This is good:
NATO's chief says the alliance plans to expand its military training mission in Iraq and help the conflict-ravaged country develop new academies and schools for its armed forces.
Keep in mind that there will be idiots who will say, "We've been training Iraqis since 2003! How long does it take?! This is all futile. Get out now!"
The short answer to how long does it take is "forever."
Training an army is not like building a widget and putting it on a shelf until you need it.
An army is an organic changing thing with people coming and going, and people losing skills as time goes on.
Training an army is an ongoing process that trains new people, keeps the people in the army once trained current on their skills, and removes those who prove unable to meet standards of honesty and competence.
Once you stop training an army, it starts to deteriorate.
And worse, it takes time for people not involved with the military to realize they no longer have a competent military.
Even before ISIL grabbed territory in Iraq, I called for re-engaging in Iraq to reverse al Qaeda momentum. But I did not know how far Iraqi training had fallen in our absence.
Even when jihadis started taking ground I expressed confidence that the Iraqis were capable--if supported--of liberating the territory. I was wrong. It took a bit before I even suspected the decline (by mentioning the need for training in addition to providing other help) because of the failure to drive the jihadis out of Ramadi and Fallujah.
When America left Iraq at the end of 2011, we had trained a competent Iraqi military. And in just 2 years without our oversight it deteriorated enough to allow jihadis to rise up in Anbar to take territory from the Iraqi government in January 2014; and less than 6 months later to seize Mosul and the north from the Iraqi security forces that simply collapsed with the lack of competent leadership.
So yeah, it takes forever to train a good--or even just adequate--military.
