| Defeating IS: We need a good strategy, not just more troops |
Australia should demand from the US a coherent set of tactics for defeating Islamic State before deciding whether to make a greater contribution to the war effort or commit "boots on the ground", writes Jim Molan.
A year ago, the US put together a coalition of 65 nations to disrupt and degrade Islamic State (IS) in Iraq and then for almost a year refused to lead it. President Barack Obama's contribution has been a case study in strategic confusion and misaligned tactics. Ironically, this made even the second Iraq War look slick.
There are now early but solid signs of logic in the US military assistance to Iraq; and Middle East nations appear to be mobilising and diplomacy in Syria is occurring.
A US review of the rules of engagement was foreshadowed some weeks ago. It appears that this has occurred and more appropriate rules are being applied, with November seeing more air strikes than any other month of the war so far. And the US has offered attack helicopters and advisers to the Iraqis to recapture Ramadi.
US special forces have been deployed to assist rebel groups in Syria, probably as spotters for air attacks and to advise rebel commanders. Another small group referred to as an "expeditionary targeting force" has been located in Iraq, probably to help the air campaign but also to directly attack IS leadership. The US is providing direct logistic support to the Kurds and it is rumoured that British special forces are advising the Kurds in their successful attacks around Sinjar.
Most of these changes began before the Paris and San Bernadino terrorist attacks. It was inevitable that the US would begin to change its tactics to at least vaguely match its stated nine point strategy, only two points of which are military related.
President Obama was under extreme pressure, having said the week before Paris that IS was "contained". Even senior Democrats contradicted him saying that IS was expanding. Hilary Clinton said that IS must not be just contained but "defeated". Former US defence secretary Leon Panetta said that the US must start to lead and that the war needed to be finished quickly.
So the tactics necessary to achieve the overall strategy are finally changing, which allows Obama to play catch up, especially as polls indicate 65 per cent of the US would accept more US troops in Iraq. And after the Paris attacks, the French, British and Germans are involved, and a rather vague 34-state, Saudi-led military coalition to combat terrorism in the Middle East and North Africa has been formed.
Now, predictably, the US is asking allies what they might be able to do. It is reported that the Americans would like Australia to deploy more special forces in a way that allows them to participate in missions rather than stay behind the wire.
Australia is doing a lot that it can be proud of in Iraq but an effective contribution is the key issue involved here, not necessarily the size of the contribution.
The Defence Minister, Marise Payne, is quoted as saying:
We will respond to the United States in due course, but if you bear in mind what we are already doing in our air operations and our building partner capacity work ... these are significant undertakings and Australia is already making a very significant commitment ... Where we can play very important roles is perhaps in command positions and we are responding to the United States in relation to that as well.
There is always a risk here of confusing inputs and outputs. As the second largest provider of ground forces, Australia should not avoid questioning whether our output is effective for the next stage of this war. The measure of success is not the contribution of troops to a training mission, but whether the Iraqi army can fight successfully and win the war in a reasonable time period. There is progress in the ground war in Iraq but there is a high price to pay for this painfully slow progress - IS's expansion in many other parts of the world.
The "disrupt and degrade" campaign, although slow, has been successful. Now comes the "defeat" phase. There are different needs now and possibly different forces - or, more likely, different tasks for the same forces. Forces appropriate for disrupt and degrade may not be appropriate to assist the Iraqis to defeat IS in a counter offensive.
At the beginning of the second Iraq War in 2003, Australia and the UK had a training team that, exactly like our current training team in Iraq, only trained Iraqi forces in training bases and were not permitted to extend that to accompany the Iraqis in small numbers as advisers into battle. The effort was not successful and Australia switched to logistic training. The Brits kept trying to "train but not accompany" Iraqi combat forces and finally faced undeniable failure in 2008/09. Both Australia and the UK, apparently learning from the Iraq experience, accompanied Afghan forces into battle as advisers with success.
In contrast, the US ran a most successful training system in Iraq between 2005 and 2011 that included accompanying Iraqi units as mentors into battle. The US is not doing so in Iraq today on any scale, and it shows. Our inability to learn even tactical lessons is depressing.
Undoubtedly, any US request will be treated very seriously by the Turnbull Government. It should not be rejected outright just because our current contribution is the second largest. Australia should demand from the US a coherent set of tactics that match the next phase of the current strategy and only then make up our mind how to participate. Australia cannot act by itself, and must work through the US to pressure the Iraqi government to fight effectively in what is their war. Destruction of IS in a technical and final sense is unlikely, but defeat is more than possible.
This is what a good ally should do, and it will mean that Australia is serious about assisting the coalition to win and not just make a contribution with no real commitment to defeating IS. A strategically aligned and tactically logical response from the US need not involve masses of "boots on the ground" from any ally, but will give meaning to the coalition effort to assist the Iraqis to win, and be the best way of helping both the Iraqi and the Syrian people.
Jim Molan AO DSC is a retired major general with the Australian Army and a commentator on security and military issues.
| HAVE YOUR SAY!!! - What do you think about this story? Tell us here. |
|
