Isis stalemate forces US into a cold assessment of Iraq government and other potential allies
4/21/2015
Iraqi army failures quietly edge Washington towards support for Iranian-backed militias. Patrick Cockburn reports
As Iraqi government forces battle Isis for control of the countrys largest oil refinery at Baiji and the city of Ramadi, doubts are being raised about the national armys long-term strength and cohesion.
Isis suicide bombers had blasted their way through the refinerys defences and taken over oil facilities, including storage tanks, a technical institute and a distribution point, before they were driven back on Saturday. While some 90,000 refugees choke the roads to Baghdad as they flee the fighting in Ramadi on the Euphrates river, the government says it has recaptured the giant complex at Baiji with the aid of US air strikes.
Sources in Salahudin province, where the refinery is situated, say that some fighting is still going on between Isis militants and the Iraqi Armys Golden Division, which is battling alongside Shia paramilitaries in the south and west of the oil complex.
Iraqi forces appear to be holding their own in the latest fighting but Isis is seeking to show its loss of the city of Tikrit in March was only a temporary set-back. The government suffers from a shortage of combat-ready regular army soldiers and the more numerous Shia militiamen have been sent as reinforcements to both Ramadi and Baiji. The Iraqi army is not really coming together again after the defeats of last year, an Iraqi source told The Independent. Even the Americans are coming to believe that it cannot be rebuilt. There may be only five Iraqi army brigades [15,000 soldiers] which are really effective.
in full: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-stalemate-forces-us-into-a-cold-assessment-of-iraq-government-and-other-potential-allies-10188267.html
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)There's no other possible reason, unless you want to buy in to some nonsense about Iraqis being inherently inept.
it comes down to a plain question - does the united States want there to be an effective, well-trained Arab army in Iraq? if there is even a bit of doubt in your mind about that notion, then certainly it must make sense that the iraqi army - trained by hte US - was never intended to be a top-notch fighting force.
Instead, it was intended to be a client for purchasing US-manufactured arms, while keeping hte illusion of actually being a military.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Their intentions were many, Bush wanted the oil contracts, they did not get that.
They did get ISIS and what else to show for their efforts all these years?
Their entire foreign policy was about dominance, even if we did not need the oil,
the objective would be the same, to make sure no one else could be top dog..when we want control
it is for benevolent purposes, when another government expects their sovereignty
to be respected they can't be trusted...that was the Bush doctrine..which was extreme,
but quite frankly, it sucked long before Bush came along.
The Status of Forces Agreement, they didn't get that in writing either..so where are
the benefits to this domination?
I wish someone could show me.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Except for people who thrive on violence. And those are not the guys you want in charge in a technological society.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)to the mix, as our democratic rhetoric doesn't fit what we end up doing to innocent people
as a matter of practice.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)If people see themselves as Sunni/Shia/Kurdish instead of Iraqis, then Sunnis in the army won't have an appetite for killing other Sunnis. And Shiites in the armed forces will view the army as a day job whereas the more committed fighters will belong to a Shia militia.
And mixed units of Shia and Sunni are likely to be incredibly dysfunctional.