ERBIL, Kurdistan Region-A number of Iraqi Shiite clerics and militia leaders, chief among them Muqtada al-Sadr have reacted angrily to a US government decision to send additional troops and military advisors to help local forces prepare for the battle of Mosul. They consider this a second American occupation of Iraq.
“This shows the return of American occupation of Iraq,” Lama Al-Halafi, a Shiite MP of Sadr’s Ahrar bloc told Rudaw. “Sadr is against the establishment of all foreign military bases in Iraq, whether in Kurdistan region, the center or south of Iraq.”
Sadr is even against the establishment of American military bases in the Kurdistan Region because it’s part of Iraq, the Sadrist MP added.
Other Shiite blocs in the Iraqi parliament have taken Sadr’s stance against the deployment of US or other foreign troops in the country.
“In every shape or form we reject the participation of any foreign troops in the battle for Mosul,” said Iqbal Abdul Hussein, an MP of the Shiite National Alliance bloc.
The opposition emerged following an announcement by US Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter early July that his country will send an additional 560 military personnel to Iraq to which radical cleric Sadr responded: “They will be our target.”
Sadr’s Mahdi Army was one of the main Iraqi groups fighting American troops in Iraq from 2004 until a couple years before their withdrawal from Iraq.
Some Iraqi Sunnis too, believe that Iraqi troops themselves backed by local forces are capable of taking on ISIS in its Mosul stronghold.
“We do not want foreign troops to take part in the battle,” Nawfal Hamadi, Nineveh Governor told Rudaw English. “The force to liberate Mosul should be completely Iraqi.”
Hamadi however, differs in his view of foreign troop presence, admitting that government forces and the Sunni Hashd al-Watani still need training and assistance by coalition forces for the decisive battle.
Part of the Shiite reaction to foreign troop deployment is rooted in reports that the Americans may turn the newly liberated Qayyara airfield southwest of Mosul into a permanent air base which Hamadi said has neither been discussed nor proposed.
Hamadi allayed the Shiite fear of foreign combat role in Mosul.
“I have not been informed officially whether the Americans will take part as combat forces and this has not been discussed in the meetings with the Iraqi and American officials, and they have not proposed this either,” he explained.
Shiite MP, Iqbal, said that any US involvement in the battle for Mosul must be discussed with and approved by the Iraqi government, adding in the meantime that “The US cannot impose itself by deploying combat troops and establish military base,”
Baghdad and Washington signed a Strategic framework agreement in 2007 which stipulates that the US should not request to establish permanent military bases in Iraq.
“The United States shall not use Iraqi land, sea, and air as a launching or transit point for attacks against other countries; nor seek or request permanent bases or a permanent military presence in Iraq,” reads the text of the agreement.
Remembering the security vacuum left behind by the American troop withdrawal, some Sunni tribal leaders are now more open to the presence of foreign forces in their country than they were prior to 2011.
“Before, Iraqis asked the Americans to leave Iraq, but when they left the security situation became worse, more unstable and ISIS emerged,” Sheik Muzahim al-Huwiyat, the spokesman for the tribal forces of Nineveh told Rudaw English
“We need the American military involvement and presence to prevent revenge against us in Mosul, as the Peshmerga won’t go everywhere inside Mosul or stay there, so in that case we need the Americans to be there for protection,” Sheikh Al-Huwiyat cautioned.
For their part, Shiite militia leaders doubt that the Americans are in Iraq to destroy ISIS and that they may have other secret and long-term plans.
“We expect behind the American military intervention in Iraq is targeting important leaders, including leaders of the Hashd Al-Shaabi,” said Qais Al- Khazali, leader of the Shiite Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq militia said on the group’s official website.
Khazali, whose militia group engaged in some of the fiercest battles with American troops in the years following the 2003 invasion, warns that all US and foreign troops will be treated as an enemy.
“We will consider as a hostile any military presence under the name of Special Forces or other, because it’s a violation of the Iraqi sovereignty,” he said, adding that even Prime Minister Haider Abadi has no authority to approve foreign troop deployment. “Is not in Abadi’s authority to approve US military intervention in Iraq, he is the one who puts himself in an embarrassing position.”
The Americans remain persistent that their role is advisory for the shared goal of degrading and defeating ISIS.
“Yes, there is significant push back from some Shiite leaders in Baghdad, as US military and diplomatic leaders work with the Iraqi military with special forces, logistics and intelligence assistance focused on destroying ISIS, while attempting not to prop up the Iranian-funded and equipped Shiite militia elements that are so pervasive in the Iraqi military and intelligence apparatus.” Mark Pfeifle, president of Off the Record Strategies in Washington, DC told Rudaw English
Pfeifle who served as deputy assistant to President Bush and deputy national security advisor for strategic communications and global outreach at the White House from 2007-2009, said that the US aims to leave a secure and stable Iraq behind.
“At the end of the day, it’s in the US and Iraqi interests to destroy ISIS in Iraq and Syria – and for the US to return home for good – knowing that Iraq is a secure nation, not a threat to its neighbors, safe for returning refugees and with a stable government able to provide services to its people.” Pfeifle said.
Peter L. Hahn, history professor and expert on US-Iraq relations at Ohio State University believes that Shiite leaders might be justified in their reaction, fearing a Sunni revival on the heels of American troops.
“The US government should take seriously all statements from Shiites,” Hahn told Rudaw. “The government in Baghdad very much wants to defeat ISIS and needs U.S. support for that campaign, but it also wishes to practice autonomy and not yield actual power to the United States or any other foreign power.”
He thought that “Some Shiite militias have deep suspicions that U.S. intervention might bolster Sunni rivals or result in a prolonged occupation. Yet others suspect the stability and competence of the government in Baghdad and thus fear that US involvement that might prop up that government without reform.”
Hahn echoed the view that the US is seeking a stable Iraq and the destruction of ISIS, which he believes would be a real challenge. “The current official policy of the US is to pursue a strategic partnership with the Iraqi government and people. Clearly, the US considers the destruction of ISIS a top priority for this goal and related objectives in the region. Once ISIS is destroyed, then the US government will face a series of challenges, probably less-lethal, in achieving its goal of a stable Iraq whose government and peoples are on friendly terms with the US and the Western community of nations.”
Head of Rudaw's Iraq Desk, Nehro Mohammed contributed to this article.
Comments
Rudaw moderates all comments submitted on our website. We welcome comments which are relevant to the article and encourage further discussion about the issues that matter to you. We also welcome constructive criticism about Rudaw.
To be approved for publication, however, your comments must meet our community guidelines.
We will not tolerate the following: profanity, threats, personal attacks, vulgarity, abuse (such as sexism, racism, homophobia or xenophobia), or commercial or personal promotion.
Comments that do not meet our guidelines will be rejected. Comments are not edited – they are either approved or rejected.
Post a comment