Posted on Jun 28, 2015
Tomgram: Peter Van Buren, What If There Is No Plan B for Iraq? | TomDispatch
1.89K
19
14
1
1
0
Tomgram: Peter Van Buren, What If There Is No Plan B for Iraq?
On June 13th, Greg Jaffe and Missy Ryan of the Washington Post reported what should have been big news (though it was hardly noted). In recent White House "debates" over a disastrously deteriorating situation in Iraq, President Obama's top military officials were dragging their feet on the question of what more the U.S. should do. No, they didn’t want to put American boots on the ground inside Iraqi army units as spotters for U.S. air power or bring in the Apache attack helicopters, which are “lethal in urban combat but vulnerable to enemy ground fire.” Clearly, they weren't ready to swallow the idea of more U.S. casualties in a spreading conflict leading nowhere fast. As one unnamed senior Pentagon official put it, “We have become very sensitized to the idea that we don’t want to risk lives and limbs if there isn’t a high probability of a payoff.” According to Jaffe and Ryan, State Department representatives, in private, proved more eager than Pentagon officials to up the military ante in Iraq -- and that’s not been everyday fare in Washington.
At a moment when the capital is full of calls for strengthening U.S. forces in that country and many Republican presidential candidates -- figures who are ready to back the military until death do us part -- are criticizing the Obama administration for not doing enough against the Islamic State, consider this news about a significant change in the mindset of the high command. You could perhaps claim that, in a crucial part of Washington, reality was finally setting in. If so, however, you would have to add a caveat: after all, the recent behind-the-scenes deliberations didn't end up producing a cutback in U.S. support for the Iraqis, but a further escalation of it. The president agreed to send 450 more U.S. personnel to a new base in Sunni-dominated Anbar Province on a training mission and left open the possibility of more. Meanwhile, General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, began to talk up the idea of building new training bases closer to the action in Iraq (which would mean hundreds or even thousands of additional U.S. personnel heading in-country).
In other words, even when reality takes hold, the drip, drip, drip of creeping escalation doesn’t end. For those old enough to remember Vietnam, this is familiar stuff. Once you're on the first rungs of this escalatory ladder, there never seems to be any direction to go but up. Someday, historians will undoubtedly offer explanations for the combination of forces -- political and military, domestic and foreign -- that make the impulse to keep climbing so much more powerful than the impulse to descend, no matter what messages reality might be sending Washington’s way. Read State Department whistleblower and TomDispatch regular Peter Van Buren’s latest analysis of our third war from hell in Iraq and you can hardly doubt what direction on that ladder our leaders should be heading.
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176015/tomgram%3A_peter_van_buren%2C_what_if_there_is_no_plan_b_for_iraq/
On June 13th, Greg Jaffe and Missy Ryan of the Washington Post reported what should have been big news (though it was hardly noted). In recent White House "debates" over a disastrously deteriorating situation in Iraq, President Obama's top military officials were dragging their feet on the question of what more the U.S. should do. No, they didn’t want to put American boots on the ground inside Iraqi army units as spotters for U.S. air power or bring in the Apache attack helicopters, which are “lethal in urban combat but vulnerable to enemy ground fire.” Clearly, they weren't ready to swallow the idea of more U.S. casualties in a spreading conflict leading nowhere fast. As one unnamed senior Pentagon official put it, “We have become very sensitized to the idea that we don’t want to risk lives and limbs if there isn’t a high probability of a payoff.” According to Jaffe and Ryan, State Department representatives, in private, proved more eager than Pentagon officials to up the military ante in Iraq -- and that’s not been everyday fare in Washington.
At a moment when the capital is full of calls for strengthening U.S. forces in that country and many Republican presidential candidates -- figures who are ready to back the military until death do us part -- are criticizing the Obama administration for not doing enough against the Islamic State, consider this news about a significant change in the mindset of the high command. You could perhaps claim that, in a crucial part of Washington, reality was finally setting in. If so, however, you would have to add a caveat: after all, the recent behind-the-scenes deliberations didn't end up producing a cutback in U.S. support for the Iraqis, but a further escalation of it. The president agreed to send 450 more U.S. personnel to a new base in Sunni-dominated Anbar Province on a training mission and left open the possibility of more. Meanwhile, General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, began to talk up the idea of building new training bases closer to the action in Iraq (which would mean hundreds or even thousands of additional U.S. personnel heading in-country).
In other words, even when reality takes hold, the drip, drip, drip of creeping escalation doesn’t end. For those old enough to remember Vietnam, this is familiar stuff. Once you're on the first rungs of this escalatory ladder, there never seems to be any direction to go but up. Someday, historians will undoubtedly offer explanations for the combination of forces -- political and military, domestic and foreign -- that make the impulse to keep climbing so much more powerful than the impulse to descend, no matter what messages reality might be sending Washington’s way. Read State Department whistleblower and TomDispatch regular Peter Van Buren’s latest analysis of our third war from hell in Iraq and you can hardly doubt what direction on that ladder our leaders should be heading.
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176015/tomgram%3A_peter_van_buren%2C_what_if_there_is_no_plan_b_for_iraq/
Posted in these groups: 
Iraq
Foreign Policy
Iraq Foreign Policy
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 7
4
4
0
SGT (Join to see)
SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S., Plan "A", I believe, was, go to Iraq, and Afghanistan. Kick some butt, with the help of the Iraq Army?, and help from the Afghans, and Poof! It's over, settled, we won with limited American casualties.
If true, Plan "A" failed miserably. Since 1991 with Iraq, and later Afghanistan to the present, hasn't accomplished anything, except more dead civilians, U.S. soldiers, and our allies, plus the thousands wounded and the MIA's.
IMHO, if there is a Plan "B", it won't look much different, and with the same outcome.
If true, Plan "A" failed miserably. Since 1991 with Iraq, and later Afghanistan to the present, hasn't accomplished anything, except more dead civilians, U.S. soldiers, and our allies, plus the thousands wounded and the MIA's.
IMHO, if there is a Plan "B", it won't look much different, and with the same outcome.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Plan they are doing what they do best nothing until they have to say or blame
someone else. Plan B bring are troops home and glass bowl the place.
I know thats not right but i want are troops home. Boots on ground is the only thing
that works as long as we give them the full rain to get the job done ..
someone else. Plan B bring are troops home and glass bowl the place.
I know thats not right but i want are troops home. Boots on ground is the only thing
that works as long as we give them the full rain to get the job done ..
(2)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
SSG Donald Mceuen, you're exactly correct. Reminds me of Nam where our hands were tied without full rein.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
We don't seem to have any idea what we are doing in Iraq.
What appears to be the case is that we have to be seen doing "something", even if it is ineffectual, because doing nothing will open some to criticism and we can't have that.
Meanwhile, the place burns down because the enemy is capable of marshaling will to press the fight, while Syrian forces are content to play defense and Iraqi forces retreat in poor order with even the slightest pressure.
ISIS forces are stung out over logistical chains that are impossible for that motley band of prates to sustain, pressure applied to them would force them off their game and deny them initiative.
But what do I know.
We seem to not care, and knowing that make me not want to put one of my Soldiers in harm's way.
Let me know when we have a plan.
I'll sit back and listen to Nero's violin concerto.
What appears to be the case is that we have to be seen doing "something", even if it is ineffectual, because doing nothing will open some to criticism and we can't have that.
Meanwhile, the place burns down because the enemy is capable of marshaling will to press the fight, while Syrian forces are content to play defense and Iraqi forces retreat in poor order with even the slightest pressure.
ISIS forces are stung out over logistical chains that are impossible for that motley band of prates to sustain, pressure applied to them would force them off their game and deny them initiative.
But what do I know.
We seem to not care, and knowing that make me not want to put one of my Soldiers in harm's way.
Let me know when we have a plan.
I'll sit back and listen to Nero's violin concerto.
(2)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
1SG (Join to see), Top, I too think about that. Why are we there, except to save face, when nothing significant is being done to eliminate ISIS and other enemies?
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google