Home
Nato plans re-engagement with Iraq four years after departure
Alliance responds to Iraqi government’s request for help with plan to train officers in fight against Isis, despite failure of previous attempt
Pro-Islamic State demonstrators rally in front of the provincial government headquarters in Mosul, Iraq, in June 2014. The Iraqi army collapsed when confronted by Isis in Mosul last year. Photograph: AP
Ewen MacAskill in Brussels
Tuesday 23 June 2015 1
Four years after its departure from Iraq, Nato is planning to re-engage with the country by training officers to help in the fight against Islamic State.
In response to a request for help earlier this year by the Iraqi government, the US-led alliance is also working on several proposals as well as the training, which comes despite the failure of Nato’s previous attempt to create a professional officer force in Iraq.
Nato started training in Iraq in 2004, a year after the invasion, with the declared aim of creating an “effective force”, and left in 2011. Despite training 5,000 officers, running at least 2,000 courses and spending millions on teaching officers both in the country and in Nato countries, the Iraqi army collapsed when confronted by Isis in Mosul last year and Ramadi this year.
500.jpg
US defense secretary says fall of Ramadi shows Iraqi forces lack will to fight Isis
There is frustration in the US and in the UK over repeated delays in mounting attacks to reclaim the two cities, although Iraqi forces – aided by Shia militias and air strikes by the US, Britain and others – have managed to retake Tikrit.
Defence ministers are scheduled to meet at Nato headquarters in Brussels on Wednesday and Thursday, mainly to discuss progress on a new rapid-reaction force that can be deployed on the alliance’s eastern front against Russia or in the south and south-east in conflicts such as Libya, Syria or Iraq.
Stepping up pressure on Russia, the US defence secretary, Ash Carter, announced on Tuesday the locations for 250 US tanks, armoured vehicles and artillery by the end of the year: Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
The equipment will remain in place for use by troops sent for exercises to these countries on a rotational basis.
The US ambassador to Nato, Douglas Lute, described it as being like “a rental car-type agreement for training equipment”.
A-Ukrainian-serviceman-st-005.jpg
Nato will establish rapid reaction force to counter perceived threat of Russian aggression
Read more
The positioning of permanent equipment right up against the Russian border could act as a further irritant to President Vladimir Putin.
Nato officials are still in discussion with Iraq and with member nations about what help it would provide in the fight against Isis. Sixty-two countries, including all 28 Nato states, are at present engaged in an international coalition against Islamic State.
Lute said: “Nato is working on defence capacity-building effort where Nato as an institution would, on demand of the government of Iraq, offer particular capacity-building assistance. For example, helping them write their national security programme, helping them work with security sector reform, helping them with logistics, and command and control, certain niche capabilities which Nato has expertise in doing. That programme is not yet complete but it is nearly complete. I would say in the coming weeks we would expect an announcement that Nato has finalised with the government of Iraq this defence capacity-building.”
Lute said no decision had yet been taken on whether to hold the training inside or outside of Iraq.
Asked by the Guardian why Nato training of Iraqi forces would be any more effective this time round, Lute said: “The hope for a different outcome has to do with the character of the Iraqi government. My government is quite clear that we won’t accomplish something on the ground that isn’t reflected in a different character – inclusive cross-sectarian character – of the Iraqi government. That is the key.”
Nato’s return to Iraq, although modest at this stage, would be hugely symbolic, another example of it working beyond its traditional cold war remit and adopting a wider interpretation of its role.
A senior Nato official said there was no plan at present for involvement in either Libya or Syria.
The official said the deadline for completion of the first part of an Iraq package was the end of July. “At this stage, what we are not talking about is putting a big Nato operation into Iraq. Let’s be clear about that. The coalition is there, it is developing its training effort and so what Nato would wish to do would be complementary to that as a first phase. We are looking at short-, medium- and long-term measures.”
He added: “Iraq came to us with a list of, I think, 11 specific areas where they wanted support. We figured that within that, there were seven that made sense for Nato.”
The move back to Iraq comes after former Nato secretary general Anders Fogh Rasmussen insisted last year that he saw no role for the alliance in Iraq. He said Nato’s role was the defence of allies and it had no mandate or request for Iraq.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Alliance responds to Iraqi government’s request for help with plan to train officers in fight against Isis, despite failure of previous attempt
Pro-Islamic State demonstrators rally in front of the provincial government headquarters in Mosul, Iraq, in June 2014. The Iraqi army collapsed when confronted by Isis in Mosul last year. Photograph: AP
Ewen MacAskill in Brussels
Tuesday 23 June 2015 1
Four years after its departure from Iraq, Nato is planning to re-engage with the country by training officers to help in the fight against Islamic State.
In response to a request for help earlier this year by the Iraqi government, the US-led alliance is also working on several proposals as well as the training, which comes despite the failure of Nato’s previous attempt to create a professional officer force in Iraq.
Nato started training in Iraq in 2004, a year after the invasion, with the declared aim of creating an “effective force”, and left in 2011. Despite training 5,000 officers, running at least 2,000 courses and spending millions on teaching officers both in the country and in Nato countries, the Iraqi army collapsed when confronted by Isis in Mosul last year and Ramadi this year.
500.jpg
US defense secretary says fall of Ramadi shows Iraqi forces lack will to fight Isis
There is frustration in the US and in the UK over repeated delays in mounting attacks to reclaim the two cities, although Iraqi forces – aided by Shia militias and air strikes by the US, Britain and others – have managed to retake Tikrit.
Defence ministers are scheduled to meet at Nato headquarters in Brussels on Wednesday and Thursday, mainly to discuss progress on a new rapid-reaction force that can be deployed on the alliance’s eastern front against Russia or in the south and south-east in conflicts such as Libya, Syria or Iraq.
Stepping up pressure on Russia, the US defence secretary, Ash Carter, announced on Tuesday the locations for 250 US tanks, armoured vehicles and artillery by the end of the year: Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
The equipment will remain in place for use by troops sent for exercises to these countries on a rotational basis.
The US ambassador to Nato, Douglas Lute, described it as being like “a rental car-type agreement for training equipment”.
A-Ukrainian-serviceman-st-005.jpg
Nato will establish rapid reaction force to counter perceived threat of Russian aggression
Read more
The positioning of permanent equipment right up against the Russian border could act as a further irritant to President Vladimir Putin.
Nato officials are still in discussion with Iraq and with member nations about what help it would provide in the fight against Isis. Sixty-two countries, including all 28 Nato states, are at present engaged in an international coalition against Islamic State.
Lute said: “Nato is working on defence capacity-building effort where Nato as an institution would, on demand of the government of Iraq, offer particular capacity-building assistance. For example, helping them write their national security programme, helping them work with security sector reform, helping them with logistics, and command and control, certain niche capabilities which Nato has expertise in doing. That programme is not yet complete but it is nearly complete. I would say in the coming weeks we would expect an announcement that Nato has finalised with the government of Iraq this defence capacity-building.”
Lute said no decision had yet been taken on whether to hold the training inside or outside of Iraq.
Asked by the Guardian why Nato training of Iraqi forces would be any more effective this time round, Lute said: “The hope for a different outcome has to do with the character of the Iraqi government. My government is quite clear that we won’t accomplish something on the ground that isn’t reflected in a different character – inclusive cross-sectarian character – of the Iraqi government. That is the key.”
Nato’s return to Iraq, although modest at this stage, would be hugely symbolic, another example of it working beyond its traditional cold war remit and adopting a wider interpretation of its role.
A senior Nato official said there was no plan at present for involvement in either Libya or Syria.
The official said the deadline for completion of the first part of an Iraq package was the end of July. “At this stage, what we are not talking about is putting a big Nato operation into Iraq. Let’s be clear about that. The coalition is there, it is developing its training effort and so what Nato would wish to do would be complementary to that as a first phase. We are looking at short-, medium- and long-term measures.”
He added: “Iraq came to us with a list of, I think, 11 specific areas where they wanted support. We figured that within that, there were seven that made sense for Nato.”
The move back to Iraq comes after former Nato secretary general Anders Fogh Rasmussen insisted last year that he saw no role for the alliance in Iraq. He said Nato’s role was the defence of allies and it had no mandate or request for Iraq.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
