Obama and US generals at odds over boots on the ground in Iraq

For several weeks now there has been an apparent tension between Obama and some US generals with respect to the role of "boots on the ground" in the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq.

Chair of the US House Armed Services Committee, Buck Mckeon a Republican from California claims that the generals who are in command of the US operations in Iraq have been pushing for US troops to actively join combat: “Our military commanders have all laid out scenarios where we need more troop... if we don’t put boots on the ground, we can’t form the coalition.” Obama has insisted that a ground war with US boots on the ground is not even being considered.
In part, the Obama position simply ignores the reality that the US already has "boots on the ground" in Iraq, about 1,600 of them. The official position is that these troops are simply advisers but there are reports that they have actually entered battle with the Kurds even though officially they are not on a combat mission. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told Congress that the US has not officially reengaged in the war in Iraq at least on the ground: “Instead, these advisers are supporting Iraqi and Kurdish forces in supporting the government’s plan to stand up Iraqi national guard units,”
Both Robert Gates, Obama's former Defense Secretary and former president George W Bush, doubted that Obama could achieve his goal of defeating IS without US ground troops. Gates told CBS: "They're not gonna be able to be successful against ISIS strictly from the air, or strictly depending on the Iraqi forces, or the Peshmerga, or the Sunni tribes acting on their own. So there will be boots on the ground if there's to be any hope of success in the strategy. Gates thought that it was a mistake for Obama to continue insisting that there would be no boots on the ground as he was trapping himself into a position he would later need to abandon.
Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also indicated he would recommend U.S. ground troops if he thought this was required and told reporters: 'I stand by the statement,' he said when asked about testimony before a Senate committee last week in which he first made the assertion. ‘I will recommend… what it takes to destroy ISIS.' Dempsey insisted there is no 'air power alone solution' and it may take the use of boots on the ground to defeat the Islamic State. Obama agrees but wants to use proxy forces as boots on the ground rather than the politically risky use of US forces.
 Top officials in Anbar are also asking that the US send troops into the province. However, these officials are only still top officials there because Iraq was unable to hold elections in Anbar because of security issues. The Iraq government itself does not want US troops on the ground. A cleric associated with the Al Sadr bloc has even threatened to attack any US troops. Many Iraqi Sunnis in areas occupied by the Islamic State prefer them to the Shia-dominated central government. They will likely help defend the Islamic State against the US and central government forces.
Obama could very well be drawn into an open-ended quagmire in Iraq. What started out with a few advisers has even now reached 1,600 and their role appears to be gradually becoming more extensive with engagement in the front lines on occasion. I expect special forces are already engaged in secret unreported missions. It would hardly be a giant step to send a thousand or so more actual boots on the ground with Obama deciding that he should follow the recommendations of his own key military figures.

Sadr Bloc and Sunnis object to Oil Law

I wonder if we will hear anything about the debate in the legislature? The oil unions are also opposed to the draft oil law. The next article posted shows that the Kurdish regional government did not even see the draft before it was passed by cabinet! If the Kurds are opposed then the game is up.

Sadr bloc joins Sunnis in rejecting Iraq oil law by Joseph Krauss
Thu Jul 5, 8:25 AM ET



BAGHDAD (AFP) - Followers of Iraqi Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr on Thursday joined a growing chorus of Sunni Arab, Kurdish and Shiite opposition to a draft oil law backed by Washington.

ADVERTISEMENT

His opposition, apparently motivated by anger at the idea of US and British oil firms snapping up contracts after their countries invaded Iraq, promises to feed a fierce debate but will not necessarily derail the legislation.

"You cannot have both the Kurds and the Sadrists on the outside," said Joost Hiltermann, Iraq analyst at the International Crisis Group.

Nevertheless, "the oil law is one of the benchmarks that has a chance of success. It may not require the agreement of the Sadrists if there is agreement between the Supreme Council, the Dawa Party, and the Kurds."

"This is the same coalition that has essentially ruled Iraq since January 2005," Hiltermann added, referring to the Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council, a powerful Shiite party, and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's Dawa party.

Amended draft legislation on the crucial distribution of oil wealth in Iraq was approved by Maliki's cabinet on Tuesday and could go to parliament for review as early as next week.

Oil exports are Iraq's single most important source of revenue, even after more than four years of insurgent attacks on oil facilities.

Its proven reserves, estimated at 115 billion barrels, are thought to be the third largest in the world, but since the March 2003 US-led invasion production has tumbled from 3.5 million barrels per day to around two million.

Sadr's supporters said they would not support any law that would allow firms "whose governments are occupying Iraq" -- a reference to the United States, Britain and their coalition allies -- to sign Iraqi oil deals.

"The most serious problem with the law is the production-sharing agreements, which we categorically reject," said Nassar al-Rubaie, spokesman for Sadr's 32-member parliamentary bloc.

Such agreements, which provide for foreign oil companies to share investment and profits with the state, would "undermine Iraq's sovereignty in the short run and will strip it of its sovereignty in the long run", he added.

The Kurdish Regional Government, on the other hand, has demanded that the new oil law accommodate contracts it has already signed with foreign companies to exploit oil in northern Iraq.

"The Sunni extremists and the Shiite extremists are against this law without even discussing it," Kurdish MP Mahmud Othman told AFP.

"They don't want any foreigners involved in the oil sector even though we need foreign companies to help us invest and develop these resources."

The dispute could set the stage for a realignment of Iraqi politics, with the Sadr bloc gathering a nationalist front to overrule the Kurds and pass a law that would limit foreign involvement in the country's oil industry.

"If there were a new coalition of nationalists that incorporated the Sadr movement and the Dawa party and Fadhila that could overcome the Supreme Council and the Kurdish parties," Hiltermann said.

The Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council, the Dawa party, and Fadhila, a smaller Basra-based party, all appear to support the bill.

Othman said as long as the new draft does not deviate from the draft the Kurds signed in February they would likely stay on board.

But if the bill passes amid boycotts by both the Sadr movement and the main Sunni parties it would do little to heal the country's war wounds.

"It should be discussed when all the blocs are there, because this concerns everyone, every citizen," Othman said. "These people should discuss it and if they have different points of view they should talk about them."