Iraq mission creep: What are the risks?

[bigtree]

from Frank Gardner, BBC security correspondent:


. . . while the case for intervention on humanitarian grounds to save the lives of thousands of fleeing refugees is overwhelming, there is now the risk of what is known as "mission creep"; of a small, narrowly defined operation ballooning out of control, sucking in Western countries into a lengthy conflict with no clear exit.

Analysts point out that however many refugees are escorted to safety, the fact remains that they have lost their homes to an invasive, extremist force that remains in place and will continue to threaten the whole region for as long as it exists . . .

Today the West's objectives in Iraq are relatively clear: save as many refugees as possible from slaughter by IS jihadists, push back IS forces from the Kurdish capital Irbil and support the elected government in Baghdad.

Western politicians are fond of saying "there will be no boots on the ground" but in practice there are already growing numbers of US military personnel deployed to Iraq behind the scenes.

What if advice and air power alone are not enough to prevent the IS from taking more towns in Iraq and Kurdistan? What if Baghdad itself or the cities of Kirkuk or Irbil look threatened?

The risk of a mission's objectives shifting away from their original confines increase substantially when you are not in control of events on the ground . . .


read more: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28774749?ocid=socialflow_twitter

related:

130 More U.S. Troops to Iraq...There's Always Going to be an Excuse - This is Classic


President Barack Obama is seen, in this photo talking on the phone with Prime Minister Stephen Harper from his vacation retreat at Martha's Vineyard, Mass., on Aug. 12, 2014. Pete Souza

[TwilightGardener]

1. IMO, mission creep is different from mission change. Mission creep is when you send

forces to do a specific task that everyone approves of (let's say advising the Kurds), but while they're there they also start doing shit like kicking in doors or overseeing elections or chasing warlords or building schools, without the proper notifications to Congress and chain of command that the goals/strategy have changed. Hopefully if the US decides it wants to get embroiled in all-out fighting with ISIS (and right now I don't support that, but the hawks do) they will announce that as a new mission and get Congress on board and send in the appropriate personnel and equipment. I am really hoping Iraq gets its shit together and can roll back these nutjobs.

[bigtree]

2. you've defined the risks as mission 'shift'

. . .it may well end up as inconsequential as you describe.

I believe, however, the article outlines very realistic and historical reasons why this 'shift' could be much more substantial and consequential.

[alsame]

3. I just finished reading

this piece - it's long but worth the time.

Iraq Intervention? More like Ceaseless Escalation

Ceaseless Escalation

After creating Hell once, you might think Americans would hesitate before doing it again. But our interventionists have never paused and never blinked. In 2011, before the last troops had even left Iraq, we began bombing Libya to liberate the people there from the tyranny of another dictator. Of course, once the Qaddafi regime collapsed, it was chaos—not freedom—that broke out. The next year, a bi-partisan alliance of interventionists demanded action against Iran. In 2013, another popular front of interventionists clamored for action, this time in Syria—and all while repeated their favorite mantra: “We can’t just stand by and let this happen, can we?”

It is on this point that we need to correct our language. For it was common knowledge that in 2013, like in 2011 and 2012, “we” were not just “standing by and letting things happen” in Libya or Iran. And with regard to Syria, “we,” like the Saudis and Qataris, had already been intervening—with covert action and diplomatic support—to overthrow the Asad regime.

Similarly, against the backdrop of American covert action against the Baathist regime, and the bombing campaigns that began during the buildup to the Gulf War of 1991 and continued unabated for more than a decade, it is not accurate to think of the 2003 invasion as an “intervention,” if by that term we mean an extraneous force suddenly inserted into Iraqi history. Rather, the invasion was the culmination—and escalation—of a long history of American military involvement in Iraq. Likewise, the 2001 intervention in Afghanistan was itself the culmination of more than a decade of covert action and military involvement. What proponents of intervention call for now, as before, is not intervention in the sense of a one-time action from outside. What they demand is an escalation of an already existing military entanglement. And, once the operation is underway, they can be counted on to demand that the military be given support until victory is accomplished, as if that were a possibility.

The term "intervention" implies that an action is discrete rather than ongoing, and that it marks a break in a chain of history, rather than a continuation of an existing routine or an expansion of an old repertoire. But that is not what American interventionists call for. A more accurate term for them is escalationist—how else should we refer to people who only ever reach for one blunt tool—military action—when they encounter any of the many vexing problems of the modern world? When it becomes clear, as it always does, that intervention has not resolved the issue (or that it has exacerbated it) the escalationists will always be there to say, “Of course, any military campaign needs to be coordinated with a political/economic/humanitarian strategy.” But by then, it is already too late. Escalationism is the ideological platform for militarizing every policy issue that arises.

http://www.juancole.com/2014/08/escalating-iraq-again.html

[bigtree]

4. it was a good read, alsame. A fact and experience-based analysis

. . . which should be better understood by Americans and Britons alike.

[alsame]

5. And frightening, we slip

so easily into wars

[bigtree]

8. seemingly

. . . deliberately.

[CJCRANE]

6. The neocons want boots on the ground.

They've made that clear through their various mouthpieces including the Murdoch stooges in Britain and Australia.

[bigtree]

7. so does the military

. . . US air strikes in Iraq will have minimal impact on Isis – Pentagon