Paulie,
et al,
The entire concept of the Iraq War (Liberation, etc) is subjective and very controversial; to say the least. The notion of
"success" is undefined. Different evaluators see this from different perspectives, and through lenses that refract the light of success in alternatives ways.
Combat brigades have been removed. That doesn't mean that the remaining troops will see no combat. It also doesn't mean that US forces will fail to support Iraqi operations, combat and otherwise.
US forces won't lead combat operations.
It's kind of like Mission Accomplished.
The combat mission was accomplished...
Only it wasn't.
If one looks at the convensional military conflict, and Regime Change, then most evaluators would say, the term of engagement was an
"unqualified success" for Allied Forces
(AKA: CJTF-7 and all support elements).
In another sense, if you included the post-conflict phase, then the outside observer cannot fully evaluate the mission in terms of success or failure; because the end-state has not been achieved. All that can be said, is that the stated expectations have not been aquired.
If the evaluation is based on the National Strategy, then clearly, the evaluator must do a comparative analysis between the actual ground truth (now) and the defined steps outlined in the strategy:
Victory in Iraq is Defined in Stages
- Short term, Iraq is making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces.
- Medium term, Iraq is in the lead defeating terrorists and providing its own security, with a fully constitutional government in place, and on its way to achieving its economic potential.
- Longer term, Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism.
In this case, the post-conflict stage is still in the short-term range. All the more recent word pictures presented by GEN Odienro
(and others) indicates that US Political-Military Advise & Assistance
(over $1T using our best Military and Diplomatic Minds) have yet to achieve any results beyond the initial Short-term starting point.
It is
clearly not meeting the
Medium term criteria:
- Iraq is not fully leading the the fight against terrorists, in fact it still requires US Advisors and support.
- While it is providing for some of its security needs, there are still an array of US Advisors in the area of local security, insurgency suppression, border security and airport security.
- It clearly cannot manage this on its own. Personnel still depend on a Rhino to get them back and forth between the old Green Zone (now Pink), and the Air port/Camp Victory. It does not have a Constitutional Government in place.
- The elections were late and the outcome is undetermined.
Iraq making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces, are KEY to even the most basic
short term objectives. Instead, what we find today is something very different.
- The Iraqi Constitution calls for Islam to be the source of all legislation. (Islamic State) All we need is a radical cleric to be in charge.
- IraqÂ’s elections were 7 months ago with no government in place yet.
- Former PM Ayad Allawi, wins, but is blocked-out.
- Current PM Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, loses, but is still in power.
- Current PM makes a deal with Terrorist Cleric via Iranian intervention.
- Currently, SOI/Awakening element are slipping away (from the GOI/ISF) to the insurgents.
One has to look at the question in an unemotional and cold evaluation of the facts, as they are, and not how we would like them to be.
(REMEMBER) With the strange attachments our creation is making in the open, we are still planning:
BAGHDAD --- The Pentagon has proposed selling arms worth $4.2 billion to Iraq as it drives to bolster the country's new-era military amid the U.S. withdrawal and to provide Persian Gulf states with massive infusions of advanced weaponry to stand up to Iran.
The package proposed by the Department of Defense this week includes 18 Lockheed Martin F-16 strike jets, Raytheon AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air, heat-seeking missiles for dogfighting, laser-guided bombs and reconnaissance equipment.
The Pentagon said the sale would make Baghdad "a more valuable partner in an important area of the world as well as supporting Iraq's legitimate needs" regarding self-defense.
QUESTION: Now how much sense does that make when the Prime Minister of Iraq is in bed with Iran and Syria, not to mention, the anti-American Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr?
We need to retract, in our entirety and let Iraq choose its own destiny. Our best and brightest (Military & Foreign Service) has botched this up to a degree that is almost unimaginable, if I hadn't lived through it and been there. Worse than Vietnam.
Most Respectfully,
R
