Lawmakers emphasized the importance of retaking Mosul as the battle got underway on Monday, but criticized the administration for not having a plan once the city is back under Iraqi control.
Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., and a member of the House Armed Services Committee, said success in Mosul represents a “real chance to swing momentum” in the fight against the Islamic State, but that there’s still no plan in place for next steps to help Iraqi forces maintain hard-fought security.
“What’s next after Mosul? It’s a question that I’m willing to bet that the Pentagon and the administration can’t answer,” Hunter told the Washington Examiner in a statement. “They need to identify the ISIS center of gravity, to understand its strengths — from financing, to cyber, to tactics — and knock them off their operational cycle. We’re seeing none of that from the administration and ISIS as a result is continuing to move freely.”
Iraqi officials announced on Monday morning local time that they were officially launching the much-awaited operation to kick ISIS out of Mosul, which has been held by terrorists for about two years.
While Iraqi forces regaining control of Mosul would represent a major victory, experts have said it will not mean the end of the Islamic State. Even if Iraqi forces, backed by U.S. support, are able to strip the terrorist group of all its physical land, ISIS is likely to maintain a “cyber caliphate” where it can recruit followers and inspire homegrown attacks around the world.
Pentagon press secretary Peter Cook said the next steps will be made by the Iraqis and will be “something of considerable discussion the day after ISIS is defeated.”
“We do have concerns about the humanitarian situation that would follow the military operations. We’ve been working closely — the United States government has with the United Nations, with the government of Iraq to try and address the concerns about the civilian population, those people who might be displaced,” he said, noting that the Defense Department’s focus is on the military mission.
Rep. Jackie Walorski, R-Ind., and another member of the House Armed Services Committee, also said the lack of a long-term plan has created a vacuum that allows actors other than the U.S. to influence the region.
“The battle to retake Mosul is critical to defeating the Islamic State, but I am concerned the continued absence of U.S. leadership in the fight against ISIS has opened the door for Iran and Turkey to further destabilize Iraq and worsen sectarian fighting,” Walorski said. “That is why I am once again calling on the president to provide a comprehensive, long-term strategy to defeat ISIS and put the region on a path toward peace, security and stability.”
The criticism is coming from both sides of the aisle. Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Mass., released a plan last month to secure peace in Iraq that called for making future military support and arms sales conditional on the Iraqis implementing political reforms that will bring about long-term stability for the region.
“Neither we nor the Iraqis seem to have a plan for post-conflict Mosul at this point anyway,” Moulton said in his plan.
