The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Topic started by: mystery-ak on July 14, 2014, 05:48:05 pm
-
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/212135-pentagon-report-warns-of-security-risks-for-us-advisers-in-iraq (http://thehill.com/policy/defense/212135-pentagon-report-warns-of-security-risks-for-us-advisers-in-iraq)
Pentagon report warns of security risks for US advisers in Iraq
By Rebecca Shabad - 07/14/14 11:50 AM EDT
A classified Pentagon review of Iraq’s security forces warns that U.S. advisers assigned to advise them could face significant safety risks, jeopardizing efforts to help Baghdad combat a growing insurgency.
U.S. officials familiar with the assessment said Iraq’s security forces have been deeply infiltrated by either Iranian-backed Shiites or informants for Sunni extremist groups, placing American advisers in danger, according to a report published Sunday by The New York Times.
The review found only about half of Iraq’s operational units are capable enough for U.S. forces to advise them if the Obama administration decides to ramp up support.
Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III, the head of the U.S. military’s Central Command, is now reviewing the 120-page report, which examined the Iraqi army’s strengths and weaknesses. The assessment was delivered to the Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey on Monday morning.
"Secretary has not had a chance to review them," Pentagon press secretary Adm. John Kirby told reporters on Monday, adding that senior defense leaders will review the report and make recommendations about next steps.
"There will be a matter of some time here as we work our way through what the assessments say, what the teams have found before moving forward to any specific decisions about follow-on military assistance to the security forces," he said.
The initial Pentagon review found Iraqi forces who are loyal to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, are heavily dependent on Shiite militias — many of which have been trained in Iran. U.S. officials said there may be no way for Washington to reduce Iraq’s dependence on those groups.
At a congressional hearing last week, the head of the Pentagon’s Joint Special Operations Command, Lt. Gen. Joseph L. Votel, told lawmakers that there might also be risks if the U.S. doesn't intervene to help Baghdad turn back advances by the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), a Sunni militant group.
“There’s risks to allowing things just to try to resolve themselves, particularly when there are interests that could affect our country,” he said.
Earlier this month, President Obama dispatched 200 more U.S. troops to Iraq to protect diplomatic facilities, bringing the total number of U.S. advisers deployed there to 750.
The leaders of ISIS, which controls parts of both Iraq and Syria, recently declared a caliphate or Islamic state, in their territory and renamed themselves the Islamic State.
-
I know what Obama's response will be - "SO"!! :Obounce:
-
Yeah, the soldiers are at risk too. Kind of comes with the territory when you hang around a war zone.
-
I know what Obama's response will be - "SO"!! :Obounce:
Nope. He will use this report to withdraw the advisers and do nothing.
-
Yeah, the soldiers are at risk too. Kind of comes with the territory when you hang around a war zone.
Except our initial reasons for being there, are long since dealt with. Or should have been.
Eleven years after the invasion, to search for WMDs and get rid of Saddam, their internal conflicts would seem like none of our business.
Do we support ISIS in Syria, but oppose them in Iraq for instance? All the $ billions spent training the Iraqi were totally wasted. The "soldiers" threw down their weapons and ran away from an inferior force.
US taxpayers should simply not tolerate more wasted money in the middle east, except to defend our interests, offensively and aggressively.
Everywhere Obama, Hillary and Kerry have gone is in flames, and we are losing (except Egypt where they overthrew our puppets, and Israel where they fight on their own, against our advice).
Enough is enough.
-
Except our initial reasons for being there, are long since dealt with. Or should have been.
Eleven years after the invasion, to search for WMDs and get rid of Saddam, their internal conflicts would seem like none of our business.
Do we support ISIS in Syria, but oppose them in Iraq for instance? All the $ billions spent training the Iraqi were totally wasted. The "soldiers" threw down their weapons and ran away from an inferior force.
US taxpayers should simply not tolerate more wasted money in the middle east, except to defend our interests, offensively and aggressively.
Everywhere Obama, Hillary and Kerry have gone is in flames, and we are losing (except Egypt where they overthrew our puppets, and Israel where they fight on their own, against our advice).
Enough is enough.
I'd bet a buck that you just came up with the Cliff's Notes version of exactly what Obama will say, while waving this report to justify it.
The Iraqis are accustomed to being abandoned to themselves by the Americans.
:smokin:
-
I'd bet a buck that you just came up with the Cliff's Notes version of exactly what Obama will say, while waving this report to justify it.
The Iraqis are accustomed to being abandoned to themselves by the Americans.
:smokin:
"The Iraqis" takes in a bunch of groups-shiites, sunnis, Kurds, etc.. Do you advocate we remain permanently in support of some, against others? Should we be allies of Iran?
Towards what end? Oil imports? Combatting terrorism? Discovery of WMDs?
Do you trust Obama's advisors, State Dept. and military leadership to do correct and wise things, and not make matters worse for the US?
-
"The Iraqis" takes in a bunch of groups-shiites, sunnis, Kurds, etc.. Do you advocate we remain permanently in support of some, against others? Should we be allies of Iran?
Towards what end? Oil imports? Combatting terrorism? Discovery of WMDs?
Do you trust Obama's advisors, State Dept. and military leadership to do correct and wise things, and not make matters worse for the US?
Though that was for Chief, mind me swinging at it?
Stick with combating terrorism. The Taliban were permitted to rise and we got 9/11 and 7/7. An ISIL Caliphate should be actively fought against everywhere it's multiple heads pop up. If that means arm twisting Turkey to leave their Kurds alone, or actually talking to Iran, so be it.
As far as the current administration and military leadership goes - I trust them about as far as I can throw the White House.
-
Though that was for Chief, mind me swinging at it?
Stick with combating terrorism. The Taliban were permitted to rise and we got 9/11 and 7/7. An ISIL Caliphate should be actively fought against everywhere it's multiple heads pop up. If that means arm twisting Turkey to leave their Kurds alone, or actually talking to Iran, so be it.
As far as the current administration and military leadership goes - I trust them about as far as I can throw the White House.
Taking control of entire countries has obviously failed, along with it "nation building" and "win the hearts and minds."
Let them govern their own hellhole countries, but make the price of harboring terrorists, or helping attacks on America or Americans, immensely costly.