Lion's Roar: Next Stop Mosul
Sunday is normally a day of rest here in the States, but it is shaping up to be a big day in Iraq. The newly brokered ceasefire aimed at ending the fighting in Sadr City between the JAMsters and the coalition and Iraqi forces goes into effect today. This is good news, but we'll have to keep our fingers crossed that it will actually hold given that it appears the two sides are fairly far apart in their interpretations of the pact. According to the Los Angeles Times:
Hmmm, those are a lot of discrepancies. Dr. iRack looks forward to seeing how they get, um, finessed. And then there is this strange bit from the story: "The U.S. military said it had not been informed of Saturday's truce" before it was reached. WTF?
Under the terms announced by Sadr's lead negotiator, Salah Obeidi, the cleric's Mahdi Army militia would put down their weapons and allow government forces to pursue individuals wanted in attacks, provided there is a warrant. In return, the government forces would stop what Obeidi called "random" raids and open blocked roads into the cleric's Baghdad stronghold, Sadr City.
Obeidi said the document made no mention of the government's demand that the militia disband and surrender its medium- and heavy-grade weapons -- issues that the cleric's representatives were not prepared to discuss.
But Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's spokesman, Ali Dabbagh, said all sides had agreed that only the government is authorized to maintain an army and enforce the law.
"The government has the right to raid and search any place that is suspected to contain heavy and medium weapons," he said in a statement.
Obeidi said the agreement allows only Iraqi forces to conduct raids in Sadr City, not the U.S. military. But Dabbagh told The Times that the deal did not address the role of foreign troops, a point underscored by Hadi Amri, a member of the ruling alliance's negotiating team.
"There is no point that prevents the Americans from performing military operations in Sadr City," Amri said. "The U.S. forces are and will continue bombing . . . the places that are launching mortar rounds or rockets at their bases and/or the Green Zone."
Even if the discrepancies can be ironed out, it remains to be seen whether the gunmen who claim allegiance to Sadr will honor the accord.
The NYT is also reporting that, in a replay of Basra, the Iranians helped broker the Sadr City deal.
The Iranians helped end the standoff by throwing their weight behind the government after a delegation of Shiite members of Parliament visited Iran earlier this month, according to three people involved in negotiating the truce. . . .Meanwhile, the Iraqi government announced that the long-anticipated operation to clear Mosul, Iraq's third largest city and an urban area described by the U.S. military as the last major hub for Al Qaeda in Iraq, has begun. An Iraqi armored brigade and Iraqi police, backed by U.S. forces, have kicked-off "Operation Lion's Roar." Again, according to the LA Times, initial operations were focusing on searching homes in several northern Mosul neighborhoods. The BBC also reports that around 10,000 Sunni tribesmen from Mosul, some of whom were formerly aligned with AQI, are taking part in the operation. Thus far there have been no reports of clashes. Last but not least, Maliki, in a reprise of his one-man surge to the front in Basra, has also reportedly traveled to Mosul to oversee the operation. Maliki has repeatedly said that Mosul would represent the "decisive battle" against AQI, and apparently it is his "roar" that he wants AQI to hear.
The visit to Iran by members of Parliament had been cited by the Americans as the first Iraqi effort to confront Iran with evidence of its training, financing and arming of Shiite militias in Iraq. But the trip evolved into a sophisticated political maneuver that could help the Iraqis out of a situation that was taking a rising toll on the country’s political stability.
So it looks like things are really gearing up for a major showdown up north. There are two rival theories about the timing here.
Hypothesis 1: Maliki is strutting his stuff. According to this narrative, which is likely to be the dominant one coming out of MNF-I and the Iraqi government, Maliki has clearly reached a new level of confidence. After initially stumbling in Basra, he managed to turn things around there (with a little Iranian help), and his willingness to go after Shia militants has built up a reservoir of political capital with Sunnis. According to this view, with clashes in Sadr City winding down as a consequence of reaching a ceasefire favorable to the Iraqi government, Maliki is striking while the iron is hot, exploiting his new found cross-sectarian support to go after Sunni groups affiliated with AQI up north.
Hypothesis 2: Maliki needs the troops. Whereas the first hypothesis sees Basra and Sadr City as enabling Mosul, a second theory reverses the causality and suggests that Sadr City was a constraint on Mosul--a constraint that had to be ended before moving on AQI. This line of thinking would suggest that Sadr City had become a quagmire that could not be resolved militarily and was absorbing Iraqi army assets that were needed up north. According to this view, Maliki settled on a ceasefire that was favorable to Sadr to free up resources to shift to Mosul.
Dr. iRack isn't sure which theory he buys yet. He'll be on the look-out for evidence supporting one interpretation over the other.
13 comments:
1. I often wonder about these anonymous quotes about MNF-I not knowing about this and that. I assume the sources the press relies on are way down the chain in terms of "need to know". It is possible the high level guys dealing with Maliki possible knew. I am just guessing.
2. About Hypothesis 2. I am sure someone like SNII knows more about ISF organization but I find it hard to believe that the Iraqi Government is shifting that many troops out of Baghdad and up to Mosul. This is if Troops are the resources you are talking about. If the 10,000 Tribesmen number is correct plus the armored Brigade and the police they have a lot of men.
Doc iRack:
I like your two hypotheses as a good start point to consider events on the ground. As I was reading these stories yesterday and this morning it occurred to me that the "agreement" in Sadr city is really nothing more than a lull in the fighting sort of akin to conventional warfare when an attacker and defender reach a point where it is in their interests to both ease on the fighting to reset and reqroup. That is what I think also underpins this so-called agreement in addition to the two possibilities that you mention.
gian
Gian,
Good point. One does get the sense that a stalemate had been reached and that it was in both sides interests to de-escalate (Iran's interest too, interestingly enough, just as in Basra).
Regardless of its cause, we'll have to see whether this turns out to be a mere tactical "lull" or "pause," or whether the coalition and the GoI can take advantage of the stoppage to flood services and money into Sadr City to win over some of the population, work the political process to co-opt moderate elements of JAM, and militarily isolate/target the remaining harliners.
We'll see.
Dr. iRack;
I don't have high hopes for a "flood" of GoI troops into Sadr City anytime soon. I see a couple of issues with that:
(1) MNF will undoubtedly be pushing for as many ISF troops as possible for Mosul - I feel like the most enthusiasm within MNF is still for fighting AQI.
(2) Regardless of the deal, a massive ISF presence in Sadr City is going to cause instant tension and probably a few incidents, right? The deal is already fragile; an immediate and large Sadr City presence would be risking collapse.
I like the hypotheses you offered - the optimist in me wants to take #1 but past-failure-induced cynicism says #2. . .
Regards,
Matt
Clearing and holding Mosul? I feel the sudden onset of déjà vu...
“. . . From the perspective of most ground commanders, the primary purpose of ground tactical operations was to defeat enemy forces. Consequently, “find, fix, fight and finish” the enemy became a much repeated slogan during the Vietnam War. The goal of destroying enemy forces eventually assumed a greater importance than the theoretical sequence of search-and-destroy, clear and secure operations. An underlying reason got the this focus on attrition was the nature of the enemy. His great mobility and unpredictability frequently forced the free world forces to conduct search-and-destroy operations or fight major battles in areas that had supposedly been freed from most enemy influence.”
-The Evolution of US Army Tactical Doctrine, 1946-1976
What does that have to do with Mosul and the current situation? Try reading this 2005 Washington Post article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A48017-2005Apr12
“In Mosul, a Battle 'Beyond Ruthless': Onetime Gang Member Applies Rules of Street
By Steve Fainaru Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
“Insurgent attacks in this northern Iraqi city, which numbered more than 100 a week in mid-November, have declined by almost half, according to the military. Indirect attacks -- generally involving mortars or rockets -- on U.S. bases fell from more than 200 a month in December to fewer than 10 in March. Although figures vary from region to region, attacks also have declined precipitously in other parts of Iraq, creating a growing belief among U.S. commanders that the insurgency is losing potency.
“We are seeing a more stable environment," said Lt. Col. Michael Gibler, commander of the 3rd Battalion, 21st Infantry Regiment, which operates in eastern Mosul. "Have we made a turn yet? No, but we're really close to it."
"The military attributes the decline to several factors, including Iraqis' increased willingness to provide information about insurgents and the growing presence of the new Iraqi security forces throughout the country. . .”
The Washington Post can just reprint that story mostly unchanged now, can’t they? Looks like another car with family inside was fired on at a U.S. checkpoint in Mosul - an event which will strengthen, not weaken, any insurgency. Maliki is viewed by most Iraqis as just another dictator who will do anything to stay in power - he has no chance in any fair election, and the U.S. seems to have no budding new protégé to replace him.
The Sadrist forces were getting wiped out. The US and Iraqi army are taking over Iraq. Irans's attempts to control Iraq will not succeed as long as the US is there.
Do you think someone will call for fire on Sadr City and Mosul and level them both before they lose one troop?
G.G is right...Sadr City deal is probably a pause in the fighting.
If it happens at all. I think we will continue in Sadr City with our limited COIN as discussed in the next post on AM, and they will continue to snipe at us.
With the spectacle of the palatial Emerald City crushing a desperately poor sewage filled slum it basically ignored for years. Great I.O coming.
We may want to consider Anon's CFF option. COIN has it's limits.
Wow did I call that one? Call the B1's and they will bring great fire and death from above to an enemy who deserves to die! That's how you win a war! Call for peace talks and when their guard is down, wack the bad guys!
God Bless America!
Anon
Gunboat,
'Maliki is viewed by most Iraqis as just another dictator who will do anything to stay in power - he has no chance in any fair election, and the U.S. seems to have no budding new protégé to replace him.'
Umm what exactly are you talking about?
page 19 www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/080506_iraq_status_trend.pdf
A majority of Shias and 68% of Kurds approve of Maliki. And you speak as if the US groomed Maliki and wanted him to become PM. You honestly think the US wanted Maliki to be elected with his links to Dawa and Iran over secular Iyad Allawi? Didn't the US go as far as to pump money in Allawi's campaign to help him?
www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/080506_iraq_status_trend.pdf
Couldn't it be both options? They are not necessarily mutually exclusive. It could be that hypothesis #2 is right that there were troop issues, etc., but that the deal is *less* favorable to Sadr than it might have been at some point in the past, so in a relative sense #1 is true.
Lying across the Sadr City were dozens of dead Arab's... As our officer crossed in the vanguard a Arab, apparently wounded, cried out for help. The officer walked over to aid him, and as he did the Arab sprang to life and hurled a grenade which wounded him in the face. From then on the only good Arab was a dead one, and although they tried the same trick again and again throughout the campaign, they were dispatched before they had time to use their grenade.
Post a Comment