On two fronts, Iraqi forces battle Islamic State for Tikrit

[webfact]

On two fronts, Iraqi forces battle Islamic State for Tikrit
By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA

TIKRIT, Iraq (AP) — Iraqi troops clashed along two fronts with Islamic State militants in Tikrit on Thursday as rockets and mortars echoed across Saddam Hussein's hometown a day after soldiers and allied Shiite militiamen swept into this Sunni city north of Baghdad.

Recapturing Tikrit is seen as a key step toward rolling back the gains of the extremist Islamic State group, which seized much of northern and western Iraq in a blitz last summer and now controls about a third of both Iraq and Syria.

The offensive also will serve as a major crucible for Iraqi forces, which collapsed under the extremists' initial offensive last year and now face one of the Sunni militant group's biggest strongholds.

Iraqi forces entered Tikrit for the first time on Wednesday from the north and south. On Thursday, they were fighting their way through the city and expected to reach the center within three to four days, according to Lt. General Abdul-Wahab al-Saadi, the commander of the Tikrit operation.

The IS militants were trying to repel the Iraqi forces with snipers, suicide car bombs, heavy machine guns and mortars, said al-Saadi, speaking to The Associated Press at the front-lines.

Tikrit, the capital of Salahuddin province, sits on the Tigris River about 130 kilometers (80 miles) north of Baghdad. Several of Saddam's palaces remain there, and supporters of the deceased dictator are believed to have played a key role in the Islamic State group's seizure of the city last year.

Iraqi Defense Minister Khaled al-Obeidi, who was also at the front-line on Thursday, told the AP that the operation to retake Tikrit is "essential to opening a corridor for security forces to move from the south to Mosul," he said, referring to Iraq's second-largest city and the militants' biggest stronghold.

He described the operation as "100% Iraqi, from the air and ground."

When the Islamic State last year swept into Mosul, the U.S.-trained Iraqi military crumbled and the militants seized tanks, missile launchers and ammunition, steamrolling across northern Iraq. The CIA estimates the Sunni militant group has access to between 20,000 and 31,000 fighters in Iraq and Syria. Military officials believe there may about 150 foreign fighters with the IS inside Tikrit, including fighters from Chechnya and the Arab Gulf countries.

Iraqi officials now say that at least 30,000 men — including the military, militias, Sunni tribes and police — are fighting to capture Tikrit.

U.S. Gen. Martin Dempsey, the Joint Chiefs chairman, said Wednesday that at least 20,000 militiamen are taking part in the Tikrit fighting.

On Thursday, militiamen were heard intercepting IS walkie-talkie signals, listening to the militants' call for reinforcements and ordering mortar fire on the soldiers as they closed in. Along the route between Salahuddin's command center and the battlefield, charred remains of tankers and cars used by suicide bombers litter the roads, and homes bear signs of months of war, damaged by bombs and bullets.

Military officials told the AP they are advancing with caution in an effort to limit damage to the city's infrastructure, so that residents can return quickly once Tikrit is retaken. A satellite image of Tikrit, released last month by the United Nations, showed that at least 536 buildings in Tikrit have been affected by fighting, with at least 137 completely destroyed and 241 severely damaged.

Earlier Thursday, al-Obeidi visited troops and met with senior military commanders of the Tikrit operation as well as Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, commander of the Quds Force, an elite unit of Iran's powerful Revolutionary Guard. Soleimani and other Iranian advisers have played a key role in Iraq in pushing the Islamic State back in recent months.

The overt Iranian role and the prominence of Shiite militias in the campaign have raised fears of possible sectarian cleansing should Tikrit, an overwhelmingly Sunni city, fall to the government troops.

The United States, which spent billions of dollars training and equipping Iraq's army during its eight-year intervention, has said its allied coalition carrying out airstrikes targeting the extremists has not been involved in the ongoing Tikrit offensive.

In November, President Barack Obama authorized the deployment of up to 1,500 more American troops to bolster Iraqi forces, which could more than double the total number of U.S. forces to 3,100. None has a combat role.

Iraq's Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi has appealed for more aid for his country's beleaguered ground forces, although the U.S. spent billions of dollars training and equipping Iraq's army during its eight-year occupation.

The growing Iraqi impatience in many ways stems from concerns about the speed and success of the Islamic State's advance, and the Baghdad government's inexperience in handling a security crisis of this magnitude. Until recently, Iraqi security forces were focused on protecting themselves and the population against insurgent bombings and other attacks, not on repelling an advancing force or retaking areas seized by the militants.

By contrast, Islamic State militants appear to operate in a fluid, decentralized command structure that has enabled them to adapt quickly and more nimbly to the changing environment amid airstrikes and Iraqi and Kurdish ground offensives.


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-03-13

[FangFerang]

I consider myself a pacifist, but recognize that killing dangerous human beings is sometimes necessary.

I hope the Iraqis kill every last one of them, and do not like feeling that way at all.

[arjunadawn]

I doubt very much the Iraqi arabs will have great success. The best they could ever hope for is to fight to a ceasefire, stalemate, and negotiate lands and borders. The iraqi arabs are simply not warriors. They are also not... soldiers. While I have seen some in their ERU (Emergency Response Unit- Like Special Forces) perform very well, for the most part they simply had nothing on the Kurds. The Kurds, irrespective of their education or status, simply performed better on every single issue, including fraternity.

I say this because I have trained both for many years, and at differing national asset levels, and sometimes we had both arab and kurdish iraqis in same group- though of course opposite sides of the room, the range, differing toilets, etc. Why? Because the Kurds and arabs do not like each other. I will not get into why, but suffice to say the reason the kurds dont like the iraqi arabs is the same reason why they Iraqi arabs will lose invariably.

(The above applies to Iraqi sunnis. Iraqi shia may fare better in battle as they are being guided by Iranian proxies and leaders. After all, this was always intended to be a shia sunni conflict)'

[Scott]

I lived in the Kurdish area for a number of years. Very fierce fighters and very loyal. They have so many enemies and very few friends.

I also met regularly with Masoud Barzani and Jalal Talabani. At the time the two sides were fighting, and my work required keeping the peace with both the KDP and PUK.

An interesting group of people and an interesting time.

[arjunadawn]

Wow! Interesting. I was only in Irbil briefly but also worked with Kurds in Baghdad- they were not then happy to be there either. Later when I went to work with them in Irbil I realized why. The difference is in many ways night and day. It is simply an obviously different mindset and people. This was generally the observation of all the people I worked with. A decidedly different people.

[Stargeezr]

I hope the Iraqis and the fighting forces of the other countries are successful in

driving the ISIL bunch out of Tikrit. Unfortunately, the city will be a complete

ruin when it is over. Then the city of Mosel will have to be taken back and it is so much larger.

I fear that Iraq will be a ruined country by the time ISIL and all its supporters, are

driven out of the country. Having the Shia and Kurdish Iraqis fighting the Sunnis and ISIL

is why this war is going to be going on for a long time yet.

[simple1]

There were forecasts by the US military that it will take 2 / 3 years to destroy IS. With Iran now engaged with both support and actual military engagement it appears the timeline will be shorter, so long as the Shiite militia and Iraqi army do not indulge in massacring the Sunni civilian population in revenge.

Scott, it would be interesting to read your opinion on who will govern areas occupied by the Kurds in Iraq and Syria, will this lead to yet another round of conflict?

Edited March 15, 2015 by simple1

[Scott]

Thanks for your interest. I haven't been in the region for a while, so I don't know the political dynamics. I do have friends and former colleagues from both the major entho-linguistic groups of Kurds and both of them see their faction as being right and eventually leading. The Kurds, however, are Kurdish first and their loyalty is to other Kurds and to their ancestral homeland. So, whatever power struggles occur, they will be between the warlords and the general population is generally not in great peril.

Two things I experienced with the Kurds is that they are Kurdish first and Shia, Sunni, Christian, or some other religion second. In the villages, they may be very conservative, but they are seldom fundamentalist or extremist. They can be driven to acts of terrorism, but it is not with the same relish or vigor seen with religious fanatics. The Kurds are also realistic. Many of my former staff wanted independence from Iraq, BUT they were cognizant that with neighbors like Turkey, Iran and Syria, they were in no hurry to separate from Iraq (it was still under Saddam at the time).

My time in Syria was less and my exposure to the Syrian Kurds was a little more limited. At that time, Assad senior was in charge, and the country was tightly controlled (the old East German Stasi was the intelligence model followed). Syrian Kurds appeared to be significantly poorer than their Iraqi counterparts. I was told that the Assad gov't was taking over a lot of their land and quietly (and presumably carefully) dispossessing them. Like the Syrian Kurds, the Turkish Kurds have not fared well.

Turkey was not happy with the level of autonomy that the Iraqi Kurds managed to get with the institution of the no-fly zone. Syria and Iran probably looked on nervously as well. Assad cooperated with the Iraqi Kurds because he did not have relations with Baghdad or Saddam -- They were both Bathists, but each believed their version was the correct one. Turkey made many incursions into Northern Iraq in pursuit of Turkish Kurdish fighters, PKK. They destroyed a lot of villages in Iraq and my experience was that the Iraqi Kurds did not actively support the Turkish Kurds (each had their own battles to fight and getting involved in the others problems was counter productive).

Northern Iraq eventually settled into a reasonably well run, safe and prosperous area and it was not an oil rich area. Saddam had kept firm control of Kirkuk and Mosul oil fields.

So, who would or could control the Kurdish areas, I don't know, but of all the groups in the Middle East they are the ones that with a little encouragement and some arm twisting they can run their own affairs in a reasonably peaceful manner. But they need to do it themselves, with some guidance and assistance, but without bullying.

An extremely interesting group of people and it was a pleasure to work and live with them for a number of years. Over the years, of all the friends I've ever made in the numerous countries I've worked in, my Kurdish colleagues have remained the best friends, the most loyal and when they moved to the US, they were the ones who helped my aging parents through some difficult times. Even though most were Muslims, a large number showed up for my father's funeral.