Will more advisers / trainers make a difference?
I noted that President Obama has announced 450 additional advisers for Iraq, on the BBC:http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33083359 and a bleak commentary by the BBC's Security Correspondent:http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32846852
Far more interesting are the contrasting views by two Australians, via the Lowy Institute. Ret'd General Molan, with Iraqi experience, who ends with:
Quote:
We must act now to avoid a slow road to a noisy defeat. The question our leaders need to address is whether we are merely participating in this war or are committed to it. If we are committed, we must take responsibility for the outcome rather than just conducting training. As one of the many great soldiers of the Vietnam era reminded me, the Vietnamese used to say: 'Either protect us and be with us, or leave us alone'.
Link:http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/...o-battle.aspx?
Then Rodger Shanahan, a regional SME; starting with:
Quote:
Stumping up Australian soldiers to risk their lives when the Iraqi political system refuses to reform or look beyond narrow self-interest simply tells the Iraqis that they can continue to ignore fundamental issues of political legitimacy without penalty.
(He ends with) Little is straightforward in the region these days, and the last thing we should be doing is involving our soldiers in ground combat in Iraq.
Link:http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/...-in-Iraq.aspx?
I was rather taken with Rodger asking why are local allies, citing UAE & Jordan (both Sunni) not providing trainers - who at a minimum IMHO can at least speak Arabic, are local and Muslims?
Why the Islamic State Is Weathering the Air Campaign
A very short comment by Pete Mansoor via the newly discovered Hoover Institution 'Military History in the News' and he concludes:
Quote:
..without an adequate partner on the ground in either Iraq or Syria, U.S. airpower has proven ineffective in degrading—much less defeating—the forces of the Islamic State. Absent a change in the ways and means of the strategy to defeat it, ISIS is likely to weather the aerial storm arrayed against it for the foreseeable future.
Link:http://www.hoover.org/research/why-i...air-campaign-0
IS is a bunch of Ba’athists in disguise? No.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JWing
I don't usually say this but this is a must read. My latest interview is with Naval War College Prof Craig Whiteside in which he challenges the conventional wisdom about how the Islamic State was able to make its comeback. It wasn't Syria, the Maliki government or former Baathists all of which regularly get repeated these days. He also discusses the tactics IS used and how US policy is failing because it doesn't understand IS. I really encourage everyone to give it a read.
Link:http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.co.uk/...e-in-iraq.html
Joel,
Your Q3 and Craig's answer are important. I recommend SWC readers check it out in full. I have cited a few key IMHO sentences:
Quote:
..
there isn’t a more dangerous idea out there right now that is absolutely unproved then the one that says IS is a bunch of Ba’athists in disguise. I am not saying it is not true, I am saying that we just don’t know this for sure.
There are former Saddam regime members that joined IS to be sure
...When actually mentioned, it almost always points out that they publicly recanted their Ba’athist past and acknowledged their mistakes when joining.
Proponents of the Ba’ath angle disregard this final fact: when IS took formal control of Mosul last year, they rounded up dozens of former prominent Ba’athists in the city… and executed them. I think that act sums up the real relationship.