| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| How Iran closed the 'Mosul horseshoe' and changed the war |
| 2016-12-09 |
| [Rooters] In the early days of the assault on Islamic State in Mosul, Iran successfully pressed Iraq to change its battle plan and seal off the city, an intervention which has since shaped the tortuous course of the conflict, sources briefed on the plan say. The original campaign strategy called for Iraqi forces to close in around Mosul in a horseshoe formation, blocking three fronts but leaving open the fourth - to the west of the city leading to Islamic State territory in neighboring Syria. That model, used to recapture several Iraqi cities from the ultra-hardline militants in the last two years, would have left fighters and civilians a clear route of escape and could have made the Mosul battle quicker and simpler. But Tehran, anxious that retreating fighters would sweep back into Syria just as Iran's ally President Bashar al-Assad was gaining the upper hand in his country's five-year civil war, wanted Islamic State crushed and eliminated in Mosul. The sources say Iran lobbied for Iranian-backed Popular Mobilization fighters to be sent to the western front to seal off the link between Mosul and Raqqa, the two main cities of Islamic State's self-declared cross-border caliphate. That link is now broken. For the first time in Iraq's two-and-half-year, Western-backed drive to defeat Islamic State, several thousand militants have little choice but to fight to the death, and 1 million remaining Mosul citizens have no escape from the front lines creeping ever closer to the city center. Iraqi army commanders have repeatedly said that the presence of civilians on the battlefield has complicated and slowed their seven-week-old operation, restricting air strikes and the use of heavy weapons in populated areas. Planning documents drawn up by humanitarian organizations before the campaign show they prepared camps in Kurdish-controlled areas of Syria for around 90,000 refugees expected to head west out of Mosul. "Iran didn't agree and insisted that no safe corridor be allowed to Syria," said a humanitarian worker. "They wanted the whole region west of Mosul to be a kill box." Hisham al-Hashemi, an Iraqi analyst on Islamist militants who was briefed on the battle plan in advance, also said it initially envisaged leaving one flank open. Hashid spokesman Karim al-Nuri denied that Tehran was behind the decision to deploy the Shi'ite fighters west of Mosul. Nevertheless, securing territory west of Mosul by the Iranian-backed militias has other benefits for Iran's allies, by giving the Shi'ite fighters a launchpad into neighboring Syria to support Assad. Iran was not the only country pressing for the escape to be closed west of Mosul. Russia, another powerful Assad ally, also wanted to block any possible movement of militants into Syria, said Hashemi. The Russian defence ministry did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment. One of Assad's biggest enemies, France, was also concerned that hundreds of fighters linked to attacks in Paris and Brussels might escape. The French have contributed ground and air support to the Mosul campaign. Once the Iraqi Shi'ite militia advance west of Mosul had begun, Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi told his followers there could be no retreat from the city where he first proclaimed his caliphate in July, 2014. Since then his fighters have launched hundreds of suicide car bombs, mortar barrages and sniper attacks against the advancing forces, using a network of tunnels under residential areas and using civilians as human shields, Iraqi soldiers say. A senior U.S. officer in international coalition which is supporting the campaign said that waging war amidst civilians would always be tough, but the Baghdad government was best placed to decide on strategy. "They've got 15 years of war (experience)... I can't think of anyone more calibrated to make that decision and as a result that why as a coalition we supported the government of Iraq's decision," Brigadier General Scott Efflandt, deputy commanding general in the coalition, told Reuters. "The opening and closing of that corridor, hypothetically, realistically, did not fundamentally change the plans of the battle. It changes how we prosecute the fight, but that does not necessarily make it easier or harder." But the Kurdish official was less sanguine, saying the battle for Mosul was now "more difficult" and could descend into a long drawn out siege similar to those seen in Syria. It could "turn Mosul into Aleppo," he said. |
| Posted by:Pappy |
| #3 The recent capture of Tall Afar airport closed the so-called "horseshoe", and in doing so closed the last avenue of escape for ISIS. Concur with your statement, although note that ISIS counter-attacked north of Tel Afar last week and re-opened a route to the west. A route covered by our air assets - I imagine we allowed this to happen for strategic reasons. |
| Posted by: Tennessee 2016-12-09 11:08 |
| #2 Disagree. Once Mosul was attacked on three sides there was not "left... civilians a clear route of escape" to the west. Civilians were already trapped inside the city because the last open road -- past Tall Afar airport -- was never really open to civilians seeking to escape Mosul. The recent capture of Tall Afar airport closed the so-called "horseshoe", and in doing so closed the last avenue of escape for ISIS. Civilians must find their own escape to the east and south. |
| Posted by: Heriberto Greper9897 2016-12-09 09:01 |
| #1 Credit where due. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2016-12-09 07:41 |