The world has reason to be cautious of the crowing reports that Iraqi troops have freed Ramadi from the grip of the Islamic State group.
If it is sustainable, it will be a triumph for the Baghdad government of Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi and a morale booster for Iraqi national forces. Ramadi is the capital of Anbar province, which has been in IS hands since May. But there are still some problems, the first of which is Islamic State forces are on the outskirts and could return.
Second, although the Abadi government was wise to use Sunni as opposed to Shiite forces to retake the city, the government remains controlled by Shiites while Ramadi is still Sunni. The Iraqi armed forces and the Shiite militia receive significant training and battlefield support from the Iranians.
It is also worth examining the role of the United States and the British. Both provided heavy bombing support to the Iraqi forces. Although the nature and extent of the U.S. backing remains murky, it is almost certainly the case that the Baghdad government could not have retaken Ramadi without extensive U.S. involvement.
The issue then becomes why America is doing this, nearly 13 years since its initial invasion of Iraq and four years after President George W. Bush agreed with the Iraqis that the United States would withdraw its forces.
Despite the attention the American media have given the re-taking of Ramadi, deeming it a triumph of President Barack Obama’s strategy for sustaining the Abadi government and combating the Islamic State, Americans don’t care who holds Ramadi. They would like to see a definitive end to the risk of U.S. lives and expenditure of U.S. assets in Iraq.
First Published: December 30, 2015, 5:00 a.m.