Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Iraq Rejects NATO Trainers


The role of foreign military advisers in Iraq has been a hotly contested issue within the country. Baghdad recently rejected keeping American troops in Iraq under the monikor of trainers after the December 31, 2011 withdrawal deadline. Now news has broken that the government will do the same with a NATO mission.

(NATO)
On December 12, 2011, Iraq’s National Security Advisor Faleh al-Fayadh told reporters that the NATO training mission would not be extended past the end of the year. Fayadh said that the Iraqi government would not grant NATO advisers immunity. He went on to say that he was disappointed that the Western alliance would not be able to continue on with its work, but the Iraqi government was not going to budge on the issue of legal exemption. The rejection of the NATO advisers comes on the heels of Baghdad turning down offers by the United States to keep several thousand military advisers in the country after the 2011 withdrawal deadline. In both cases, the Iraqi parliament was unwilling to grant the foreign trainers immunity.

The NATO mission in Iraq has been operating there for the last eight years. It consists of 130 advisors from 13 different countries. It works out of the National Defense University in Baghdad, and also sends Iraqi officers overseas. It focuses upon tactics, strategy, large maneuvers, and creating a cadre of Iraqis capable of training their own forces. As part of the 2008 Status of Forces Agreement, it was able to operate in Iraq until December 2011. The United States was hoping that the mission would continue, especially after its own offer for military trainers was turned down. The Iraqi military leadership and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki both favored it as well. Unfortunately, all of them will be disappointed. Most of Iraq’s political parties are simply unwilling to accept foreign forces in their country anymore, which is at the heart of their rejection of offering immunity.

Starting next year, Iraq’s security forces will be largely operating on their own. A small police training program run by the State Department, which the Interior Ministry doesn’t want, and a military assistance mission run by the Pentagon out of the U.S. Embassy will be the only foreign forces left in the country. Iraq can still get aid from companies it buys major weapons systems from however. This is all a sign that the American period of Iraqi history is coming to an end. They leave with the Iraqi military incapable of external defense, which opens up the country to outside inference by its neighbors such as the shelling of the border by Turkey and Iran against Kurdish rebels, and Tehran’s continued support of Shiite Special Groups. Those don’t represent a major foreign threat though. Iraqis for the most part, want to stand on their own, whether they are ready or not. That means now might be as good a time as any for Iraq to exert its independence, and end these assistance missions, while the Iraqi forces are only facing terrorists.

SOURCES

Agence France Presse, “Nato will not extend Iraq training mission beyond 2011,” 12/12/11

Brunnstrom, David, “NATO to stop training Iraq army when U.S. troops leave,” Reuters, 12/12/11

Davis, Aaron, “Contours of a large and lasting American presence in Iraq starting to take shape,” Washington Post, 1/12/11

Lee, Carol, “U.S., Iraq Discuss Future Role for Troops,” Wall Street Journal, 12/1/11

Rudaw, “Army Chief of Staff: Iraqi Army Unable to Control Iraq Until 2020,” 4/28/11

Santana, Rebecca and Lekic, Slobodan, “Talks on Iraq NATO mission stall over immunity,” Associated Press, 12/1/11

Schmidt, Michael, “For Iraqis and U.S. Troops, a Question Is Still Unanswered,” At War, New York Times, 5/18/11

2 comments:

Pam Strickland said...

Will the American embassy in Iraq be used or will the Iraqi government prohibit it from being occupied there, too?

Joel Wing said...

I don't buy the occupation and mercenary labels that are being thrown around. The U.S. has an embassy in every country it has full diplomatic relations with. Do you think the U.S. should cut all ties with Iraq, and close the embassy? The security contractors do not fit the definition of a mercenary either.

That being said, the U.S. embassy in Baghdad has the largest staff of any in the world. I heard one report that the planned staff will be equal to all the U.S. embassies around the world added up. Obviously excessive. They will have branch offices in the north and south and plan on running training operations in several military bases spread throughout the country. Iraq still faces terrorism, and militants like Special Groups can count on targeting them occasionally so they need all the security they're talking about. The major problem I have is waste. Such a huge staff, and carrying on some programs like the State Department police training mission, which the Interior Ministry doesn't want, worries me. It makes me wonder if the U.S. government has learned anything from their past eight years in the country.