Some quick, initial thoughts on the coming fall of Iraq to Sunni insurgents or terrorists or whatever. Especially as it relates to President Obama's actions or in-actions.
First off, many veterans of Iraq are understandably upset that what we sacrificed so much (and so many) for, is being lost back to what is essentially a terrorist group. My unit lost a Soldier while we were deployed, to an accident. However I don't have the same visceral anger over Iraq falling that many do. Maybe because I never really felt a connection to Iraq, but only to my fellow Soldiers. We serve our country and we went there to free the Iraqi people, but when it comes down to it, we fight for each other.
The current situation didn't have to happen. We could have left a residual force in Iraq, which I believe would have helped keep the peace we fought so hard to finally achieve. Obviously there was still violence when we left, but when it comes to Iraq you have to think in relative terms. President Obama decided not to leave a force. I think it's important to look at that decision.
Should we have left a military force in Iraq? It depends, in my opinion, on whether you can look at the problem objectively or not. How much distance can you get from the situation? Up close, the answer is easy: Hell no! I know I personally didn't want to go back and I didn't want any of my Soldiers to go back. (But for a completely different reason than you might think. I'll get to that.) The American people were against leaving any Soldiers in Iraq.
So the President did what the people wanted. He got everyone out of Iraq. And I think the President understands his mandate from the people when it comes to Afghanistan and other places where some have been calling for U.S. military intervention. Egypt, Syria, Nigeria, Ukraine. But Obama knows us, we don't want to get involved, and we certainly don't want to send Americans to fight and die for abstract ideals and people who show little appreciation for our sacrifices.
I don't blame Obama for making these decisions. However...
Is what the people want always what they should get? Is that leadership? Looked at from some distance, the proverbial 30,000 foot view, what is the objectively "right thing" to do?
The people who fought there, and their families, often seem to understand much better than the rest of t he American people what is really at stake. We used to say "we are fighting them in Iraq so we don't have to fight them at home". Which is a way of expressing the idea that if we pull back behind our borders and disengage with the rest of the world, eventually the world is going to come knocking anyway.
And of course, it's not just our safety and security at stake. America really is the "essential nation". No other nation can do what we can do. We have provided peace and security to most of the world for the past 70 years. The wonderful quasi-socialist states of Europe which we are told we should emulate, have only been possible because they sub-contracted their security needs out to the United States. We, and the rest of the developed world, built the modern economy and culture we enjoy in large part based on the free flowing oil from the middle east. And it only flowed freely because of the strength of the United States.
The question then is: what will the world look like when the American people decide we are no longer interested in keeping the world's peace? I think we are seeing that play out already. Russia is getting aggressive and the middle east is falling into chaos. Terrorists kidnap little girls and know that nobody is coming for them.
So this is a leadership issue. In the Army leadership training we talk about choosing the "hard right over the easy wrong". Very often your Soldiers pressure you to let them out of the dirty, tedious work, like weapon cleaning after a long field problem or cleaning the trash out of the vehicles after a long convoy. As a leader you often have to be the bad guy.
Good leaders know that not all of their decisions will be popular. Really good leaders figure out how to "bring the troops along" with them. Make them see the long term benefit of doing the hard thing. This is how you develop future leaders, by the way. The President is not a good leader. He is doing what the people want, but in my opinion, he's not doing what is best for us.
The "hard right" would have been leaving some troops in Iraq. The "easy wrong" was getting out. The easy wrong is apparently our default mode going forward. This will result in more suffering for vulnerable people around the world in the short term, and a more dangerous world in the long term. Who else is going to step into the void we create when we step back from the world? The United Nations? No.
All that said, I'm glad the President is not sending us out to police the world any more. How can I say that after I just said the world will be more dangerous if we pull back? Easy. I don't want another generation of Soldiers sent out to do the hard, dirty (and deadly) work that needs to be done in some foreign land, only to be told when they come home that their efforts were a waste.
I had that experience in 2004 coming back from Iraq and I don't want to see it happen again. Individual people have great respect and appreciation for their military, and I appreciate that. But as a country we don't have the stomach to lead any longer. So I'd rather the world descend into chaos (Sorry world!) than send kids off to war as heroes and welcome them back as victims.
First off, many veterans of Iraq are understandably upset that what we sacrificed so much (and so many) for, is being lost back to what is essentially a terrorist group. My unit lost a Soldier while we were deployed, to an accident. However I don't have the same visceral anger over Iraq falling that many do. Maybe because I never really felt a connection to Iraq, but only to my fellow Soldiers. We serve our country and we went there to free the Iraqi people, but when it comes down to it, we fight for each other.
The current situation didn't have to happen. We could have left a residual force in Iraq, which I believe would have helped keep the peace we fought so hard to finally achieve. Obviously there was still violence when we left, but when it comes to Iraq you have to think in relative terms. President Obama decided not to leave a force. I think it's important to look at that decision.
Should we have left a military force in Iraq? It depends, in my opinion, on whether you can look at the problem objectively or not. How much distance can you get from the situation? Up close, the answer is easy: Hell no! I know I personally didn't want to go back and I didn't want any of my Soldiers to go back. (But for a completely different reason than you might think. I'll get to that.) The American people were against leaving any Soldiers in Iraq.
So the President did what the people wanted. He got everyone out of Iraq. And I think the President understands his mandate from the people when it comes to Afghanistan and other places where some have been calling for U.S. military intervention. Egypt, Syria, Nigeria, Ukraine. But Obama knows us, we don't want to get involved, and we certainly don't want to send Americans to fight and die for abstract ideals and people who show little appreciation for our sacrifices.
I don't blame Obama for making these decisions. However...
Is what the people want always what they should get? Is that leadership? Looked at from some distance, the proverbial 30,000 foot view, what is the objectively "right thing" to do?
The people who fought there, and their families, often seem to understand much better than the rest of t he American people what is really at stake. We used to say "we are fighting them in Iraq so we don't have to fight them at home". Which is a way of expressing the idea that if we pull back behind our borders and disengage with the rest of the world, eventually the world is going to come knocking anyway.
And of course, it's not just our safety and security at stake. America really is the "essential nation". No other nation can do what we can do. We have provided peace and security to most of the world for the past 70 years. The wonderful quasi-socialist states of Europe which we are told we should emulate, have only been possible because they sub-contracted their security needs out to the United States. We, and the rest of the developed world, built the modern economy and culture we enjoy in large part based on the free flowing oil from the middle east. And it only flowed freely because of the strength of the United States.
The question then is: what will the world look like when the American people decide we are no longer interested in keeping the world's peace? I think we are seeing that play out already. Russia is getting aggressive and the middle east is falling into chaos. Terrorists kidnap little girls and know that nobody is coming for them.
So this is a leadership issue. In the Army leadership training we talk about choosing the "hard right over the easy wrong". Very often your Soldiers pressure you to let them out of the dirty, tedious work, like weapon cleaning after a long field problem or cleaning the trash out of the vehicles after a long convoy. As a leader you often have to be the bad guy.
Good leaders know that not all of their decisions will be popular. Really good leaders figure out how to "bring the troops along" with them. Make them see the long term benefit of doing the hard thing. This is how you develop future leaders, by the way. The President is not a good leader. He is doing what the people want, but in my opinion, he's not doing what is best for us.
The "hard right" would have been leaving some troops in Iraq. The "easy wrong" was getting out. The easy wrong is apparently our default mode going forward. This will result in more suffering for vulnerable people around the world in the short term, and a more dangerous world in the long term. Who else is going to step into the void we create when we step back from the world? The United Nations? No.
All that said, I'm glad the President is not sending us out to police the world any more. How can I say that after I just said the world will be more dangerous if we pull back? Easy. I don't want another generation of Soldiers sent out to do the hard, dirty (and deadly) work that needs to be done in some foreign land, only to be told when they come home that their efforts were a waste.
I had that experience in 2004 coming back from Iraq and I don't want to see it happen again. Individual people have great respect and appreciation for their military, and I appreciate that. But as a country we don't have the stomach to lead any longer. So I'd rather the world descend into chaos (Sorry world!) than send kids off to war as heroes and welcome them back as victims.
