This writer, whose order of battle compilation for Iraq is used by the Department of Defense for public consumption, has given his priorities for Iraqi purchases to make their military ready to defend their borders.
As I've mentioned, he says Iraq's priority should be to extend the American military presence past this year. The Iraqis really need us for another decade with current potential threats.
But when it gets to the recommendations for procurement priorities, I have to strongly disagree with his first priority:
Currently the US provides Iraq’s air defense and there has been no reported agreement to keep that air cover beyond 2011. If I were the Iraqi Government, I would have already commenced negotiations for 8-10 USAF or NATO Fighter Squadrons [with AWACS support] to remain until the Iraqi Air Force can replace them with OPERATIONAL squadrons. I would put 50 percent of the equipment procurement budget towards this problem until they have 200 fighters with sufficient spares and munitions to be operational.
I'm fine with or don't have major objections to the rest of his recommendations for artillery, tanks, anti-tank missiles, and attack helicopters. These are needed to turn a light-infantry force designed to fight internal insurgents and terrorists (which it did successfully) into a force capable of taking on conventional enemies. But the air force recommendation is a gross misallocation of money.
Yes, in time the Iraqis need an air force capable of defending their air space. But half their procurement dollars? If we aren't present in Iraq after this year to protect Iraq, this will just mean that Iraq's insufficient ground forces will be defeated and the invader will capture some nice air bases and shiny fighters on the ground (if they haven't flown off to Jordan for safety).
Air defense is a far lower priority for Iraq based on two points. One, our air power could quickly get to the scene to provide air defense for Iraq, if invaded, from airfields in Turkey, Jordan, the Gulf region, or our carriers.
Second, the experience of the Iran-Iraq War (or as I prefer to call it, the First Gulf War), where air-to-air combat between Iraqi and Iranian planes was very rare, indicates that Iraq is unlikely to be able to control their skies anytime soon without our help. Nor is Iran likely to be able to really exploit their ability to strike Iraqi targets. Helicopters proved to be a very valuable asset for ground support and supply missions during the Iran-Iraq War. And Iraqi air power during that war was useful as a source of mobile firepower to strike Iranian forces quickly before ground force reinforcements could be brought to bear. But Iranian air power quickly spent its residual capabilities early in the war and spent the rest of the war as a force-in-being, representing a potential for a short surge of effort to support the ground war. I don't think that Iran's air force is in better shape now than it was 25 years ago. Syria's air force won't be much better (which is why they rely on surface-to-surface missiles).
So Iraq can count on us to sweep the skies of Iranian or Syrian planes if it comes to war, even if it takes us some days to enter the battle. And even if we don't intervene, I don't think Iranian or Syrian air power would be significant factors in a war. As long as Iraqi ground forces are heavied up to deal with Iranian or Syrian ground forces, Iraq will do well against either weakened army. Iraq's recon, transport, and light ground attack air elements will provide good support to their army and I doubt Iranian or Syrian fighters would have much luck sweeping those assets from the sky.
By all means, Iraq should pursue a modest air force. But they've got way bigger problems with their ground force readiness.
