01 December 2004
Iraqi Security Forces: New Army to Fight Iran?
The United States invaded Iraq for geopolitical reasons. Turning Iraq from a hostile, unstable regime into a stable, friendly regime was the goal. Instead of maintaining the no fly zone patrols over northern and southern Iraq, and defensive positions in Kuwait, the U.S. and British armed forces would aquire well-positioned bases throughout Iraq that would allow them to project their influence into Turkey, Syria, Jordan, and, of course, Iran. This has been clear the whole time. The justification is what has been so muddled. WMD. Democracy. Hussein gassed his own people. Etc. While it might matter politically, the casus belli has no relevance to geopolitical reasoning behind the invasion.
So, what are the long-term reasons that made this repositioning of U.S. forces in the Middle East necessary? First off, Saudi Arabia has become an increasingly undesirable location for basing American forces. Kuwait has never been favored by American commanders as a military base; our forces there were there for obvious defensive reasons. The post 9/11 security concerns of the United States immediately brought Syria and Iran to the top of the watch list (if they weren't already there), and a host of other regional concerns to the middle of the list. Fused with the neoconservative dream of toppling Saddam Hussein's government, regime change in Iraq made strategic sense.
I will not spend any more time discussing the strategic shift, but I will delve further into Iraq and what it means for a potential U.S. strike, of some sort, against Iran.
Right now the U.S. military is far too streched across the globe to seriously contemplate undertaking any offensive actions that aren't deemed absolutely urgent. The American strategy in Iraq has so far been "Iraqification" and this is particularly relevant in security terms. Recruit Iraqis, train them, let them take over security responsibility for the country. Hopefully, allow U.S. forces in Iraq to retreat to isolated bases, from which they could always loom as a threat toward any anti-U.S. government that might be democratically elected in Iraq and, of course, maintain a strong operational capability for the U.S. in the region.
Iraqi forces are being trained by the American troops on the ground to be their nation's sole security force. But as we saw in Fallujah, they're also gaining experience operating IN TANDEM with U.S. forces. Though the Iraqi Army is no where near an effective fighting force right now, they will be one eventually. And they will be battle hardened and fully capable of undertaking operations in conjunction with the U.S. Army and Marines. All of their equipment and technology will be American. Their strategies will be American. They will essentially be on a level that South Korea finds itself today -- when necessary, a virtual extension of the U.S. Army.
We all know that ideally, the U.S. does not want to police the world. It wants strong, reliable allies to police the world in its best interest. So, what if Iran, currently one of the top threats to American strategic interests, is deemed a leading candidate for regime change? Would American troops sent to invade Iran from bases in Iraq be joined by Iraqi forces in such an invasion, or truly, in any sort of offensive operation? A large, effective fighting force completely loyal to the U.S. would obviously be counted on to take part in such an operation.
Therefore, I find it very likely, that IF the U.S. deems action against Iran necessary and IF the Iraqi Army is operating at a capacity that leads U.S. commanders to deem it an effective fighting force, the Iraqi Army will once again invade Iran, this time in conjunction with the Great Satan. WWIII, anyone?
Much of the hatred between Iran and Iraq in the 1980s was stoked by the fact that Iraq, like Iran a majority Shia country, was led by a minority Sunni government (Hussein's). Perhaps an Iraqi government dominated by Shia would prevent their army from invading Iran at all cost. But, does anyone really believe that anytime in the next 30 years an Iraqi government will be able to stand up to the United States (and the thousands of U.S. troops based there)? The Iraqi leaders in power will most likely have received significant U.S. help to get into power in the first place. They might even possibly see a war with Iran as a way to stoke "Iraqi" nationalism and, in doing so, create some semblance of unity among the Shia, Sunni, and Kurds who have been cursed by the boundaries of colonialism into sharing a nation-state.
As the months pass, and as the Bush administration's Iraqification process painfully grinds along, we ought to keep this scenario in mind.
¶ 5:40 PM
So, what are the long-term reasons that made this repositioning of U.S. forces in the Middle East necessary? First off, Saudi Arabia has become an increasingly undesirable location for basing American forces. Kuwait has never been favored by American commanders as a military base; our forces there were there for obvious defensive reasons. The post 9/11 security concerns of the United States immediately brought Syria and Iran to the top of the watch list (if they weren't already there), and a host of other regional concerns to the middle of the list. Fused with the neoconservative dream of toppling Saddam Hussein's government, regime change in Iraq made strategic sense.
I will not spend any more time discussing the strategic shift, but I will delve further into Iraq and what it means for a potential U.S. strike, of some sort, against Iran.
Right now the U.S. military is far too streched across the globe to seriously contemplate undertaking any offensive actions that aren't deemed absolutely urgent. The American strategy in Iraq has so far been "Iraqification" and this is particularly relevant in security terms. Recruit Iraqis, train them, let them take over security responsibility for the country. Hopefully, allow U.S. forces in Iraq to retreat to isolated bases, from which they could always loom as a threat toward any anti-U.S. government that might be democratically elected in Iraq and, of course, maintain a strong operational capability for the U.S. in the region.
Iraqi forces are being trained by the American troops on the ground to be their nation's sole security force. But as we saw in Fallujah, they're also gaining experience operating IN TANDEM with U.S. forces. Though the Iraqi Army is no where near an effective fighting force right now, they will be one eventually. And they will be battle hardened and fully capable of undertaking operations in conjunction with the U.S. Army and Marines. All of their equipment and technology will be American. Their strategies will be American. They will essentially be on a level that South Korea finds itself today -- when necessary, a virtual extension of the U.S. Army.
We all know that ideally, the U.S. does not want to police the world. It wants strong, reliable allies to police the world in its best interest. So, what if Iran, currently one of the top threats to American strategic interests, is deemed a leading candidate for regime change? Would American troops sent to invade Iran from bases in Iraq be joined by Iraqi forces in such an invasion, or truly, in any sort of offensive operation? A large, effective fighting force completely loyal to the U.S. would obviously be counted on to take part in such an operation.
Therefore, I find it very likely, that IF the U.S. deems action against Iran necessary and IF the Iraqi Army is operating at a capacity that leads U.S. commanders to deem it an effective fighting force, the Iraqi Army will once again invade Iran, this time in conjunction with the Great Satan. WWIII, anyone?
Much of the hatred between Iran and Iraq in the 1980s was stoked by the fact that Iraq, like Iran a majority Shia country, was led by a minority Sunni government (Hussein's). Perhaps an Iraqi government dominated by Shia would prevent their army from invading Iran at all cost. But, does anyone really believe that anytime in the next 30 years an Iraqi government will be able to stand up to the United States (and the thousands of U.S. troops based there)? The Iraqi leaders in power will most likely have received significant U.S. help to get into power in the first place. They might even possibly see a war with Iran as a way to stoke "Iraqi" nationalism and, in doing so, create some semblance of unity among the Shia, Sunni, and Kurds who have been cursed by the boundaries of colonialism into sharing a nation-state.
As the months pass, and as the Bush administration's Iraqification process painfully grinds along, we ought to keep this scenario in mind.
¶ 5:40 PM
