U.S. defense chief: After Ramadi, Iraq's 'will to fight' at issue

The Iraqis left behind large numbers of U.S.-supplied vehicles, including several tanks, now presumed to be in Islamic State hands.

Wall Street must be beside themselves with delight. Quick! Sell them more!

Title should change the word "will" to "ability". Over a decade of US involvement and the Iraqi military is still incapable.

These are professional soldiers.How can not they leave the fight if the helper fight half of the enemy and the other half was helping them too. So at their point of view is just elimination of populations.Syria did the right thing for them, they give the territory they want to caliphate as state to save population then view the direction where these mess heading then the real fight will break, and it's not by string attach but by people choice when they have a real truthful help to gear it up and it's coming...What's the difference of dying from conventional war and nukes anyway in fighting? Remember that there's a two weight of justice, the law and the weight, and as of, the law is getting heavier in smooth maneuvering in human common senses amongst.

The harsh assessment raised new questions about the Obama administration’s strategy to defeat the extremist group that has seized a strategically important swath of the Middle East.

But, but, but ..... Obama stood in front of returning troops at Fort Bragg, N.C., in December 2011 and announced the “end” of the Iraq war, saying the U.S. was leaving behind “a sovereign, stable, and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government.”

Then again, when a "community organizer" is running the show against what he called a "JV team" what should anyone really expect?

The iraqis are cowards. Remeber back n' 1990-91 when thousands surrendered on the front line when they faced off with Americans.

Why would this generation of iraq's rag-tag forces be any different?

Where is "W's" and Cheney's promise of a welcoming of open arms and financing through oil sales? ISIS seems to have the oil profits and the Iraqis are the delivery truck drivers. The saddest part of the whole story is the number of military people that were lost believing the "bologna" professed by those two losers.

Yes Wc, I recall the famed Republican Guard! The army of all armies. Schwartkopf and crew thew the out of Kuwait and running home in weeks. We need a free and decisive general to do the same with ISIS. Iraqi's seem to crumble.

U.S. defense chief: After Ramadi, Iraq's 'will to fight' at issue

This is not new news. Has been an issue since the start of hostilities in 2003, and has really come to the fore with ISIS. Have real mixed emotions on this one as I feel it is a slap in the face to the brave servicemen and servicewomen who fought valiantly in a misguided war, and suffered thousands of dead and wounded, for us to let Iraq deteriorate like this. On the other hand, sending thousands more U.S. forces to fight a fight their own army will not take on, is foolish as well. Rock meet hard palce.

The Iraqi Army always turns and runs. Suppose Iran needs to move in troops to defeat ISIS. There are not enough Kurds and the US placates Turkey by not sending them proper arms.

Obviously the Iraqi Army, being Shia, is not going to stick out its neck to deal with what essentially is Sunni internecine fighting. Jerseyboy has made some very good points. The only ones who will determine the outcome are the tribes who constitute the region; all the US may do is aid.

McCain, Obama, and the rest of the gaggle of fools in the White House still don´t get it. There is no such thing as "the Iraqis", and there is no issue with the "will of the the Iraqis to fight".

The Shiites are very willing to fight the Sunnis, and vice versa. That is why ISIS is here to stay, and that is also why ISIS will not expand in to the Eastern, Shiite, part of Iraq. ISIS will however, take over all of Syria, unless we stop the idiocy of of arming the Sunni jihadis in our misguided policy of overthrowing Assad.

It is truly dissappointing to watch Western politicians continuing the same failed policy, proving that they understand about the region and its history.

This isn't a failure of US strategy - It's a success of ISIS strategy - they scared the pants off the Iraqi soldiers, who turned and ran. This has happened before. 

"Republican Sen. John McCain, who chairs the Armed Services Committee, called for thousands of U.S. troops on the ground in Iraq, including spotters who can better direct air strikes.

“We need to have a strategy,” he said. “There is no strategy.”

LOL! Like, the last 2 war strategies "worked." :-)

To his immense credit, Obama has listened to the American people and not put any troops on the ground and not started any new wars. 

Americans are justifiably fed up with war in no small part because the last 2 wars launched by the last Republican administration failed spectacularly, emboldened Iran, led to the creation of ISIS, drained US coffers, rubbished America's credibility and reputation, and on most other accounts, FAILED.

“I think there is a major hesitation to get too deeply involved in Iraq again,” said Michele Flournoy, a former senior Obama administration defense official."

Good!

"But, she said, “This is a terrorist problem that affects us and we have to take a more forward leaning posture.”

Rubbish.  ISIS doesn't affect America at all. ISIS aren't even on the same freaking continent. 

To his immense credit, Obama has listened to the American people and not put any troops on the ground and not started any new wars.

Now that's a good laugh. Not started any new wars? How about Lybia, which is now in a state of lawlessness and perpetual civil war thanks to his intervention? Which is now sending hundreds of thousands of refugees to Europe, straining public services and state coffers? And let's not forget about Syria! Had he not intervened against Assad, ISIS would never have room to grow. Had Assad been allowed to restore order, ISIS would never have acquired territory. His actions have directly lead to this war.

The United States did not instigate the revolution in Libya, nor in Tunisia, nor in Egypt, nor in Syria. The US had three options: to weigh in on the side of the dictators, to act neutral, or to weigh in on the side of those seeking change.

Change takes time. We're not talking about societies well-versed in the nuances of Athenian democracy or parliamentary rules here. A fundamental realization must be reached: That of the preference for peace over warfare, which requires an ability to compromise. This is a difficult concept, one even so-called advanced countries struggle with. It must be learned; it cannot be taught; and it cannot be learned under the "benevolent" boot of a dictator.

These are difficult times, but they are necessary. It has only been 400 years since the Peace of Westphalia; 150 years since the American Civil War; 70 years since the end of World War 2 - all of these a blink of the eye in the 400,000 years that Homo sapiens have been fighting each other for dominance. Progress is being made; don't screw it up by intervening where you don't belong.

Laguna:

" The United States did not instigate the revolution in Libya, nor in Tunisia, nor in Egypt, nor in Syria. "

But the Uniteds did jump in with both feet and supported the jihadis in Libya and Tunesia, and the radical islamists in Egypt. Did you completely blank out the US military airstrikes in Libya on behalf of the Bengazi "freedom fighters" aka Al Quaida? Seriously??

Without US intervention, Gaddafi would still be in power, and we would not be looking at a de facto ISIS state. Egypt was thankfully able to rid itself of the Muslim Brotherhood takeover, but no thanks to Obama! And Obama continues to arm and train the "freedom fighters" in Syria aka ISIS, while claiming to be against ISIS:

Seriously, you are unaware of that??

More spotters on the ground to lead the airstrikes where the targets are, that alone is insufficient. The spotters also need an Iraqi force that would coordinate with them to make sure the target area would be clear of friendly forces. The Iraqi forces are too disorganized to be clear of the target area, while the Shiite militias are more organized but won't coordinate with the US spotters.

ISIS simply adopted the US strategy of using rhetoric to justify their actions, but their actions have been largely consistent and predictable. The end result is that while many Sunnis are probably not ISIS' most ardent supporters, self-interest dictates that they will at least be allowed to live if they support them. Support for American forces, on the other hand, was always a dicey proposition because there was never any guarantee American forces would remain your friend. ISIS, on the other hand, is unlikely to ever stop being Sunni. In the end, lack of focus is what doomed American efforts in Iraq and it was that failure that helped spawn ISIS. Having seen what a failed domination of Iraq looked like, they figured they'd avoid those mistakes as well.

Obama’s approach is predicated on Baghdad granting political concessions to the country’s alienated Sunnis, who are a source of personnel and money for the Islamic State group.

This issue is the Sunni-Shia struggle. If you help one, the other will turn into your enemy until the next round of violence, where the other group gets the upper hand, then any action will be seen as an act of war against that group. If we are forced to live in a world where they make that the norm, then there is not much we can do.

Maliki (Shiite) sidelined the Sunnis during his term as President of Iraq, which I personally believe is the biggest reason why we are in this situation. Unless Iraq has a true coalition government they will always have these problems.

If we are forced to live in a world where they make that the norm, then there is not much we can do.

Good point. But they're the ones who are going to endure the suffering. They're the ones who are going to let Baghdad fall. It's gona get scary if or when the Saudis and Iranians assert more influence.

Crazy stuff. Those Sunni/Shiites have been bitter foes since biblical times.

@Wc626

Sunnis and Shiites didn't exist till well over 500 years after "biblical times".

lucabrasi. I stand corrected. I was thinking of the origin of Abrahamic religions. Yup, no sunni/shiite there. My bad.

Superlib:

" Unless Iraq has a true coalition government they will always have these problems. "

"Coalition governments" in the Arab world have never worked and can never work. They will lead inevitably to the civil war that we see now. What works is either a strongman government (hopefully secular), or a division of the country according to ethnic lines.

You had a Sunni secular dictator in Iraq, but GWB removed that, taking off the lid. You had a Sunni secular dictator in Libya, but Obama just had to remove him, allowing the Jihadis to take over. You have an Alevite secular dictator in Syria, but Obama is trying topple him, replacing him with Sunni Jihadis. The Kurdish regions are a success, because the Kurds have achieved de facto independence.

This is all plain to see, but what are Obama et al doing? Making the mess worse by following the naive illusion that a democratic "coalition government" in places with Sunni/Shia divides can work. Insane!

And NB: The Sunni/Sha divide has existed since Koranic times, not "biblical times". They are fighting over the succession of Mohammed. The Bible has nothing to do with that.