As the Iraqi invasion of Mosul continues, the Shi’ite militia groups who have proven so controversial in previous attacks have begun to deploy west of the city, aiming to block the escape of any ISIS forces into Syria. The militias see this as the last real fight against ISIS inside Iraq, and are openly talking about heading into Syria next.
While the militias’ involvement in previous captures of major Sunni Arab cities around Iraq has seen them looting, torturing, and killing with reckless abandon, the militias’ ambition to get into Syria once this is wrapped up may mean less are left behind around Mosul to harass the locals.
The sectarian nature of the wars in Iraq and Syria have both led to a spike in recruitment for the Shi’ite militias, with many being deployed around significant religious sites in both countries to protect them from groups like ISIS. For many of them, this has also meant a blurring of the lines between the two wars.
There remains considerable concern about the impact on the Mosul population of the militias’ presence. This is doubly true because, in “blocking” ISIS escape, they may also end up blocking the escape of the civilian population,. which is unlikely to be welcomed if they flee into Kurdish territory.
That’s also a recurring reality in Iraq’s war, that the Sunni Arab civilians aren’t welcomed into Kurdish or Shi’ite territory, and generally end up having to flee into other ISIS territory for lack of alternatives. With little ISIS territory left, it is unclear where they’ll go.
The solution is NOT to make them go to Syria. They will just be exposed to the horrors of war against ISIS — which is coming one way or the other. Also, Syria has taken in millions of refugees from Iraq following the toppling of Saddam, when US gave green light to Shia hand-picked leader to do whatever he wanted to Sunni population — kicking them out of jobs, dismissing army, and other brilliant nation-destructing moves.
And then, Petraeus armed Sunnis during project “Awakening”, and then Sunnis took revenge — many a mass grave site of Shia civilians were found following this “empowerment” of Sunnis. Empowerment, with plenty of Saudi money, religious extremism, and arms — created ISIS. So, there is plenty of blame to go around, and the continued manipulation of victims that turn victimizers, and then the other way around — is the mess that powers create without knowledge. And then, not knowing what they do not know, and not caring a whit to learn what it is — and we have what we have.
And why would Kurds on the Syrian side of the border welcome more refugees? Kurds, that is YPG, just managed to ethnically cleanse a good chunk of formerly ISIS held space, to create a connection between their geographically separated enclaves. So, having cleansed Manbij of Sunnis, why would they now look forward to get more Sunnis — and possibly ISIS in civilian clothes — into their areas! The population engineering needs to come to an end.
I am amazed how difficult it is for people to look up a map. Iraq has a large area of Sunnis, way outside Mosul. There is no reason whatsoever for these people not to be helped there, with refugee camps, among other Sunnis and not in danger. These are tribal areas, and they are rather organized until ISIS toppled tribal chiefs. They need not go anywhere out of their areas in Iraq.
It is not making any sense for Iraqi government to spurn the offer of Turkey to help. If there is one force population would believe — that would be Turkish authority. In the end, somebody will have to provide security, and when it comes to Sunnis, Kurds cannot do it, Shia — I doubt that they are as bloodthirsty as described, but they definitely are not trusted in Sunni areas.
And by extension, I would say that Iraqi army cannot do it — as it has more challenges, is over stretched, and has also a large percentage of Shia soldiers. What difference does it make to Iraq which of the foreign countries gets to provide security in Mosul and in post-ISIS Sunni areas? How would it make sense to again give the job to US and former colonial powers to stay, nation build — when such an attempt earlier resulted in a devastated region?. So, why not have a regional solution. Iran is close to Shia population, and can have influence on them, Kurds of Iraq are on good terms with both Turkey and Baghdad. If only US would STOP spoiling for a fight, and TAKE OUT OF SINJAR the Iraqi PKK. And not arm them for all that is holly — enough divide and rule, it has gone insane. So, no nurturing PKK against Peshmerga. I would also think that it is high time for US to stop arming Kurds in Syria, as this is a fools errand. Just as it was for CIA to Arm Free Syria Army groups, that all went under the protection of Turkish forces the moment they came into Syria. And then, happily fighting Pentagon armed Kurds! Enough already. Turkey can stabilize border areas in Syria, as well as take on ISIS in Raqqa. Turkey will be welcome by Sunni population in post-ISIS period. Kurds of Syria may have to come to terms with Damascus, and get guarantees against Turkey demands. Again, it may take persuading Damascus to go along. And I wonder what other choices they have. Unless they want to go under French “peacekeeping”, a continuation of colonial mentality.
A regional solution needs to be encouraged, as this will provide for a longer term stability — all actors will have a stake in making it work. Whenever far away powers get involved, region and its interests often become nothing more then a small change in cutting various deals among each other. Time for a different solution.