The United States is selling 5,000 Hellfire missiles to Iraq in a $700 million deal to “help Baghdad retake ground captured by Sunni militants”, the US Defense Security Cooperation Agency said Tuesday.
But is the Iraqi military skilled enough to use the complicated weapons? Is there any guarantee that the weapons will not get into the wrong hands, like it is often the case in Afghanistan? How sincere is the US in its claim to support the Iraqi government against the Islamist militants whom Americans themselves are supporting in Syria?
Radio VR’s Burning Point is discussing the issues with Prof. Viktor Mizin, Deputy Director of the Institute of International Studies at the Moscow Institute of International Relations, and Dr. J Jeganaathan, Assistant Professor of the National Security Studies at the Central University of Jammu in India.
Viktor Mizin: Obama’s administration has now understood that they, unfortunately, have the legacy of the previous Bush administration, which basically led to a fiasco in Iraq, when they invaded it, but didn’t do anything to help the Iraqi people who are now in a dire straight and living worse than they were under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein.
The US left Iraq, leaving behind the black hole which is becoming the hotbed of international terrorism, including some Sunni movements which is a kind of uprising because there was big dissatisfaction that basically the Government was handed over to Shiites, like the previous Maliki Government, which basically produced the religious strife in this country. And now it led to this kind of terrorist operation in which the current Iraqi Government seems to be essentially helpless.
So, I think that the Obama administration feels something like a responsibility and they are trying to do everything in order to strengthen and buttress the Government, including sending the military aid but, of course, not the American troops. So many young Americans, military people, unfortunately, have already died in this country.
But like you are saying, the Government of Iraq seems to be rather helpless, at least their military is not trained enough to operate those sophisticated systems…
Viktor Mizin: Well, I know and I was present when the Ministry of Defense of the US started the program of training for the Iraqi military and security forces. But, unfortunately, not enough is done. And once again, because all the well-trained and experienced military, who’ve been the members of Saddam’s army, of the Baath Party, they have been chased out of the army. And that’s why the army is quite inexperienced, although under Saddam it was one of the strongest military forces in the ME: well-trained, which operated the Soviet-made and Western materials and weapons.
So, now the Government is controlled by the Shiites. Strangely enough, they are supported by well-trained Iranian Government agents and the Iranian military. But what happened after the turmoil in Syria, right now the border area between Iraq and Syria is becoming something like a patrimony for the worst terrorist movements. Some of them are very much like Al Qaeda. Some of them are quite moderate and are just being the Sunni movement who are fighting against the central Government for some political and religious reasons.
But I think that all the military experts will tell you that the situation, more or less, is 50\50 and it is unclear who is prevailing in military terms. And, of course, for the central Government it is very important to prevent the separatists seizing control of the oil fields, which is the main source of the money supply to the central Government.
The other day there was a report saying that the Americans could not prevent their weapons’ supplies in Afghanistan from getting into the wrong hands, like they’ve put it. Is there a similar risk this time?
Viktor Mizin: I think there is a very high risk of that, because, once again, I'm thinking that those Sunni fighters (and I think it is quite evident on the ground) are more experienced and better trained, and are more zealous than the central Government. And we see that they are immediately introducing the Sharia and Islamist rules in the areas which they control.
So, there is a very strong possibility and I think it’s already happened in many cases, that they seized not just the weapons, but the armour from the central Government and are operating it quite successfully.
And there is another ambiguity. The US Government seems to be assisting the Iraqi Government in fighting the IS. Now, the IS – we all know – came from Syria…we, it emerged in Iraq, then it moved to Syria to fight Bashar la-Assad, where the IS has been supported by the American Government. How should we take it?
Viktor Mizin: I think that in Obama’s situation nobody would envy him. And I think that Russia saved him when it suggested this idea of eliminating the stock of chemical weapons in Syria, which saved Obama from, I would say, the idiocy when the Government of Bashar Assad, who is demonized in Washington, is in fact fighting against the worst terrorist movements in the ME.
And so, strangely enough, it looks like volens-nolens Washington is trying to support Al Qaeda elements, which have been declared the worst military and strategic enemy of the US. And it is especially worse now, when the operation is expanding in the borderland Syria. And once again, it is very unclear who is fighting whom on the ground and, of course, Washington, I think, doesn’t want that to become an open secret that they are actually supporting the terrorists or that the weapons provided by Washington somehow fall in the hands of – as President Bush said – the worst guys in the world.
Dr. J Jeganaathan: I think, though it is a welcome step from the US, it seems to me it is a too late decision. The ISIS consolidated many parts of Iraq close to Baghdad city. The other thing we are witnessing is the double standard. The US has been maintaining that it is fighting against the Assad’s regime in Syria and has been supporting the same element. And now it is trying to fight against the ISIS, which was fighting this Nouri la-Maliki regime in Iraq. So, there is a double standard.
Apart from that, what I found is two things. One is that there is a sense of dilemma within the decision making part in the Obama administration about whether this will be accepted domestically, by the US. You have to see this in the context of what is happening between Israel and Gaza, and what the Israelis are doing in Gaza. So, if you look at it in that context, there is a domestic concern in the US about an impact from making a strong decision about supporting these elements that they are supporting in Libya and Syria, and to support the Government.
The other point I would like to make is – why it is a too late decision. Now the ISIS is trying to consolidate their positions and they have taken the capital in the northern part of Syria, Ar-Raqqah. So, it shows that even with the external support, especially from the US’s side, it may not make any tactical difference to them. What it will do? My assessment is that it may push ISIS towards Syria, so that they will focus on toppling the Assad’s regime only.
On the other hand, how good is a decision to supply more weapons into a region which already is in turmoil? Could it actually deteriorate the security situation in the region, given the risk that the weapons could get into the wrong hands, given all kinds of developments?
Dr. J Jeganaathan: Some of the media reports suggest to me that there are technical differences – that is the Hellfire missile, which can be fired from drones, it seems to be aimed at securing the US’s interests and the US’s military personnel in and around Baghdad city and not to target, because this missile will also cause some collateral damage, if it is fired.
The second thing is whether the Iraqi forces have enough capacity to launch such a missile strike. And if they do have, then the next question comes that – into what house they fall from there – because it may also fall into the rebels’ hands. Given the capability of the Iraqi forces, these weapons may fall into the rebels’ side.
So, as far as my knowledge is concerned, from what I’ve been observing in this situation, so far there is no mentioning about whether it will be handed to the Iraqi forces and whether it has regular forces to handle such a technical weapons system, the high profile sophisticated weapons system. If the US is maintaining it, mostly they would be focusing on Baghdad city and that would physically force the ISIS towards the west.
But in that case, what could be the real goal the US is pursuing in Iraq and in the region?
Dr. J Jeganaathan: It is very clear that the US wants to secure its interests, especially its forces and small bases or what they call FOB (forward operating military bases) in and around Baghdad city. And also it is kind of a symbolic gesture from the US side, that as part of the global war on terror it is part of the campaign against any radical militant groups, like the ISIS.
And then, the Baghdad fight, for the West it symbolically damages the image, that it has abandoned Iraq and then Baghdad fell. It will also have a ripple effect in Afghanistan where the situation is now worsening. And it will also have a tremendous effect on the US military leadership around the world.
So, what could be the rationale? And by the way, the contracts are worth several billion dollars. Is the US really expecting to get the money from the Government of a country which is actually devastated by the war?
Dr. J Jeganaathan: It has been there since the beginning of the year, but it has been delayed by the US side. The US policy in Iraq didn’t play along the US interests. It was never expected that this ISIS groups will move towards east, from Ar-Raqqah towards east to capture Baghdad. They thought that they would go down south and capture the entire Syrian country.
If you ask me about the rationale and the quantum of the deal, I find that in this deal that is now finalized, there may be some sort of agreement worked out with the current regime in Iraq to trade off the US oil interests in Iraq, the US oil bases. So, that could be a rationale. From that oil perspective, looking from the perspective of securing its energy interests, the US wanted to be safeguarded, because the ISIS for quite a number of times targeted these vital energy assets to sustain their success and regime expansion.
