An Increasingly Effective Description
So with recent operations in Basra, Mosul, and Sadr City universally acknowledged as successful, are we allowed to call Iraqi security forces ”increasingly effective” now? Maybe Andrew Sullivan will let us know.
Basra is a particularly good example — the IA accomplished in weeks what the British Army couldn’t in years.
Honestly, I think Iraq may soon have a more effective military than any in Europe. Look at Afghanistan, we can’t even get the Euros to fight.
Subscribe to Dean's World by Email
6 comments
"Basra is a particularly good example — the IA accomplished in weeks what the British Army couldn’t in years."
In defense of the British Army: they answer to a divided populace, many of whom don’t give a rat’s patoot about the lives of ordinary Iraqis as long as they can use Iraq as a political argument. The IA answers to a much more united populace who wants the violence stopped so they can have better lives. The two armies operated under different rules of engagement.
Plus the IA is much less subject to the "foreign invaders" slander, so they get more local cooperation.
This is not to belittle the great work of the IA. I simply think that, in other circumstances, the British Army would’ve acquitted themselves quite well.
It could all still blow up in our faces.
Especially if we cut and run and abandon these people–again.
I’d like to join Martin’s defense of the British Army. My understanding is that it was more a matter of "wouldn’t" than "couldn’t" — the British made a strategic and political decision to minimize engagement against the militias, probably on the theory that increased fighting would hurt the already shaky support back home for the war, and that the collateral damage from the fighting would lead to more resentment among the local population. The Iraqi Army can afford to be more aggressive because of who they are (fellow Iraqis) and who their political base is.
Well, regardless of cause, they didn’t get the job done. A failed philosophy can be just as deleterious as a rifle that doesn’t fire.
Agreed, Dave. Effective vs. ineffective is all that counts when you’re the one living with the results. But there are reasons why the British Army was ineffective that have nothing to do with competence.
True, the blame may lie above the Army per se, with its civilian commanders.
You must log in to post a comment.