Our training efforts in Iraq and eastern Syria are failing to create effective local forces to fight ISIL. I suspect that the problem is that the enemy we want them to fight isn't their primary concern. That should be of great concern to America. Like really a lot.
FFS:
The U.S. military is reporting paltry progress in some of its efforts to train security forces in Iraq and Syria to fight the Islamic State, which some analysts say raises concerns of a potential repeat of past military collapses. ...
Those [Iraqi security] groups also remain largely dependent on American airpower and are having trouble recruiting for one of their most elite units, said the report by the lead inspector general for Operation Inherent Resolve.
Meanwhile, U.S. partner forces in Syria have been susceptible to bribes and are distracted from the mission against ISIS because of attacks from Turkey, said the report, which was released in early August.
We used to be better at training local forces. Are
we spending too much time on pronouns? Or is it as simple as we are
training them to be too reliant on our air power? We really should be able to train good light infantry with
heavy weapons units to provide indirect fire as the primary means of
fighting.
Or is the problem that our local allies are no longer motivated to fight ISIL?
Syrian forces have the issue of the locals being more worried about the Turks than ISIL.
And how is it possible that the Iraqi Counterterrorism Service--which spearheaded the Mosul offensive to liberate it from ISIL control--hasn't recruited a single soldier since 2018? That simply has to be Iranian influence that undermines an effective professional military force available to the Iraqi government to resist Iranian allies inside Iraq.
On the bright side, at least we are aware of the problem, unlike after our disastrous 2011 withdrawal from Iraq. Will we act on this awareness?
Because I think the problem isn't America's inability to train allied forces. I'm almost certain I'm not serious about pronouns. Buried deep in that initial article is this insight:
This means that the U.S. should adopt a long-term strategy that tries to diplomatically address issues such as the conflict between Turkey and the Kurds, poor governance in Iraq, and Russian and Iranian influence in the region, analysts said.
Exactly. The foundation of this isn't a technical training issue. I think the problem we need to be aware of is the lack of a common enemy to motivate our local allies. If we aren't their ally against their biggest enemy, we risk our local allies starting to see us as an enemy. Are we ready to rescue our forces suddenly under siege in multiple Alamos?
We need to lessen the Turkish threat so local Syrians see ISIL as the biggest threat.
And we need to make sure Iraqi see America as a reliable ally against Iranian influence inside Iraq--and not see America as siding with Iran. Why would Iraqis side with us against Iran if they see us as betraying them by working closely with Iran?
Imagine how much damage 10,000 ISIL fighters imprisoned inside eastern Syria could do if they suddenly "escaped". Russia would love to see a Sepoy Mutiny across Syria and Iraq.
Protests against the Syrian regime expanded across three southern Syrian provinces. This expansion is unsurprising given that it is a Friday—the first day of the weekend in Syria.
Of course, Assad deserves what he gets. But I'm very worried about American troops. Mind you, I'm not worried the Iraqi government or the Syrian Kurds will openly turn against us. But they might stand aside and not get involved if third parties attack because they think they have more important objectives to secure.
I don't know about you, but my pucker factor just redlined. Maybe we should review Allied relief operations in the Boxer Rebellion and take stock of what units we can get to CENTCOM in an emergency and how fast they can mount a rescue operation.
NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.
