02:35 GMT +319 August 2019
Listen Live
    Iraqi forces hold a position on October 17, 2016 in the area of al-Shurah, some 45 kms south of Mosul, as they advance towards the city to retake it from the Islamic State (IS) group jihadists

    Washington's Rush to Liberate Iraqi Daesh Capital Really a Race to Save Face

    © AFP 2019 / AHMAD AL-RUBAYE
    Middle East
    Get short URL
    Military Operation to Retake Mosul From Daesh (225)
    9227

    According to Expert magazine contributor Gevorg Mirzayan, it's vital for the US and its allies to liberate the Iraqi Daesh capital of Mosul as quickly as possible. Only then will Washington be able to preserve some semblance of leadership in the Middle East.

    On Monday, the battle for the Daesh-held city of Mosul, Iraq officially began. Announcing the start of the operation on Iraqi television late Sunday, Iraqi Prime Minister Haidar al-Abadi confidently noted that "the victory bell has rung, and the heroic operation to liberate Mosul has begun." 

    Iraqi security forces and militia, Kurdish Peshmerga, US, and Turkish forces are all expected to take part in the operation in one form or another, but only the Iraqis are expected to enter Mosul proper. Over 80,000 troops are participating in the operation, against anywhere between 4,000 and 10,000 Daesh fighters and their allies, including Sufist Naqshbandi Army insurgents.

    Discussing the broader significance of the military operation in an article for Expert magazine, Gevorg Mirzayan, associate professor of political science at Russia's Financial University, explained that whatever happens next, even a speedy victory in Mosul will be a pyric one for Washington, unless the US fundamentally changes its foreign policy thinking.

    "Of course, it is theoretically possible that the US may repeat the experience of the Iraq War, where rented Iraqi generals promptly surrendered the country," the analyst suggested. 

    "This time, however, a speedy victory looks unlikely. Daesh is acquainted with the experience of 2003 (its fighters were factually taught by the officers of the former Iraqi army), and has taken the necessary preventative measures. Thus, the terrorists publicly executed those who planned to negotiate with the Americans to surrender the city, and announced that they would fight to the bitter end. That means that the operation could drag on for months."

    "Obviously, it will include cutting the city off from all utilities, pressing militants out from suburbs and surrounding villages, and the mandatory bombing by US aviation." 

    It's quite curious, according to Mirzayan, to observe the difference in tone in the Western media's discussion of the Mosul operation, compared to the one in Aleppo. "This morning, I appeared on the BBC. Prior my segment, the anchor enthusiastically talked about preparations for 'the important and necessary operation to liberate Mosul', before switching in mid-sentence to talking about 'suffering of the civilian population in Aleppo.' When I asked what they will say days from now, when Mosul's civilians start dying under coalition bombs, I received no answer; they probably had nothing to say."

    In any case, the analyst noted, since the US will be unlikely to sanction themselves over their own military campaign, "Washington can carry out the operation over a long time, and without much media pressure."

    But two things are putting on pressure on Washington to speed up the Mosul campaign, according to Mirzayan. The first is related to the twilight of the Obama presidency. 

    "Mosul has to be taken by Obama, if not before the elections (which is unlikely), then at least before the end of his presidency. Mosul's liberation could help to at least neutralize the mistake his Republican opponents say he made in Iraq. The terrorists were able to capture the city and much of the country largely because Obama 'pulled the troops out too early' – that is, proved unable to come to agree with the Iraqi government on the terms of a future US military presence on Iraqi territory."

    At the same time, it's crucial for the US and its allies to be the ones to liberate the city, not the Iranians. "That is why, apparently, neither the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, nor Shia militias, are participating in the operation. The reasons seem purely political. Washington wants to make sure that the victory is attributed to Washington-allied forces, and not 'privatized' by the Iranians."

    "The second time pressure is Raqqah," Mirzayan noted. "The US must take Daesh's capital in Iraq before Syrian and Russian forces take the Daesh capital in Syria. The 'race for the capitals' is quite easy to explain; the US wants to pull the cloak of 'real fighters against international terrorism' over themselves; to do so, they need a clear and unconditional symbol of their military victories against Daesh."

    The symbolic victory becomes even more pressing, the analyst suggested, given that today, in the eyes of many observers, "it looks as though US planes have been bombing the desert, while Russia has been the one engaged in the real fight against terror, thus proving the US's inability to continue to hold on to their global leadership role. Taking Mosul will help Washington turn the situation around. The US will show the world that while Russia is fighting against 'unrecognized terrorists' in Aleppo, the US has won a clear victory against the real Daesh jihadists."

    "Apparently, the modern version of the 'Race for Berlin' is of benefit Washington. Even if the operation to take Mosul drags on for months, the city is likely still be liberated earlier than Raqqah. After all, after the liberation of Aleppo, Damascus, Moscow and Tehran will first have to engage in Idlib and northwest Syria, and come to an agreement with the 'moderate opposition'. Only after that will they be able to afford deploying forces in the east to liberate Raqqah."

    However, Mirzayan suggested that "the image of a victory (however hyped) will not be able to solve the US's main problem in the Middle East. This problem is not Daesh…[but] the complete loss of the US's sense of national interest in the region. Crudely speaking, it's not about Iran taking over the region, or Russia's entry into it, nor the Turks playing the Kurdish card; it is about the US, by their own tactical myopia, allowing their geopolitical rivals to carry out these operations."

    Ultimately, the analyst noted that "the next administration will benefit not by reveling in the liberation of Mosul (as Obama once reveled in killing bin Laden) but by revising their strategy in the Middle East – or more precisely, creating one in the first place."

    Topic:
    Military Operation to Retake Mosul From Daesh (225)

    Related:

    Who is Taking Part in the Mosul Offensive, and What Comes After Daesh is Gone
    Mosul Liberation From Daesh to Be Difficult Fight With Setbacks - Obama
    US-Led Coalition Carries Out 25 Airstrikes Against Daesh in Syria, Iraq
    Syrian Army Claims US, Saudi Arabia Allow Daesh to Flee From Mosul to Syria
    Over 500,000 Children, Families to Face Extreme Risks Amid Mosul Offensive
    Washington Looking to Take Mosul by November Elections
    Iraqi Mosul to Face Humanitarian Catastrophe - Russian Foreign Ministry
    Tags:
    expert analysis, analysis, military operation, PR, capital, Syrian Army, Peshmerga, Iraqi Security Forces, Haidar al-Abadi, Iran, Russia, United States, Iraq, Syria, Raqqah, Mosul
    Community standardsDiscussion
    Comment via FacebookComment via Sputnik