Just 5?

5 Things That Could Go Horribly Wrong With Obama's Action In Iraq

Saul Loeb/Associated Press

By Byron York, Sept. 10, 2014, Washingtontimes.com

If there's one thing America's misadventure in Iraq from 2003 to 2011 taught everyone, it is that things can go terribly wrong when the U.S. intervenes in a foreign environment with deep sectarian divisions, an ineffectual government, armed factions, and the general complexities of the Middle East.

So now, Barack Obama plans to step up U.S. involvement in Iraq with more airstrikes and an effort to strengthen and better organize Iraqi and Kurdish military forces, as well as some Syrian rebels. In his address to the nation Wednesday night, the president laid out a multi-point proposal for action. He also had an opportunity, which he chose not to take, to warn Americans of some of the specific ways his new intervention could go wrong. "Any time we take military action, there are risks involved, especially to the servicemen and women who carry out these missions," Obama said. But he did not elaborate or explain any of those risks.

Since the president decided not to talk about possible downsides, here are a few — not at all a definitive list — of the things that could go badly awry as U.S. military forces return to Iraq.

1: The Iraqi government doesn't get its act together

Obama's entire Iraq policy rests on the notion that the country will form a government that is truly inclusive. According to this line of thinking, if Sunnis, purged under former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, are given a meaningful, proportionate role in the government, their support for radical groups like the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria will diminish. "I've insisted that additional U.S. action depended upon Iraqis forming an inclusive government, which they have now done in recent days," Obama said Wednesday night. "With a new Iraqi government in place, and following consultations with allies abroad and Congress at home, I can announce that America will lead a broad coalition to roll back this terrorist threat." Without the new government, there would be no new U.S. intervention.

But what if the Iraqi government turns out to be not as inclusive as the president hopes, at the same time that the U.S. military is deeply involved in the fight against the Islamic State? "One of [the dangers] is that the Iraqi government fails to come together in any meaningful way," Peter Wehner, a former Bush White House official, said in an email exchange. "It may be that the government comes together but the country does not. That is, the Shia-Sunni split is impossible to repair, at least at this moment. It may be that a new government is formed but the leader himself is weak, or too sectarian, or too incompetent to wage an effective war against ISIS. It may be that the president increases our commitment in Iraq, but (unlike George W. Bush with the surge) not enough. The danger is that having re-engaged in Iraq, we don't succeed."

The bottom line is that — by the president's own reasoning — if a genuinely inclusive government fails to materialize, the U.S. mission, no matter how far-reaching, will fail.

2: The ground war is a dud

Nobody believes the U.S. can defeat the Islamic State with air power alone. A real victory over the Islamic State, the thinking goes, will be won with a ground war, supported by a overwhelmingly American air campaign. Without U.S. combat troops, the war will be fought by non-American boots on the ground — mostly Kurds and the notoriously unreliable Iraqi army, as well as, in Syria, some of the opposition forces the president once mocked as ineffective. Together, their performance will determine the outcome of the fight.

"The ground campaign is what is going to defeat ISIS in the end," said retired Gen. Jack Keane, a former Army Vice Chief of Staff, on Fox News Wednesday night. "In that ground campaign, we are totally dependent on surrogate forces. Whether we can do this or not, nobody knows."

"His plan is predicated on more U.S. assistance to equip Iraqi and Kurdish ground forces, and Syrian rebels, to take the fight to ISIS," added William Inboden, a former top official on the Bush National Security Council, in response to an email question. "What if Iraqi and Kurdish forces fail to step up and suffer repeated defeats by ISIS? U.S. airpower alone almost certainly won't be sufficient to 'destroy' ISIS. If the Iraqi and Kurdish forces and Syrian rebels aren't up to the task, and ISIS continues to grow in strength, is Obama prepared to send in U.S. ground forces?"

Read all five:  www.m.washingtonexaminer.com

Follow Larry Elder on Twitter

"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook