Obama's Islamic State Policy Uncorks Shiite Genie In Iraq

[Published 31 October 2016]


President Obama’s decision 14 days ago to approve Iraqi and Peshmerga forces undertaking the liberation of Mosul has well and truly blown up in his face with the news that the Iran funded Shiite Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) have now joined in the attack.

Secretary of Defense Ash Carter certainly did not anticipate this development when announcing Obama’s decision:

“The United States and the rest of the international coalition stand ready to support Iraqi Security Forces, Peshmerga fighters and the people of Iraq in the difficult fight ahead.”

Neither did Operation Inherent Resolve Commander Lt. Gen. Stephen Townsend who stated:

“But to be clear, the thousands of ground combat forces who will liberate Mosul are all Iraqis,”

The involvement of 15,000 Shiite PMU militiamen — designated by the Iraqi Government as “an independent military formation” - could aggravate already existing sectarian divisions in Iraq.

This could eventually lead to a Shiite land grab of territory liberated by the PMU.

The retention of land conquered by the Peshmerga forces is also a realistic possibility.

Iraq as a distinct and separate territorial unit could be in real danger of being carved up.

Obama’s inability to remove Assad from power in Syria during the last five years has been a spectacular Presidential policy failure.

Obama must be reeling after further reading on that:

“Ahmed al-Assadi, a spokesman for the Iraq-sanctioned paramilitary known as Popular Mobilization Units (PMU), said on Saturday that they will fight alongside Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad’s forces in Syria after finishing their battle against ISIS in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul, Al Arabiya News Channel reported…"

Obama’s inability to remove Assad from power in Syria during the last five years has been a spectacular Presidential policy failure.

His justified hatred of Assad — propped up by Russia and Iran - has seen him refuse to accept Russia’s invitation to jointly seek a United Nations Security Council Resolution to first take military action against Islamic State in Syria and then try to resolve Syria’s future after Islamic State has been defeated there.

Obama could not fail to be also very worried about Al-Arabiya’s further report:

”... Jaafar al-Husseini, a spokesman for the Hezbollah Brigades, said they launched an offensive Saturday along with other large militias toward the town of Tal Afar, which had a Shiite majority before it fell to ISIS [Islamic State] in 2014. Iranian forces are advising the fighters and Iraqi aircraft are providing airstrikes”

Turkish President Tayyip Recep Erdogan said on 30 October that Ankara - which already has a military presence in Iraq — would act if forces from the PMU abuse civilians in their fight for the town of Tal Afar.

“Tal Afar is a very sensitive issue for us. We definitely do not regard it [Shia militia involvement] positively in Tal Afar and Sinjar,”

Tal Afar is a totally Turkmen city, with half Shia and half Sunni Muslims. We do not judge people by their religious affiliation, we regard them all as Muslims.

“But if Hashid Shaabi [PMU] terrorises the region, our response would be different.”

In other parts of Iraq retaken from Islamic State - such as Fallujah and Ramadi - there have been allegations of Shia fighters mistreating Sunni civilians.

Iraq is fast becoming a tinderbox containing different elements and interests that could set Iraq ablaze — should Islamic State eventually be defeated in Mosul.

Obama’s decision to commence the attack on Mosul appears to have been made without any real thought to the possible involvement of the PMU and Turkey.

Why Obama thought it that urgent to commence the battle for Mosul at this late stage of his Presidency is a question that will be increasingly asked over the coming week
— especially by Clinton and Trump.

Obama's Islamic State Policy Threatens Clinton Election Victory

[Published 27 October 2016]


President Obama’s decision to agree to Iraqi and Peshmerga forces attacking Mosul to degrade and destroy the Islamic State just three weeks before the US elections sounds alarm bells for the prospects of Hillary Clinton beating Donald Trump on 8 November.

Secretary of Defence Ash Carter confirmed Obama’s decision on 17 October.

The timing of the attack is very concerning.

Obama’s decision accords with his policy enunciated as far back as 10 September 2014:

“But this is not our fight alone. American power can make a decisive difference, but we cannot do for Iraqis what they must do for themselves, nor can we take the place of Arab partners in securing their region.”

Obama had then further elaborated:

”...we will increase our support to forces fighting these terrorists on the ground…

... As I have said before, these American forces will not have a combat mission — we will not get dragged into another ground war in Iraq. But they are needed to support Iraqi and Kurdish forces with training, intelligence and equipment.”

The same day as Carter issued his statement - General Stephen Townsend, Combined Joint Task Force - Operation Inherent Resolve - reportedly acknowledged the presence of
“forward air controllers” amongst the US “advisory” contributions to the battle.

Those American “advisory” contributions now appear to have included an explosive ordnance disposal technician - Jason Finan - working with a Navy SEAL team near Mosul who was killed by an Islamic State bomb on October 20.

Both Carter and Townsend were meeting together in Irbil on 23 October when Townsend stated:

“Our investigation is still underway, but as I understand the event right now, they had moved to a position on the battlefield behind the Iraqi front lines with a headquarters element….

...These guys said you know what, we probably need to move back a terrain and gain a little bit more stand-off. And they were in the process of that when they struck an IED.”

Such direct involvement of American troops on the ground - leading to the death of an American soldier - seems a distinct departure from Obama’s 2014 policy.

Entrusting Iraqi and Peshmerga troops to defeat the Islamic State - declared a threat to world peace and security by the United Nations Security Council - was always a high risk Obama policy.

Now that attack has started - Hillary Clinton has been effectively lumbered with Obama’s policy if she becomes America’s next President.

Any suggestion of abandoning Obama’s policy now would send a bad signal to American voters.

Clinton’s situation has been further complicated by Carter indicating at the same press conference:

”... we want to see isolation operations begin, oriented at Raqqa as soon as possible. We’re working with our partners there to do that. And so there will be some simultaneity to these two operations. We’ve long anticipated that.”

This contradicts what Clinton said in the third Presidential debate:

“The goal here is to take back Mosul. It’s going to be a hard fight. I’ve got no illusions about that. And then continue to press into Syria to begin to take back and move on Raqqa, which is the ISIS headquarters.”

The IBD/TIPP poll finds widespread dissatisfaction with America’s direction - 62% of the public saying it’s headed in the wrong direction.

Obama’s decision could not have come at a worse time for Clinton.

Joseph Chamberlain said in 1886:

“‘In politics, there is no use in looking beyond the next fortnight.'”

Pollsters beware.

Pictures of body bags returning dead American soldiers, never-ending TV reports of murdered and injured civilians and people fleeing Mosul could certainly cause a huge voter backlash.