US troops may take part in planned attack to retake Mosul in Iraq

Mosul - The US has been hyping a spring offensive against the Islamic State to retake the city of Mosul, the largest city held by the rebels.

+ Add Image

The Islamic State has held Mosul since last summer giving it time to build up formidable defenses. However, the offensive will involve five brigades or about 25,000 troops against a mere one to two thousand IS fighters although reinforcements may be brought in prior to the offensive. Even with those lopsided numbers and help from the Kurdish peshmerga, US officials, and even some within the Iraqi military hierarchy, think that direct intervention by US troops will be needed. The last thing that the west wants is another rout such as happened when Mosul was taken in the first place by IS with many advanced weapons being captured.

There will also be heavy air support from the US-led coalition. US officials are already saying that US ground troops will be brought in "if necessary". The US has already been massing combat troops in neighboring Kuwait who may very well be used in a ground war in Iraq that Obama has continually stressed will not happen. The timing of the offensive is not certain but will probably be some time in April or May. A Kurdish commander was skeptical about any early offensive claiming that the Iraqi army "is not ready for the fight".

New Iraqi prime minister Haider al-Abadi was more upbeat. The Iraqi forces have had additional training some of it conducted by the US and some territory has been retaken. Al-Abadi said:"We are now planning an offensive on Mosul in the coming few months. We have to prepare for it carefully, because the only choice we have in Mosul (is to win). We have to win in Mosul to keep (ISIS) out."Count Barzani, a senior commander of the Kurdish peshmerga militia was quite sceptical. The planned Kurdish role is to provide support for the operation outside the city but not enter the city itself. While the Iraqi government claims there will be close coordination with the Kurds Barzani said:"I don't think it's realistic, and I don't have any idea about a plan. And if it involves the Iraqi army only, it's not going to work. The Iraqi army is not ready for the fight."

A Central Command official claimed the operation would begin in April or May but also said that a final decision on the operation was still a long way from being finalized. The official said that giving the details of the operation would demonstrate that Iraq was committed to taking back Mosul. At this stage the involvement of US combat troops is downplayed. General Austin, head of Central Command, and General Dempsey, chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have suggested that a small number of US troops could be deployed to call in airstrikes. A Central Command(CENTCOM) official said that US ground forces could also be involved as well. President Obama said that he would authorize the limited use of ground forces if necessary.

The revelation of the planned offensive angered some US politicians:Republican U.S. Senators John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said in a letter to President Barack Obama, “Never in our memory can we recall an instance in which our military has knowingly briefed our own war plans to our enemies.”To add to the confusion an officer of the Iraqi Defense Ministry claimed that it would take until at least August to train and arm Iraqi forces but also to work out differences both with Kurdish peshmerga and Shiite militia.

Several officials, spoke anonymously about the reasons for revealing details of the mission to recapture Mosul. One explanation is that the announcement is to reinforce the impression that the IS has lost the initiative in Iraq and is on the defensive. Another reason is to assure that citizens of Iraq that help is soon on the way. The aim may also be to prod the Iraqi government into action and encourage it to form alliances with tribes around Mosul.

.

Dubai: A view of the US in Iraq

This is an interesting article from a writer based in Dubai. It would be nice if some references were given. I did not realize that the Pentagon announced it would withdraw a large percentage of US troops in mid 2008. If there were such an announcement I imagine it would be accompanied by a number of qualifiers. I am not sure how credible predictions of a 26 per cent chance of victory are or even what victory is supposed to mean.


Cards are stacked against US in Iraq
By Dr. Mohammad Akif Jamal, Special to Gulf News
Published: July 14, 2007, 00:04


The contradicting statements made by American officials regarding the situation in Iraq reflect the weakness of the US political stand in the country, despite its military and economic might.

They also mirror what is far more alarming for Iraqis, which is the uncertainty of their country's future, such as when the Pentagon announced the intention of US President George W. Bush's administration to withdraw a large part of its troops from Iraq in mid-2008, while General David Petraeus, Commander of the American forces in Iraq, said the US needs about 10 years to win the war in Iraq.

Meanwhile, veteran US military chiefs, who experienced the war in Vietnam, voiced deep concerns about what is happening in Iraq, pointing out that the US troops have six months to win the war. Otherwise, they have to face a similar scenario to what happened in Vietnam.

This would result in huge losses in the political and moral support the US administration needs from the American people to carry on with this war.

The statements issued by the Pentagon aim to enhance the political position of Bush's administration and weaken the pressure applied on it from the Democrat-dominated Congress and the growing anger of the American public.

With the increase in fatalities among the US troops, General Petraeus seems to be more in touch with reality in his reading of the future of what is going on in Iraq, unlike the Pentagon theorists, who are used to twisting the truth to manipulate American public opinion.

A recent study conducted by Professor Patricia Sullivan from the University of Georgia's School of Public Affairs estimates that the US has a 26 per cent chance of victory in a war that could endure approximately 10 years.

The research was based on a case study of 122 conflicts that have erupted in different parts of the world since the Second World War.

In these conflicts, some major powers such as the US, Great Britain, France, the former Soviet Union and China faced much weaker forces including small countries and even militias and terrorist groups.

This study model succeeded in predicting the outcomes of the struggle in 80 per cent of the cases.

The study revealed that the militarily advanced countries have failed to win 39 per cent of the military conflicts against less powerful countries or sides throughout the past 60 years, with many factors behind this.

These include the aim of the conflict, as fighting against liberation movements mostly ends in failure.

They also include the area of the conflict and it closeness to another powerful country that supports the weaker side, as well as the nature of conflict, qualified military leaderships, regional and international compassion with one side or the other.

The legitimacy of the use of force in ending conflicts is another one of the determining factors, as well as a superpower's loss of the people's confidence, the variety in the nature of culture and history between the parties of conflict and political flexibility, ability to manoeuvre and the availability of resources to sustain the conflict.

No defined target

In conflicts that erupt between superpowers and minor ones, most advanced and devastating weapons are put aside because there is no defined target for them, and in case such weapons were used, the superpower would be condemned by the international community for endangering the lives of civilians and their properties.

Meanwhile, the superpower's armed forces will be an easy target for the weaker party in the conflict, as they are fighting in unfamiliar territory and hostile land.

Studies such as Sullivan's do not sound alarm bells for strategy planners and policy makers of major powers, mainly because in such conflicts there is no ultimate winner or loser except in a few cases.

Most conflicts that erupted after the Second World War, when the UN and its affiliated organisations were being established, ended with the two parties of the conflict sitting at the negotiating table with a mediator from the UN, another regional organisation or another major power.

Such negotiations usually granted the superpower some of the targets it had for entering the conflict.

In the Iraqi case, the US had many targets for invading Iraq and interfering in its affairs, the most important of which was to hold the keys to solely dominate international energy sources and strategy, which in turn allows it to remain the world's sole superpower for many decades to come, and until the depletion of oil.

The best proof of the US's hunger for control through oil is its growing pressures on the Iraqi government and its various institutions including the parliament, to speed up the endorsement of the new oil and gas law and put it into effect, which binds any subsequent executive authority.



Dr. Mohammad Akif Jamal is an Iraqi writer based in Dubai.