Progress Watch

Since late 2003, the IED has been the most pressing tactical threat to American forces in Iraq. Now, via the Danger Room, we’re seeing two positive signs that the IED threat has been mitigated–though certainly not yet neutralized. First, Noah Shachtman reports on the decision to cut the budget for JIEDDO, the Joint IED Defeat Organization:

Not too long ago, if a Congressman dared to withhold cash from the war effort — especially funds for fighting improvised bombs — he would’ve been blasted as a traitor. But the politics of Iraq and Afghanistan have shifted, in all sorts of ways. And so lawmakers now feel safe in taking a whack at the Pentagon’s controversial bomb-stopping group, the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization, or JIEDDO. Inside Defense reports that the agency’s $500 million budget for next year has been slashed by about 75 percent, to $120 million, in Congress’ joint appropriations report.

I think we can safely say that JIEDDO has had little to do with the recent decline in casualties, and, apparently, neither has the Pentagon’s push for more mine resistant ambush protected (MRAP) vehicles. Here Jason Sigger, also writing at Danger Room, quotes from Defense News:

“We might not need as many as we are buying. Some will be stored for a period of time,” said John Young, the defense acquisition undersecretary. “The service chiefs have indicated that these are heavy, large vehicles that might not fit well with mobile expeditionary missions.”

Sigger’s reaction:

Yes, who could have foreseen that a hasty, emotional call to procure very expensive, hard-to-build defense systems — driven by Congress to bypass the standard requirements process — might spiral out of control?

Well, the WWS for one, and Jason Sigger for another–back in May both of us were calling for a serious rethink of the rush to MRAP. But only kow that the IED threat has been somewhat brought under control can Congress reassess both MRAP and JIEDDO funding without Joe Biden’s grandstanding. And for this we can thank the Petraeus strategy, and the Awakening movement, which have allowed U.S. forces and their newfound allies to go on offense against insurgent IED teams, rather than taking increasingly defensive measures like deploying heavily armored vehicles and sophisticated electronic countermeasures. Killing the bad guys was always going to be the only solution to the problem, and finally, with this new strategy, it’s the solution we’re getting–and it’s working. If it wasn’t, neither Congress nor the Pentagon would have the courage to reevaluate either of these programs.

Related Content