Better Late Than Never

The editors of the Washington Post pose an interesting question. So, a joint U. S.-Iraqi government force dislodges DAESH from Mosul, Iraq’s second-largest city. What then?

In short, the Mosul offensive is setting the stage for a potentially catastrophic Day After problem. Though the United States has painfully experienced what such poor preparation can lead to, in Baghdad in 2003 and Libya a decade later, it is pushing the Abadi government to move still faster.

Military experts are more concerned about the aftermath than the fight itself. Brig. Gen. William F. Mullen, who was deputy commander for U.S. operations in Iraq until June, predicted last week that Islamic State defenses in Mosul could collapse quickly. “And then what?” he asked at a forum at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. The Iraqi government’s plan, he said, amounts to “chips will fall and we’ll sort it out when we get to that.”

“That’s not a good plan,” Mr. Mullen said. “This is going to be ugly.”

They go on to suggest failing to plan is likely to result in a repeat of the same abuses that led to the rise of DAESH to begin with.

They conclude:

Though the absence of such political solutions facilitated the rise of the Islamic State, the Obama administration is not pushing for them. It is not using its considerable leverage — U.S. air support will be vital to liberating Mosul — to insist on better political preparations or the exclusion of Shiite militias. Instead, eager for the operation to begin before President Obama leaves office, it has been encouraging Mr. Abadi to speed up the Mosul offensive, while leaving the Day After problem to the Iraqis. That is a highly risky course.

But, hey, it won’t be risky to the president. He’ll have left office by that point.

It’s too bad the editors couldn’t have started asking questions like that long, long ago. Say, fifteen years ago.

0 comments… add one

Leave a Comment