Biggest test of Obama’s theory
Iraq is having to rely on its own troops to do fighting
More is riding on the battle for Mosul than the recapture of Isis’ main stronghold in northern Iraq. Also on the line is the Obama Administration’s theory that the extremists can be defeated in Iraq, Syria and elsewhere without American ground troops doing the fighting.
For more than two years, the US Administration has stuck to its argument that the only path to a sustained victory over Isis (Islamic State) group is for locals, not outsiders, to bear the main responsibility for the fighting and for governing after the extremists are removed.
President Barack Obama has taken a lot of political heat for that approach, which critics say has allowed Isis to expand its international reach and influence.
The viability of Obama’s strategy has been widely doubted. In May 2015, after months of US bombings in Iraq and in the midst of Americans training and advising Iraqi ground troops, the Iraqis lost Ramadi. US Defence Secretary Ash Carter publicly said he doubted the Iraqis’ will to fight. The US support role has grown and the Iraqi security forces have managed to retake key parts of western and northern Iraq, including Ramadi.
US airpower played a key role in the run-up to the fight for Mosul by taking out Isis defences, cash resources, supply routes and some of the group’s leaders. The US is now providing air cover as Iraqi security forces and members of the Kurdish militia begin their attempt to retake the city. American advisers are working with Iraqi troops.
If Isis loses a crown jewel of its so-called caliphate, will that be a decisive and sustainable victory for Iraq? Or will Baghdad once again falter, allowing sectarian and political divisions to destabilise the country and permit a return of extremists?
Seth Jones, a defence expert at Rand Corp., says the combat phase of the battle will be “much easier” than the aftermath. “I think there’s a strong possibility that a lot of the political grievances actually get accentuated.”
David Petraeus, the former Army general, calls the Obama approach in Iraq and Syria “a new way of fighting. It’s much more sustainable in terms of blood and treasure than obviously having our forces have to do it”.
General Martin Dempsey, who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when Isis moved into Iraq, said: “If we were to take control of this campaign . . . then . . . we would probably defeat Isis on, let’s say, a faster timeline,” but it would not last. “Maybe Isis goes away, maybe they’re defeated militarily, and two years from now another group . . . will just be back.”
In the Obama view, Iraq is more likely to regain, and retain, control of its territory if it is not relying on US troops to do the fighting. Mosul is the biggest test of that theory.— AP