization. ISIS is anti-Shiite as well as deeply hostile to Kurds, Christians and many other inhabitants in the Middle East. This means that it has large numbers of foes in the region who will fight against it, not because the United States wants them to but in their own interests.

Lesson number three: Remember politics. The Obama administration has mapped out a smart strategy in Iraq, pressing the Baghdad government to include more Sunnis. But that is yet to happen – the Shiite parties have dragged their feet over any major concessions to the Sunnis. This is a crucial issue because if the United States is seen as defending two non-Sunni regimes – Iraq and Syria – against a Sunni uprising, it will not win.

Watch the video for the full Take, or read the WaPo column

Mission Accomplished ? The Fall of Fallujah

/ Christopher Moritt / Leave a comment

For the last 12 years America’s military had been fighting terrorism and other forces around the globe, namely in Iraq and Afghanistan. I write today to discuss the recent events where Al-Qaeda has taken control of the city of Fallujah. Now, any readers may wonder why I bring this up in a policy blog regarding veterans issue. Well, the reason is that many veterans fought hard and bravely to take that city from the grasp of the enemy. The reaction in the veteran community that the city has been lost is devastating to some. (See link here.) I personally know several people who fought there, house-to-house, street-to-street with many loosing their lives.
What makes this important is the decisions that are made both on and off the battlefield affect the lives of veterans long after they have finished serving. From a policy standpoint we can argue all day about what the US should and should not be doing. However, from a military standpoint you don’t pack your bags until the job is done and I can assure it wasn’t. I was there; I have worked fairly closely with the Iraqi Army and Security Forces and it did not appear to me they were ready to take over without our help. As I write this I would be willing to bet there is a Marine somewhere in a bar telling his friends that if he could he would sign up and take the city back. These feelings stemmed from the notion that veterans do not want to feel as if their sacrifices were made in vain. Many combat veterans already suffer with problems assessing there worth and their value to society, which is a factor in PTSD. However, for many the ability to hang your hat on the battles you won in combat is something, at least for me, is always a point of pride.
It would be foolish for me to sit here and say I think we should go back, or that we should have stayed there forever. The truth of the matter is I am not really sure what the answer is or why certain decisions are made. What I will say is that policy decisions, especially those that concern combat operations should not be made for internal political reasons. It can affect the whole purpose of fighting in the first place (whatever the reason may be). As I write this Charles Krauthammer is being interviewed on the O’rielly Factor on Fox News. (Generally, interviews are available the day after they air on foxnews.com) Personal feelings people have about Fox News aside the interview was pretty good and suggest the removal of troops from Iraq was entirely motivated by politics, regardless of the consequences. This topic is worth giving some thought, considering what is going on over there today.
The longer I write about this the harder it becomes to keep my personal feelings out of it, so I will attempt to leave you with a few thoughts. The first is that regardless of how one might feel about the various wars being fought or the troops, it is important to realize that veterans had a job to do and they did it; this should not be considered senseless or without merit. Second, is it right for military leaders or those in charge of our armed forces to make decisions based on their political beliefs or ideals? It sounds foolish to think that decisions could be made in another way other than political, but sometimes it just might be necessary. Finally, maybe all the media and anger from the veteran community about the loss of Fallujah to terrorist is pointless. That is to say, maybe the Iraqi’s will step up to the plate and show the world that they are in fact ready to deal with these issues without the help of the Americans.