This isn't really Obama's idea, it's a longstanding DOD initiative.

Diane Rehm had an interesting panel discussion on this yesterday:

http://thedianerehmshow.org/audio-player?nid=19760

Frothy Santorum

Blah, blah, blah.

Good choice.. :D

Michale

Mike Huckabee?

He's been the supreme leader of a state, and there was a genuine power struggle with a pretender before he could claim that position. He holds a B.A. in religious studies and his political positions closely mirror his religious convictions. That makes him pretty theocratic.

Surely wouldn't be Boehner, eh? :D

Paul??? Palin?? :D

Michale

If Iran is the Republicans, then who is their Supreme Leader?

Fairly boggles the mind, it does...

Heh.

-CW

Iran is only "plenty rational" in pursuit of their fanatical and irrational goal...

Put it another way...

The likes of Ted Bundy and Charles Manson were "plenty rational" in how they pursued their goals..

It was the goals themselves that indicated their fanaticism, irrationality and psychotic nature....

So it is with Iran...

Michale

Your analogy would be correct if Republicans had "publicly fume, make threats and harass," but not done anything to obstruct, interfere or stop dead, Obama's agenda...

But, as ya'all have pointed out, incessantly, Republicans have done just that...

Obstruct... Interfere... Stopped dead....

That's what Iran will do...

If it fraks over the US, then Iran will do it. Even though it's not in their best interests...

Further what you and I (logical and rational people that we are) know what is in Iran's best interests might not be what IRAN thinks is in it's best interests..

You have to realize that Iran is ruled by religious fanatics not reasonable and responsible leaders...

Iran's fanatical leadership would be ecstatic to turn the entire Middle East into an inferno of religious fanaticism...

It wouldn't surprise me a bit if Iran was partially underwriting (Oh Mighty) ISIS's drive to tear apart Iraq...

Such is the fanatical nature of their hatred towards the west in general and the US in particular..

Michale

"Iran and Iraq *were* regional rivals..."

I take your point, but as I noted "Iran would not be unhappy with a severely truncated Iraq, so long as the Shiite regions and Shia holy places were secure."

The state run by the internationally recognized Iraqi government is a Shiite controlled rump propped up in part by Iran. A reunified Iraq under Sunni (ISIS) dominance would be a regional rival again, pretty much back to the old status quo save for Saddam.

"To put it into a context ya'all can readily appreciate, think of the US as Obama and Iran as Republicans...

See my point now?? :D"

No, but I think your analogy supports my point rather nicely. The US "Obama" acts unilaterally and treats the government in the Kurdish regions as independent. The Iranian "Republicans" publicly fume, make threats and harass, because that plays well at home. But, they don't act on the dire stuff because they aren't confident about winning and they see the down side risk as very high and severely compromises more important goals, such as containing ISIS. Iran is plenty rational, they just have very divergent interest than those of the US.

Iran and Iraq *were* regional rivals...

If Iran doesn't lose any territory to an independent Kurdish state, it might well choose to just look the other way. Stranger things have happened in the world of diplomacy.

Even though it would be in Iran's best interests to react as you lay out, the fact is when it comes to the US, Iran rarely acts in it's best interests..

To put it into a context ya'all can readily appreciate, think of the US as Obama and Iran as Republicans...

See my point now?? :D

Michale

Good point about Iran. Like Turkey, they have large minority enclaves within their borders. They would not like to lose territory to an independent Kurdish state.

But, Iran has a lot interests in the Middle East (you might say they are overextended) and not all these interests completely mesh with each other. US and Iranian interests overlap substantially when it comes to containing/destroying ISIS. Keep in mind one of the other acronyms for ISIS:

ISIL, Islamic State of Iraq and Levant.

Iran is a major player in Syria, Lebanon and Iraq. Weapons supplier, military adviser, Quds Force muscle. Quds actively supported Kurdish forces fighting Saddam.

Iran and Iraq are regional rivals. They fought a long war with each other. Iran would not be unhappy with a severely truncated Iraq, so long as the Shiite regions and Shia holy places were secure.

As a practical matter, a state is independent when it has the power to act independently. When other states treat it as independent. Formal recognition from other states is helpful, so is UN recognition. If Iran doesn't lose any territory to an independent Kurdish state, it might well choose to just look the other way. Stranger things have happened in the world of diplomacy.

Iran is not going to allow things to proceed that smoothly for the US....

No "done deal"...

Michale

Interesting take. I completely agree with your last sentence -- Turkey is indeed the key to Kurdistan ever becoming a recognized state. But I'm not so sure that'll happen any time soon...

-CW

"I suspect (with absolutely no proof, mind you) that the US used the threat of de facto recognition of Kurdistan as a big lever to get the Iraqi politicians to act (by tossing out Maliki)."

Unlike the Shiite and Sunni regions of Iraq, the semi-autonomous Kurdish region has actually shown a capacity for good governance. The Kurds seem genuinely friendly to the US, which is unusual in that vicinity.

Getting rid of Maliki doesn't do much to heal the Sunni/Shiite political divide because nearly all the Sunni populations centers are under the thumb, if not exactly under ISIS governance. As far as unproven suspicions go, I would posit the tribal leaders in the Sunni regions invited ISIS fighters into their towns, with the very active help of Saudi intelligence. Long before the black flags on the convoys appeared. The locals may planned for the US to throw the ISIS rabble out at a later date, much as it happened during the Anbar Awakening in 2007. If so, the local chiefs that are still in possession of their lives, property and influence probably regret the invitation. I think the Saudis are pretty nervous too.

At this point, Greater Iraq consists of two de facto failed states, one Sunni, one Shia, and one threatened, but actively resisting Kurdish state.
I suspect Obama regards the newly elected Iraqi leadership as a card to play at peace conference that may take place at a much later date. At present, depending upon the newly constituted (and mostly fictional)Iraqi Central Government simply dilutes the effectiveness of the Kurdish government and Kurdish military. The US, France and Britain are all acting like they realize this. If Turkey buys into an independent Kurdistan, I think its gong to be a done deal.

I suspected that your spam filters might be a bit twitchy from the revenge of the chatbots incident...or that maybe Peshmerga was a vile obscenity I was unaware of - like B*lg**m, until I set straight by The Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy. God knows how many grandmothers I shocked innocently blurting out that one!

To add insult to injury, my tablet keeps auto correcting transformational into transitional for some reason. Spiteful little gizmo, as is the voice recognition.

No worries.. I don't even remember it, so it's likely not TOO earth shattering of a comment. :D

Michale

I suspect (with absolutely no proof, mind you) that the US used the threat of de facto recognition of Kurdistan as a big lever to get the Iraqi politicians to act (by tossing out Maliki). I suspect we told them "you've got x days to form a new non-Maliki government, after which we are going to give up on you and deal with Kurdistan as an independent state -- meaning we'll openly arm them, we'll allow them to sell oil on the world market, and we'll eventually recognize them diplomatically. This is a BIG lever within Iraq, and as I said, I suspect it had a lot to do with the news from the last 48 hours or so.

Just a hunch.

-CW

See above. Your comment was (eventually) approved. Sorry for the delay.

-CW

If this happens to anyone else in the near future, PLEASE post another comment saying "why didn't my comment appear?" as that's the easiest way I have of noticing something is haywire. And apologies in advance if it happens to you (Michale, I found one of your comments in the spam list a few days ago, I should mention, and also approved it).

-CW

Since TheStig's comment was resurrected as [2], everyone else's numbers have shifted down one.

Again, apologies for the inconvenience, and please, everyone go back and take a look at comment [2], now that it lives again...

-CW

There we go!

:-)

Sorry again for the inconvenience... it was automated, and no banning was intended....

-CW

Apologies... my spam filter's kind of set on overdrive right now.

I'll try to dig the auto-banned comment out and revive it...

-CW

A little title editing... :D

But just another instance of Obama not accepting criticism very well... :^/

Michale

Michale

Such action asks... no.. BEGS for further trouble...

Not to toot my own horn... :D

.... But I basically said this exact same thing when Obama let Assad off the hook...

You draw a firm and unequivocal line in the sand???

You better stomp on the guy who steps over it..

Else you just invite more and more grief...

Michale

The here and now needs more than a small agile force.. As current events have proven..

We probably don't need the sledgehammer of WWII or Vietnam..

But we surely need more than we have.. Maybe a ballpeen hammer...

11 Like the Bible, Sun Tzu articulates a lot of conflicting wisdom. A lot which has to do with leveraging your forces. Sun Tzu is held in high regard by the folks that gave us the modern small, mobile, high tech armed forces. The Cold War referenced Clauswitz.

But, as with most things, people cheery pick the parts that suit their agendas and ignore the rest...

Never quite understood that.. But that's just me, I spose...

Seriously, what military option was available to save Crimea? It's outside of our military sphere of influence. Not worth the trouble. He who defends everything defends nothing. (I went to Fredrick the Great for that one).

Follow thru with the red line on Syria...

The *ONLY* reason Putin went into the Crimea was because Obama didn't go into Syria..

Any first year butter-bar leader will tell you.. Do NOT give an ultimatum and then do nothing...

Such action asks... no.. BEGS for further trouble...

Iraq 2 revealed that yes, we don't have the right hammer or the stomach for a long occupation. Why repeat the lesson?

Again, past bone head moves invites actions contrary to our interests...

2) Oh yes, the sucking up sound of the Hoover Institute. They would ever so much love to see the Democrats get entangled in a long and futile Dubyaesque ground quagmire. Might even gain the Republicans a Presidency in '16. Exxxcelllent!

Considering how badly Obama is frakin' up this country and it's place in the world order, there ain't much Democrats can do to prevent a Republican POTUS in 2016...

The only thing that leaving Iraq to the (Oh Mighty) ISIS wolves is please the Americans who are already enslaved by political Party dogma and will vote Democrat anyways...

It's us Independents and NPAs that your Democrats have to impress..

Guess what???

"That don't impress me much..."
-Shania Twain

:D

Michale

11 Like the Bible, Sun Tzu articulates a lot of conflicting wisdom. A lot which has to do with leveraging your forces. Sun Tzu is held in high regard by the folks that gave us the modern small, mobile, high tech armed forces. The Cold War referenced Clauswitz.

Seriously, what military option was available to save Crimea? It's outside of our military sphere of influence. Not worth the trouble. He who defends everything defends nothing. (I went to Fredrick the Great for that one).

Iraq 2 revealed that yes, we don't have the right hammer or the stomach for a long occupation. Why repeat the lesson?

The US air lever allowed Libyan insurgents to defeat Kadafi's military. Is the principle applicable to ISIS? I think so.

12) Oh yes, the sucking up sound of the Hoover Institute. They would ever so much love to see the Democrats get entangled in a long and futile Dubyaesque ground quagmire. Might even gain the Republicans a Presidency in '16. Exxxcelllent!

DING!!! DING!!! DING!!! DING!!!!

We have a winner!!!!

THAT is *EXACTLY* the problem with Obama..

Everything "forces his hand"..

He is ALWAYS reactive, NEVER pro-active...

He is dancing to the bad guy's tune....

"It is better to attack at your convenience than to defend at your enemy's convenience"
-Sun Tzu

Obama is ALWAYS playing defense. ALWAYS playing catch-up.. ALWAYS leading from behind...

Like I said.. Obama would be a great President. In The Maldives or Barbados or any other small pissant country that doesn't have any global obligations...

But as a REAL leader???

"Failed.. Failed.. IMPRESSIVELY failed.."
-Doctor, ARMAGEDDON

Pissant dictators and terrorist groups are flipping off the US and doing whatever the hell they want...

You may be right that the world is changing and is going to need a small agile high tech force in the future.....

But we're in the here and now... And, in the here and now a hammer is needed, not a lever...

Granted, in 50-100 years, future American historians might marvel of Obama prescient decision to create a small agile high tech force...

Of course, this assumes that there IS an America 50-100 years from now. That it wasn't overrun or destroyed because a HAMMER was needed, not a lever...

It goes to EXACTLY what I was saying in FTP comment #23.. Obama and Democrats govern as if the world is what they would LIKE it to be, not as it really is..

Obama's mindset is that the world is a "lever military" type world, so that's what he is going to create...

But anyone with more than passing military experience can tell you that it is definitely a "hammer military" type world...

Did Obama's "lever" save the Crimea??

Did Obama's "lever" save Iraq??

Did Obama's "lever" save Libya???

How many failures must this country endure before someone thinks, "OK... This new stuff isn't working..."

Fear is an important part, perhaps the MOST important part, of deterrence...

No one fears Obama's America....

THAT is why the world is the way it is...

Michale

Things are moving rapidly down at the ol' Pottery Barn, but it looks to me Obama is about to tilt to de facto Kurdish independence and abandon the notion of a unified Iraq. The ISIS offensive into Kurdish regions has forced his hand. There is no time to remake a greater Iraqi government yet again.

Obama is poised to try and stabilize the chaos by means of a Libya style, sustained air campaign backing up Peshmerga light infantry. Air power may be needed to back up Shiite militia as well. The opening shots have been fired, the next move will be determined by ISIS behavior....which tends strongly towards the bad.

M-

The Middle East is not the petro energy giant it once was. The US still imports significant amounts of oil, but Mid East oil is a small fraction. The US economy is much more globalized than it was 25 years ago. US foreign policy is responding to these changes. So is the grand US military mission, and the force structure of the US military. The latter is basically the "transition" military (small, high tech, agile) that was envisioned before Dubya entered the White House. A force that is more like a lever, and less like a hammer. Obama is squarely on the evolutionary path that was envisioned way back then. There is really no other choice.

It seems to me that Obama himself is positing an analysis to defend policies that HE HIMSELF made....

So, why is it OK for Obama do that but not others??

Michale

I had that happen to me over the weekend.. Sometimes comments get swept away to NNL... Try mentioning "Taylor Marsh" and see what happens?? :D

I agree with your assessment: "Fair, balanced and so dead on ballz accurate, it's scary..."

Thanx ya... :D

But then I read the rest of your comment and wonder if we're referencing the same story. Could this be some form of web quantum mechanics.... :-)

What, exactly, confuses you about my comment??

Granted the last line was a bit o' tortured syntax...

Kinda a double negative with a 1 1/5 twist, Degree Of Difficulty 3.4 :D

Michale

I agree with your assessment: "Fair, balanced and so dead on ballz accurate, it's scary..."

But then I read the rest of your comment and wonder if we're referencing the same story. Could this be some form of web quantum mechanics.... :-)

PS, If this shows up I'll know I'm not banned...an earlier comment of mine has not shown up.

Obama's problem is that he has done away with the big stick and has emphatically stated that he won't USE a big stick, yet he still talks softly and expects that the bad guys will still listen to him...

Obama just doesn't get that it is the BIG STICK and the threat that it represents is what forces the bad guys to listen...

Obama would have been a great leader of a minor country with no international obligations. Liechtenstein or San Marino or Tuvala..

But the leader of the free world???

Obama makes CARTER look good..

And THAT says a lot...

Michale

Exploit our own oil and gas resources...

But the same group that opposes US intervention in the Middle East is the same group that stops us from not HAVING to intervene in the Middle East..

Ya gotta say one thing for the Left. They epitomize and define irony... :D

Kudos to the commentary, CW.. Fair, balanced and so dead on ballz accurate, it's scary...

Michale

"Keeping the oil flowing" is still the dominant factor driving US policy in the Middle East, but back in the late 20th century the US was (as you noted) worried about oil flowing into US markets. In the new century, the US doesn't import much oil from the Middle East....we still want to keep Middle Eastern oil flowing, but to the World Markets of the globalized economy. That said, the Middle East is a much less important energy player in the early 21st century than it was in the late 20th. That's a big strategic shift that's affecting US force structure and it's bound to alter regional diplomatic policies.

The concept of "turning the tide of a low-grade war through the introduction of American air power to the battlefield" is a pretty good approximation of United States war fighting doctrine at present. This trend has been underway for some time, with considerable practice and refinement from combat in the Balkans to Iraq to "proof of concept" over Libya. The US Navy supplies a lot of this air power, and not just through carrier aviation.

ISIS/ISIL/IS movement north towards Kurdish Iraq provided Obama with a strong incentive and good opportunities to leverage unopposed US air power, Libya Campaign style. The Kurdish Peshmerga are lightly armed infantry, but battle trained, motivated and are fighting on their own turf. Turkey is not far away, a potential secure base for US tactical aircraft, but perhaps more importantly, safe airspace for US battlefield management/electronic intelligence aircraft. The ones that most effectively direct high flying tactical aircraft that truck in the smart weapons that can interdict ISIS supply and neutralize modest ISIS advantages in artillery and armor. Obama is signaling his intent of a sustained air campaign with comments to the effect of "this will take time." It will take time, it will burn a lot of money, but it has good prospects for success. If you consider success to be stabilizing a fractured Iraq, with a de facto independent Kurdish state and Sunni regions in sullen rebellion and/or ISIS occupation. Given the potential alternatives, I'd say that's success. ISIS has signaled that the US threat is credible by furling the black flags that proudly marked their vehicles.

The US Congress is going to have a lot to digest while on extended vacation and into full campaign mode.

A quick timeline note. While this article was being written, obviously, events on the ground in Iraq (Baghdad in particular) were developing rapidly. So please view this article as a commentary specifically limited to the American military strategy. I will have more to say about the political developments within Iraq in future columns, no doubt.

Just wanted to be clear, in case anyone was wondering why I am seemingly ignoring recent news in this particular column.

-CW