Iraqi Prime Minister Hayder Abadi has announced today that he is ordering the immediate halt to all Iraqi military airstrikes against ISIS-held cities, towns, and villages, and anyplace else which might cause civilian casualties.
The move was in response to offers by Sunni Arab tribal leaders in the region to back the Iraqi military’s offensive against ISIS territory, provided they stopped killing civilians in the Sunni-dominated region.
What this means for Iraq’s own air campaign is unclear, as the air force had been short on Hellfire missiles, pending a new shipment from the US, and has mostly seemed to back off its air campaign once the US began their own.
Which is another major question, as the Obama Administration is prepared to dramatically ratchet up airstrikes in ISIS-held Iraq in the coming days, and will likely not consider itself bound by Abadi’s decision not to attack civilian areas. Yet it’s undeniable that US strikes on ISIS towns could easily undermine the Iraqi efforts to secure tribal support for the war, meaning it could be an early source of tension between the US and Iraqi governments in this new war.
Another obvious reason the US should stay out of this mess – it's a catch-22. Of course, they could just do as the Israelis do (and probably will) and bomb anyway regardless of civilian casualties and deaths. They've proven in Afghanistan that collateral damage is OK since it's only Afghani peasants and their children.
What ? telling Empire to stop killing people ? Karzai used to complain, as well. Didn't do a bit of good. ISIS acts more like the IDF every day.
Yes, in light of this deal, what about American airstrikes? It seems that every step of the way the avowed aims of policy – in this case the bolstering of a Sunni opposition to ISIS – are stifled by some countervailing aim. The classic, of course, is the war against ISIS in Syria as ISiS wars against a government that we claim "must go". What you get for trying to arrange the world to suit yourself, I guess.