Dempsey was not prepared for fall of Mosul

| May 26, 2015

Martin Dempsey

Andy11M sends us a link to the Yahoo News report that Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey admits that he and his staff had done no contingency planning which resulted in fall of the Iraqi city of Mosul to ISIS last June;

“So, look, there were several things that surprised us about ISIL,” Dempsey adds. “The degree to which they were able to form their own coalition, both inside of Syria — and inside of northwestern Iraq; the military capability that they exhibited — the collapse of the Iraq Security Forces. Yeah, in those initial days, there were a few surprises.”

Dempsey’s frank comments would appear to raise fresh questions about the performance of U.S. intelligence agencies in tracking the rise of IS as well the state of planning inside the Obama administration as it continues to grapple with a war against the Islamic State terrorists.

That is a pretty stunning admission, especially if you remember that just four months before the fall of Mosul, we witnessed the fall of Fallujah. The Obama Pentagon promised weapons and training in February that still hadn’t arrived by the time ISIS overran Iraq troops in Mosul. So, it really wasn’t a lack of planning as much as it was a lack of a sense of urgency. They weren’t prepared for the fall of Ramadi nearly a year after the fall of Mosul, either.

In a link that Chief Tango sent us from the Washington Post, they say that Dempsey is just being cautious in regards to the war against ISIS;

“Dempsey had been a strong voice for the limits that should be placed on U.S. military power,” said a senior administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss a senior officer.

For the general, the caution is hard-won, derived from his own history in Iraq and across the Middle East.

Unlike in the last war in Iraq, when U.S. troops bore the brunt of the battle against insurgents, Americans would remain in the background this time. Against the Islamic State, Dempsey believed that “the only way there’s a sustainable defeat is if the Iraqis feel the real weight of the problem,” the official said.

While I would agree that the Iraqis need to make the hard choices and they must commit to the war, they also need to know that they can depend on the application of US firepower to the conflict. I’m certainly not recommending sending US ground forces to the country again, but we have the firepower and the technology to defeat this enemy in a force-on-force conflict, without our own ground forces, as opposed to the insurgency that we were forced to fight in the last Iraq War.

George B. McClellan was a cautious commander, too, and probably the worst general in the Union Army because of it. George G. Meade’s caution allowed Robert E. Lee and his army to escape across the Potomac from Gettysburg and sentenced the country to two more years of the Civil War. I’m not sure that ISIS is willing to wait while Dempsey prepares to retire. Dempsey should be replaced immediately and in the dark of night.

We’ll probably need a Chairman who can tell the President that there’s a war against terror going on, though. From the Associated Press;

President Barack Obama on Monday saluted Americans who died in battle, saying the country must “never stop trying to fully repay them” for their sacrifices. He noted it was the first Memorial Day in 14 years without U.S. forces engaged in a major ground war.

The Pentagon and Dempsey aren’t the whole problem, apparently.

Category: Terror War

23 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
ChipNASA

Just wait until they hear about Benghazi.

palolojo

He’s not worried, he probably has a six figure job lined up and along with his pension he’s set for life. It will be the next Chairman’s problem.

ChipNASA

He’s not worried, he probably has a six figure job lined up and along with his pension he’s set for life. It will be the next Chairman’s President’s problem.
/ftfy. 😀 🙄

E-6 type, 1 ea

So far this President has managed to spend more money and lose more wars than all the other Presidents combined, doubled.

That’s pretty damn impressive.

A Proud Infidel®™

That’s just when he wasn’t out on a golf course, B. Hussein 0bama has also been THE MOST vacationing POTUS in US History!

AndyFMF

Everything is going according to plan per POTUS.

Why do people think that POTUS wants to preserve Iraq? After all, he allied with Al Qaeda to form ISIS (to overthrow Syria).

MSGRetired

The Fall of Mosul was no surprise to me. I was there 2006/2007 training Iraqi Police. They had a huge police force in Mosul. The only patrols they would do is when we dragged them out of their stations. Then NumbNutz hands it over to ISIS by pulling all of us out of the country !

Twist

I was at AL Kindi in Mosul in 05-06. We had a huge problem with the IA showing up for patrols drunk.

OldTrooper

The only way I would be in favor of sending our ground forces into the area, again, is if the ROE were short and simple: Find them and kill them. No prisoners. No making nice. Death and destruction until they are dust. Unfortunately, we don’t have an administration with the will to do so.

ChipNASA

Nukes…..so much simpler and no sweat off anyone’s nuts.

Pinto Nag

That’s because nobody is going to run for office that thinks the way you do. (And THAT is because they know how thankless that position actually is!)

OldSoldier54

” Unfortunately, we don’t have an administration with the will to do so.”

And until the character of a whole lot of folks in this nation changes, we never will.

B Woodman

“Cry ‘Havoc,’ and let slip the dogs of war”

I think William always has the last best word on any subject

David

Not to mention Ashton’ Carter’s statement that essentially the Iraqi Army cut and run despite having superior numbers, equipment, etc. The administration will be busy sucking a LOT of wounded Iraqi pride off today.

AW1Ed

Ash committed the First Cardinal Sin in
D.C.

He mistakenly told the truth.

tc

Sorry, did not mean to hit “report comment” button. I agree with AW1Ed.

Veritas Omnia Vincit

The Pentagon and Dempsey aren’t the whole problem, apparently.

Indeed we’ve had a couple of administrations lacking the capacity to prosecute a war with anything near the fervor of a nation seeking to eliminate its murderous opponents.

Half-measures taken initially, aided with a surge a bit later but without any measurable perception of reality regarding our opponents or their host nations. We’ve had 15 years of men who play checkers for their intellectual stimulation. I’d like to see some men capable of a long game chess match delve into the historical reality and current significance of these host nations and adjust a suitable plan to address those realities.

Murderous despots are always replaced by other murderous despots because it’s often more expedient to maintain the status quo with a new face and pretend it’s a significant adjustment that to actually adjust the long term perception of an ignorant and religiously extremist population.

Under no circumstance where there was a lack of a despotic dictator was Iraq actually a viable nation with a singular national identity. Pretending otherwise places us where we are now.

I guess Hope and Change doesn’t actually mean what the president and company actually think it means.

OldSoldier54

Yeah, Dempsey is a real lap-poodle. Look up “Perfumed Prince” in Webster’s and lo! There’s Marty Baby, in a all his boot-licking glory.

LastBrotherHome

If I had to make an assessment on this, I’d say the intel was probably there, but people weren’t taking it seriously or looking to see it become exact, rather than close. That is at best. But then, I don’t presume anyone along the beltway has really been looking at this for some time, if at all, since the last admin. Just a guess though.

MTFAO

Actually some of us did see it and predicted it back when this mess started. But there was will full ignorance from the politicians that didn’t want to hear it. Some of us actually got told to shut up and color.

Ex-PH2

I’m certainly not a professional soldier.

Despite that, and with my minimal awareness of how much effort was expended in the Middle East to NOT win anything in Iraq or elsewhere, why is it that I was NOT surprised by the fall of Mosul and Dempsey was?

The Iraqis were never truly prepared to be self-sufficient. They struck me as a bunch of overgrown children expecting someone to take care of them and do all the work for them.

So why was I NOT surprised and Dempsey WAS?

GDContractor

//trivia
I wonder how GEN McClellan would have treated the transsexuals?

[…] This is perhaps why I reacted with surprise when I read on page 279 the general’s response to the 79th New York, a group of Scottish soldiers who had refused to fight unless the army lifted the ban on wearing kilts. The sentence read,

“McClellan’s response was to surround them with hardbitten regulars with orders to shoot if the volunteers did not promptly return to duty…”</blockquote.
http://gettysburg-acw.blogspot.com/2006/11/window-into-mcclellan.html

Skippy

The same group of moronic ass holes that said there was no chemical weapons,
And we saw where that went