Fall of Mosul: Strategic Disaster Assisted by Obama's Withdrawal From Iraq

At the Wall Street Journal, "The Fall of Mosul":

So much for al Qaeda being on a path to defeat, as President Obama used to be fond of boasting. On Tuesday fighters for the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, an al Qaeda affiliate known as ISIS, seized total control of the northern city of Mosul—with nearly two million people—after four days of fighting. Thousands of civilians have fled for their lives, including the governor of Nineveh province, who spoke of the "massive collapse" of the Iraqi army. This could also describe the state of U.S. policy in Iraq.

Since President Obama likes to describe everything he inherited from his predecessor as a "mess," it's worth remembering that when President Bush left office Iraq was largely at peace. Civilian casualties fell from an estimated 31,400 in 2006 to 4,700 in 2009. U.S. military casualties were negligible. Then CIA Director Michael Hayden said, with good reason, that "al Qaeda is on the verge of a strategic defeat in Iraq."

Fast forward through five years of the Administration's indifference, and Iraq is close to exceeding the kind of chaos that engulfed it before the U.S. surge. The city of Fallujah, taken from insurgents by the Marines at a cost of 95 dead and nearly 600 wounded in November 2004, fell again to al Qaeda in January. The Iraqi government has not been able to reclaim the entire city—just 40 miles from Baghdad. More than 1,000 Iraqi civilians were killed in May alone, according to the Iraq Body Count web site.

The collapse of the Iraqi army in Mosul and its inability to retake Fallujah reflect poorly on the competence of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, whose Shiite "State of Law" coalition won a plurality of seats in parliamentary elections in April and will likely win a third term later this year.

Mr. Maliki has an autocratic streak and has done little to reassure Iraq's Sunnis, which makes it easy for the Obama Administration to blame him for Iraq's troubles. His dalliance with the regime in Tehran—including a reported $195 million arms deal in February—doesn't add to his stature.

Yet groups such as ISIS are beyond the reach of political palliation. It is an illusion that a more pro-Sunni coloration to any democratically elected Iraqi government would have made much of a difference to the debacle in Mosul. Mr. Maliki may also be forgiven for being unable to control the terrorist spillover from the chaos in neighboring Syria, where ISIS first took hold. Whatever its failures, the Iraqi government doesn't have the luxury of pivoting away from its own neighborhood.

That can't be said for the Obama Administration. Its promise of a "diplomatic surge" in Iraq to follow the military surge of the preceding years never materialized as the U.S. washed its hands of the country. Mr. Obama's offer of a couple thousand troops beyond 2011 was so low that Mr. Maliki didn't think it was worth the domestic criticism it would engender. An American President more mindful of U.S. interests would have made Mr. Maliki an offer he couldn't refuse....

The Administration's policy of strategic neglect toward Iraq has created a situation where al Qaeda effectively controls territories stretching for hundreds of miles through Anbar Province and into Syria. It will likely become worse for Iraq as the Assad regime consolidates its gains in Syria and gives ISIS an incentive to seek its gains further east. It will also have consequences for the territorial integrity of Iraq, as the Kurds consider independence for their already autonomous and relatively prosperous region.

Still more.

And previously, "ISIS Takes Mosul as Iraq Security Forces Flee."