The Military Loves the Obama Doctrine. Can It Survive Trump?

[26 Inf]

That is the title of an article I recently read on defenseone.com.

It is not a short article, but I'd imagine most could read it in ten-minutes or less. It purports to represent the thoughts of American Commanders and Troops currently serving in Iraq.

I know this is asking a lot, but what I would like is the perspective of folks with recent experience in the AO, or with direct connections to folks who are currently serving in the AO to give theri views on the article.

What would detract from an even-handed discussion of the article is a bunch of comments about biased media against Trump and comments from folks who don't have the frame of reference given by actual feet on the ground experience.

I did not serve in the middle east, so other than asking for comments, I will be an avid reader if anyone can offer a perspective.

Moderators, if this isn't an appropriate request / prologue feel free to kill this thread as if it never existed.

Here we go:

In his 2008 campaign, Barack Obama pledged to keep American troops out of unnecessary fighting while helping local populations defend and govern themselves. In short, it was his reaction to the Iraq War and over-extending America in the Middle East, explained Jeff Goldberg in his blockbuster article in Defense One’s sister publication, The Atlantic, after spending hours with the commander in chief. “Obama generally does not believe a president should place American soldiers at great risk in order to prevent humanitarian disasters, unless those disasters pose a direct security threat to the United States,” he said.

But ISIS’ rise in Iraq and Syria has confronted this vision with shocking reality. The unmitigated slaughter of Syrian civilians has provoked heavy, if not quite universal, condemnation of Obama’s and other Western governments. It angered an American electorate tired of wars in the Middle East but increasingly fearful of Islamic extremist terrorism reaching Europe and America. And it fueled perceptions that Obama was keeping the mighty American military on the sidelines, instead of just taking out what looked like nothing more than a savage band of pickup-driving psychopathic murderers. (One 2016 frustrated presidential candidate made the ridiculous suggestion of “carpet-bombing” Iraq.) Obama and U.S. generals have vowed to “destroy ISIS” — but he will this week be replaced in office by a candidate who said he could do it more quickly.

But what does the military want? In dozens of interviews with U.S. officials and coalition military commanders — from the White House to America’s war room in Tampa, the command in Baghdad, forward control centers and training grounds in Kurdistan, defense minister meetings in Paris, and NATO headquarters in Brussels — one thing was clear and consistent. On the whole, America’s military leaders do not want to be here any longer than they must. It also is clear that they wanted to “accelerate” the campaign against ISIS, as Obama has been doing already for more than a year with success, but they do not want America to own this fight. They do want Iraqis to fight and a functioning Iraqi government to take control when the Islamic State is gone. They don’t want to defeat ISIS only to become an occupying force of sitting ducks.

What they want is what Obama wants: patience. It’s a word I hear over and over, talking with special operators tasked to train local forces to fight terrorism and with the faraway policy makers they support. Like the outgoing president, they believe an enduring effort and a long view are key to winning the conflicts in the Middle East and halting the spread of global terrorism. But will Trump have the same patience as Obama? Will Trump have the same patience as his generals………..

http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2017...ne_breaking_nl

[rero360]

I served in Baghdad in 06-07, from just before the surge through it, we went from tremendous amounts of attacks and IEDs to a relatively quiet city, it was still dangerous but it was much better when I left, then we pulled out, ISIS took over and the shit show starts anew.

I was part of the last group of soldiers at Tarin Qot, Afghanistan, 2013, it was super quiet, we were never shot at and I think there was one rocket fired at the base during that time. We closed the base down, basically ended coalition presence in the province and about a year later our man, Matulah Khan, the provincial chief of police and local warlord was dead from a suicide bomber and the taliban is making a comeback.

Yes the locals need to stand up for themselves but we should also stay there long enough to ensure that they can do so without us having to return in 5 years to clean out the newest batch of assholes.

[sevenhelmet]

My opinion:

The military wants a clearly-defined end-state so we aren't fighting endless wars in shitty countries. These quagmire wars in the Middle East simply don't have one. Saying lofty things like "restoring peace and security" sounds great, but in practicality is just so much bullshit when the whole region is dominated by tribalism. Afghanistan is a country in name only- they have a PM and a government, but huge portions of the country are really governed by tribal leaders. Iraq is a little closer to being a country, but we deposed the only one to keep it in line for a very long time.

Having a government in the Western sense is fundamentally and culturally impractical over there- the cultural values of Arab Muslims are simply at odds with it (the Koran, Sharia law, "me against my brother", etc.) Democracy works in part due to a social contract of delivering what you promise (I know, it's far from true in practice). Ever do business with an Arab? If he is screwing you over, it's your fault for not being savvy enough. All of this and more is why nation building hasn't worked (and won't, at least in the forseeable future).

It's screwed up, but (again, my opinion) military/theocratic dictatorships are really the best forms of actual government going over there. We went in back in '03 and deposed one of the strongest dictators in the region, and are now supporting a rebellion against another. Foreign policy FAIL. Proof that Obama didn't learn from Bush's mistakes. Where does he think all those weapons he shipped to the Syrian rebels are going to end up?

I think it's safe to say the military doesn't love the Obama doctrine- but that the best path forward is to see current efforts through to some kind of logical conclusion. I'm having a hard time seeing what that is though- and unclear goals don't win wars.

[Pilot1]

^^^^^Well said, and I totally agree.

[Det-Sog]

Yes the locals need to stand up for themselves but we should also stay there long enough to ensure that they can do so without us having to return in 5 years to clean out the newest batch of assholes.

Or, we could evacuate then nuke the problem sites from orbit. Better yet, just quarantine the area and let them kill each other off. The hot areas will either self-correct by standing up to the crazies, or burn out in time. Instead, we keep adding fuel or oxygen to a fire that's been burning since before recorded history.

Look... I am NO fan of "O" in any way, but after 60+ years of the USA trying to be the worlds policemen, I think we have enough data points to say the strategy DOES NOT WORK.

[sinister]

Soldiers want a definition of what success is, the resources to get there, and the lift to get out once we've attained it. F@rk nation-building -- that's for the Agency for International Development, State, and Commerce.

The United States' outgoing administration has and had no definition of success. For them, patience and waiting meant not having to make a decision.

Nationally, if you told me I had authorization to burn it down, raze and salt everything, and kill them in Biblical proportions where they would be wary of ever stirring shit again within the next three or four generations I could live with that.

[26 Inf]

My opinion:

The military wants a clearly-defined end-state so we aren't fighting endless wars in shitty countries. These quagmire wars in the Middle East simply don't have one. Saying lofty things like "restoring peace and security" sounds great, but in practicality is just so much bullshit when the whole region is dominated by tribalism. Afghanistan is a country in name only- they have a PM and a government, but huge portions of the country are really governed by tribal leaders. Iraq is a little closer to being a country, but we deposed the only one to keep it in line for a very long time.

Having a government in the Western sense is fundamentally and culturally impractical over there- the cultural values of Arab Muslims are simply at odds with it (the Koran, Sharia law, "me against my brother", etc.) Democracy works in part due to a social contract of delivering what you promise (I know, it's far from true in practice). Ever do business with an Arab? If he is screwing you over, it's your fault for not being savvy enough. All of this and more is why nation building hasn't worked (and won't, at least in the forseeable future).

It's screwed up, but (again, my opinion) military/theocratic dictatorships are really the best forms of actual government going over there. We went in back in '03 and deposed one of the strongest dictators in the region, and are now supporting a rebellion against another. Foreign policy FAIL. Proof that Obama didn't learn from Bush's mistakes. Where does he think all those weapons he shipped to the Syrian rebels are going to end up?

I think it's safe to say the military doesn't love the Obama doctrine- but that the best path forward is to see current efforts through to some kind of logical conclusion. I'm having a hard time seeing what that is though- and unclear goals don't win wars.

Thanks for that insight!

[pinzgauer]

I think it's safe to say the military doesn't love the Obama doctrine- but that the best path forward is to see current efforts through to some kind of logical conclusion. I'm having a hard time seeing what that is though- and unclear goals don't win wars.

One of my sons is a (young) Army officer, currently deployed.

Without putting words in his mouth, the situation is far more complex. It's really hard to reconcile Obama's behaviors with some of his stated goals:

- willingly allowing the military to be used as a pawn in fights with Congress (sequester, etc) with significant damage

- using the bully pulpit with the military to Advance political causes that will not leave the military stronger & healthier. And specifically were not addressing problems. Or create more problems than they solve.

- blind spot toward Russia initially, pulling out forces from Europe

- drawing lines in the sand, and then ignoring them

- allowing Intel agencies to run amuck with questionable strategies, many of which backfired

- premature pullout, not pushing for forces agreement

- Iran nuclear deal, not nipping Iran aggression in the bud

- ISIS is the JV team

- intentional blind spot toward Islamic terror

- Libya mess, Benghazi snafu

My read is that most support the idea of ending conflicts, no wars without clear goals and strategies, etc. Just that Obama did not execute well (or at all) on those positions

[sevenhelmet]

^^^Agree 100%. You brought up some good points I didn't mention.

[Todd00000]

I read defenseone everyday, make no mistake they have a liberal/anti-Trump bias, and I agree with what's been said above me.

You can have a long term foreign policy, but with short , intermediate, and long term goals. Also, our Allies and partners are tired of our Ambassadors talking about gay rights and are ready to get back down to business.