Online: | |
Visits: | |
Stories: |
Story Views | |
Now: | |
Last Hour: | |
Last 24 Hours: | |
Total: |
he ongoing foreign policy debacle in Iraq and Syria has provided fodder for the Republican critics of President Obama who have blamed him for the collapse of the Iraqi armed forces in the face of aggression from the Islamic State, and the similarly poor performance of the so-called “Free Syrian Army” despite ongoing covert efforts by the United States to equip and train them. The principal sources of the Republican discontent are the decisions by the president to withdraw all US combat forces from Iraq in 2011, and his refusal to confront Syria militarily in 2013. Now that the Republicans have gained control of the US Congress, there is the likelihood of increased calls for military engagement in both Iraq and Syria that goes beyond that already undertaken by the Obama administration to confront the Islamic State in those two nations.
Key Republican leaders have been calling for a more aggressive posture by the United States vis-à-vis the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Current US plans call for the launching of a major offensive by Iraqi armed forces against the Islamic State in the spring of 2015, with the goal of driving the jihadists out of their strongholds in Mosul and Anbar provinces, and back onto Syrian soil, where they will be defeated by a 5,000-strong force of “Free Syrian Army” fighters. The effort in Iraq will be aided by a significant presence of American military advisors, backed by robust American air power. In Syria, the CIA will provide covert capability designed to enable “Free Syrian Army” forces to better direct American air strikes against Islamic State forces. Once the Islamic State has been neutralized, the “Free Syrian Army” will turn its attention against Assad. What, if any, role US air power would play in such a scenario has not yet been articulated, but, clearly, the Republicans would like to see some application of US military force to facilitate the removal of Assad from power.
Whether or not the Obama administration will give in to any future Republican pressure to increase the level of US military involvement in Iraq and Syria is yet to be seen. But what is clear is that any military action, including those plans already approved by the Obama administration, hinge on Iraqi and Syrian ground force capability that, for the time being, exists only on paper. The planned spring offensive is built around three Iraqi army divisions — some 20,000 troops — and three new Iraqi National Guard brigades — another 6,000 men — that have yet to be trained and equipped by the US military. Likewise, the planned 5,000-strong force of “Free Syrian Army” fighters is merely a figment of American creative thinking in so far as such a force has yet to be organized, trained and equipped by US advisors. While there has been a significant expansion of US military presence in Iraq, to include the deployment of thousands of US military advisors whose mission it is to train these new Iraqi forces (both the CIA and the Pentagon remain tight-lipped on how they plan to train and equip the “Free Syrian Army” in time to participate in the planned spring offensive), the fact of the matter is the United States has a poor track record of training the militaries of other nations.morehere