Skip to footer

More troops to Iraq? Six questions Pentagon needs to answer first.

Here are six of the big questions the Pentagon is grappling with, even as calls for more troops to the region continue.

3. If the Iraqi-US coalition retakes these areas from the Islamic State, then what?

AP
Iraqi security forces defend their positions against Islamic State group attack in Husaybah, five miles east of Ramadi, Iraq, on June 15, 2015. The Islamic State group still holds about a third of Iraq and Syria, including Iraq's second-largest city, Mosul.

  • By Anna Mulrine Staff writer

 

The US military “is more than capable of retaking ISIS-held areas like Ramadi and Mosul,” Mr. Scharre, the former Ranger, notes.

The problem, he adds, is “then what? For how long would US troops stay? A generation?”

The unraveling within Iraq has not been the result of lack of continuous training, says retired Lt. Gen. David Barno, former commander of US forces in Afghanistan. “I don’t see this as a training problem. It’s primarily a problem of willpower, motivation, and leadership.”

This lack of willpower stems from the sectarian divide within the military, which is supported by Shiite national leadership that has repeatedly marginalized Sunni troops within the Army’s ranks. 

And so, if it’s “an Iraqi Army that’s at war with itself, are we the ones to fix it?" asks Mr. Barno, who is now at American University in Washington.

Perhaps, he says, the US is the only honest broker in the region. But there are other nations who could lend a hand as well, including European allies, for example, who are closer to the region, many analysts point out. There’s also Saudi Arabia – a close neighbor that has the world’s third largest defense budget – adds Democratic presidential contender Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

3 of 6
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.