| The Iraqi Security Forces are bad. It is a damning state of affairs. By my count, the United States has trained the Iraqi military at least four times (maybe it is five, but it could be six). Anyone with even a passing familiarity with what has been happening in Iraq these days understands that when battlefield success has come, it has been the result of American airstrikes, the Popular Mobilization Units (PMUs)�the Hashed, or Shia militias, to use the media�s catch-all term�Kurdish peshmerga, and tribal fighters. In the battle to liberate Tikrit, the Iraqi Security Forces were present in relatively small numbers. Carson and Evans and those like them have long ago realized it�s much easier to blame the victim rather than the system. It�s easier to blame liberals, and thugs, and rap. Yet, the problem with this logic is so simple it could be explained by the fictional character of Dumbledore in Harry Potter, �We must make a choice between what is right and what is easy.� Perhaps Carter was responding to the Iraqis who blamed Washington for the defeat. Or maybe he knows better than anyone what is what in Iraq, and when the inevitable accounting is done, Carter and the Pentagon do not want to take the blame for who lost Iraq (again). The most straightforward explanation for the administration�s mixed signals, however, is this: No one really knows or understands what is happening in Iraq. There are, of course, units of the ISF that are better than others, but overall, it is a poorly led force that has proven over and over again that no matter how much time, energy, and resources Washington puts into it, the Iraqi military cannot or will not fight. It was a stunning admission. The United States has been retraining and reequipping the Iraqi military (again) since last summer and its ignominious performance in Mosul, Tikrit, and every place in between. The defeat in Ramadi and secretary Carter�s blunt assessment suggests that the Obama administration�s return on investment is close to nil. It is extraordinarily worrisome because the White House�s entire strategy is based on providing local actors, primarily the Iraqi Security Forces, the means to �degrade and defeat� the self-proclaimed Islamic State instead of deploying American soldiers to do the job. The secretary�s statement was particularly surprising since secretary of state John Kerry assured the press a few days earlier that the Islamic State�s grip on Ramadi would be temporary, while the White House called it a �tactical setback.� There�s a common thread underlying the messages of popular business books that there�s some kind of formula for success that anyone can reliably follow to achieve great things. Though inspiring, this message just isn�t true. The point of these operations is to publicly challenge any country which seems to be asserting unjustified legal rights under UNCLOS. China has a longstanding disagreement with this US interpretation of the law of the sea. So they always make protests, and China has sometimes sent its fighter jets out to harass or challenge US spy aircraft. |
No comments:
Post a Comment
Keep a civil tongue.