Tag Archives: Ramadi

Ramadi redux.

The so-called Islamic State, ISIS, etc., took control (or at least partial control) of the city of Ramadi in Iraq’s Al-Anbar province, a place that was occupied by U.S. troops in 2005 and subjected to untold misery. In a week that was marked by remembrances of things past regarding the invasion of Iraq (to say nothing of Bin Laden’s prison memoirs), it was pretty amazing to hear the fulminations over the “loss” of Ramadi, with various politicians and talking heads referring to the city as fought-for land, suggesting that the sacrifices of our troops have been poorly served by Obama’s withdrawal from Iraq. They always yank out the troops when it’s convenient, just to raise people’s sense of indignation.

Here come the hot heads. Again.That’s just laying insult upon injury. Our troops suffered mightily alongside the people of Ramadi, and most of those now complaining did nothing to relieve their suffering in 2005; quite the opposite. The fact is, as Juan Cole has pointed out so adeptly, Ramadi was never ours to lose. It has always been a center of Sunni resistance against the United States and its various allies, including the new government in Baghdad. It was, in fact, the base of Al Qaeda in Iraq, the precursor to ISIS, and as Cole points out, former Baathist made common cause with the Salafists in Al Qaeda in 2005-6 to fight off the occupiers. The “Sunni Awakening”, mostly the effort of Sunni tribal leaders, helped to tamp down some of the unrest, perhaps with the promise of a greater voice in Baghdad.

That broader government, of course, never came, and now we are back to 2005-land. Different name, yes, but I am certain that many of those old Baathist officers and tacticians are behind the ISIS advance, taking advantage of this large reserve of battle-hardened, fanatical fighters. The ex-Baathists are unlikely to fall for any new promises from Americans, assuming that their names are still in the CIA and JSOC address book. Fool me once, right? They would rather live with the fanatics fighting against Baghdad than Baghdad itself, whose security forces have treated them very harshly in recent years.

Of course, the military hammers in our ongoing national security conversation are now hunting for nails.  I heard a general this morning advocating an overwhelming force approach. But this problem does not have a military solution. Without a meaningful political stake in Iraq for the Sunnis, there will no longer be a unified Iraq. Bombs, troops, advisers, and drones won’t change that.

luv u,

jp

New year, old news (part 2).

Some more thoughts about issues of the day that seem very much like those of yesteryear (2013, that is).

The last battle of Fallujah.Iraq revised (again). After an absolutely awful year of conflict, fueled by the ongoing civil war on its northern border in Syria, Iraq has been back in the news this past couple of weeks – more specifically, the Iraq war and the battle of Fallujah. There has been the predictable discussion of, was the battle (actually, two battles) worth it, have the sacrifices our troops made been in vain, should we have left a residual force in place?  In the process, though, the picture that emerges of the American invasion and occupation of Iraq is, frankly, hard to recognize.

Just one example: when network regular General Barry McCaffery was on MSNBC this weekend weighing in on the capture of Fallujah and Ramadi by al Qaeda linked elements, he opined that, if Saddam Hussein hadn’t been removed by the disastrous U.S. invasion of Iraq, he would have had a nuclear arsenal by now. The lie that wouldn’t die, right? Somehow, no matter how thoroughly it is debunked and disproven, it always rises to live again. Does anyone wish American troops were still in Iraq? Does anyone still think that invasion was a good idea? Let’s see a show of hands.

Gates. Note to Obama: this is what you get when you retain a Republican cabinet member and give him the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Robert Gates was appointed to oversee the last two years of the W. Bush administration, since the first six had so seriously driven the American empire off the rails. He was billed as a steady hand on the tiller, and I think Obama bought that as well. Gates reportedly criticizes Biden for being wrong on every foreign policy issue for decades – this, of course, coming from the man who, as deputy director of the CIA in 1984, wanted to initiate a bombing campaign in support of his agency’s terrorist Contra army in Nicaragua. He was close to the Iran Contra operation, though managed to escape prosecution (like his boss and good friend, George H.W. Bush).  So … people who live in glass houses.

As it happened, Biden took a pass on voting to confirm Gates as Defense Secretary in 2006 (he didn’t vote). Probably the start of a beautiful friendship. As faithful stewards of the empire, you’d think they’d be nicer to one another.

More next week.  luv u,

jp