US blames Erbil-Baghdad slowdown in forming joint forces

The Pentagon said the formation of joint brigades of Peshmerga and Iraqi forces in the disputed areas was important to ensure security in those areas and the fight against ISIS, but described the process as slow.

In its quarterly report on security issues in Iraq and Syria, the US Department of Defense addressed the issue of the fight against ISIS in Iraq in cooperation with coalition forces, the Kurdistan Regional Government security forces and the Iraqi central government security forces.

The US Department of Defense inspector continues to consider ISIS as a major threat to the Kurdish and Iraqi regions and has called for joint cooperation between Erbil and Baghdad to effectively fight ISIS, especially in the disputed areas.

The US Department of Defense inspector described the efforts of the Kurdistan Region and the Iraqi central government to establish a joint coordination center and joint military forces to ensure the security of the conflict zones and the fight against terrorists in these areas are among the most important measures.

According to the report, Erbil and Baghdad have tried to establish a joint coordination center in Diyala, Kirkuk, Ninawa and the Makhmour region in ​​Erbil, but their performance is unsatisfactory due to a lack of transparency about the role of the parties and the responsibilities placed on them. The Pentagon has said that the force needed to set up a coordination center based in Erbil has not yet been provided.

The Pentagon has stated that the task of the Joint Coordination Centers is to organize the movement of forces on both sides in the disputed areas of Iraq and as a barrier between the areas under the control of the Kurdistan Region and the central government of Iraq.

The Pentagon has said that the process of establishing a joint force of Iraqi Peshmerga and special forces to patrol the disputed areas has been slow, and that the matter is not in written form yet.

Reporter's code: 50101

News Code 1795

Tags

Your Comment

You are replying to: .
captcha