| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Why the Mosul offensive could be a disaster |
| 2016-09-30 |
| [National Interest] Speaking at a press conference in New York on September 19, President Obama stood at the dais with Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, and said that the battle for Mosul was ready “to move forward fairly rapidly” and that “we are prepared to help provide rapid humanitarian assistance.” The President and Prime Minister, I believe, are underestimating the challenges and difficulties that will result from the exodus of hundreds of thousands new refugees once the military operation to clear Mosul begins. As mentioned in this post on September 19, I visited northern Iraq in late August and interviewed the Minister of Foreign Relations for the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), the Peshmerga general in charge of overlooking the Mosul front, and visited two refugee camps, including the newest called Debaga. My original intent had been to assess the military preparations for the recapture of Mosul. But I was struck with how much these two men emphasized the humanitarian element of the battle. Minister Falah Mustafa Bakir said that at the moment in northern Iraq there was a “humanitarian crisis,” but if actions aren’t taken by the international community quickly, it would become “a humanitarian catastrophe” once the battle begins. General Bahram Yassim, commander of the Peshmerga 7th Brigade, said he was concerned because he had yet to see anywhere near enough actual preparations on the ground. It is understandable that the Iraqi government wants to wrest control of Mosul from the Islamic State, but it is important that they not be impatient. If the operations begin before UN and local authorities are ready to receive and care for that many displaced persons, Mr. Mustafa’s worries of a humanitarian catastrophe could be realized. If the Iraqi government eventually succeeds in repelling ISIS from Mosul yet cause severe hardship or even loss of life because they launched the attack before they were ready to safeguard the inhabitants – most of whom are Sunni Muslims – the Shia government of Iraq might have trouble after the battle in gaining the support of the population. Governing post-ISIS Mosul is going to be difficult under any circumstances. Baghdad must do all in its power to earn the trust of the people so that a new Sunni insurrection doesn’t form among angry residents later. While I understand Colonel Davis' concerns, it's not a matter of "could happen." A catastrophe will happen. Iran exerts a great amount of influence in Iraq; it controls and provides IRGC support to the Shiite militias upon which the Iraqi Army depends, especially for any assault on Mosul. Iran's and its Shiite clientele's objectives are not the same as the Kurds, the White House, the UN, or the good Colonel's objectives. Baghdad lacks the authority and control over the Shiite militias. Muqtada al-Sadr and his Sadrist movement will likely ensure that any control Baghdad tries to exert will be muted. There's already a preview from Fallujah. Thousands of refugees headed for the KRG and western Iraq. Sunni villagers executed in Diyala. Tikrit looted and put to the torch. Fallujah's males missing and probably in a hole somewhere. POW's hanged. It'll be worse. Much worse. Meanwhile, the White House continues to send in troops (partly to burnish Mr. Obama's legacy.) Too few to be a significant factor or influence when things get out of hand. It will be ugly. Daniel L. Davis is a retired U.S. Army colonel who served multiple tours in Afghanistan. He is a senior fellow with Defense Priorities. |
| Posted by:Pappy |
| #6 not sure why you slipped the WH in there. As far as I can tell, Iranian hegemony IS a WH obsession/preference.. IMNSHO, that is not the intent. But it will be the result. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2016-09-30 11:20 |
| #5 US air cover for Iranian militas you say...what could go wrong? (Actually,a little miscommunication over coordinates might not be a totally bad thing.) |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2016-09-30 10:00 |
| #4 Iranexerts a great amount of influence in Iraq; it controls and provides IRGC support to the Shiite militias upon which the Iraqi Army depends, especially for any assault on Mosul. Iran's and its Shiite clientele's objectives are not the same as the Kurds, the White House, the UN, or the good Colonel's objectives. not sure why you slipped the WH in there. As far as I can tell, Iranian hegemony IS a WH obsession/preference. At least the current group of traitors (ValJar) |
| Posted by: Frank G 2016-09-30 07:46 |
| #3 A cock-up, wrapped in a disaster, inside a misadventure. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2016-09-30 06:39 |
| #2 Unexpectedly is this president's watchword. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2016-09-30 06:33 |
| #1 Anything these people touch becomes a disaster. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2016-09-30 02:47 |