Shia Militias Relaunch Tikrit Assault on ISIS After US Air Strikes

[Comrade Grumpy]

Source: Newsweek

Iraqi militias battling to retake Tikrit from the radical Islamist terror group ISIS have restarted their assault on the Iraqi city after suspending the operation in protest at U.S. air strikes, according to Iraqi analysts and reporters.

<snip>

Experts have said that the Iraqi army does not have the capacity to neutralise the “hundreds” of booby traps that ISIS have planted in the city while Iraq’s defence minister, Khaled al-Obeidi, claimed that the operation was slowed down to prevent Iraqi casualties. A further delay was caused when Iraqi PM Haider al-Abadi requested U.S. air strikes against ISIS positions in Tikrit, forcing thousands of Tehran-backed Shiite militiamen, opposed to Washington’s involvement, to suspend their advance into the city.

However, the U.S.’s short air campaign has come to an end and Iraqi forces and militiamen are now resuming their joint operation to defeat ISIS, setting up an assault on Mosul, Iraq’s second-largest city captured by the terror group in their sweep across the country’s northern regions last summer.

Suadad al-Salhy, a Baghdad-based journalist with military contacts, confirmed that Iraqi militia leaders had given the green light to resume the offensive, tweeting: “Iraq's popular mobilization troops including Shiite militias will resume fighting ISIL to re-take Tikrit, military and militia leaders said.”

Read more: http://www.newsweek.com/shia-militias-restart-tikrit-assault-isis-us-air-strikes-end-317850

---

Well, look at who is fighting ISIS. Not Saudi Arabia or the Gulf States. They're too busy killing Shia.

[winstars]

1. Yet, again, WTF? "in protest of US airstrikes"...

[Comrade Grumpy]

2. I think the real story is they got told to leave or the air strikes wouldn't happen.

The story line goes like this:

The attack on Tikrit by mainly Shiite militia with Iranian advisers was stalled.

The Iraqi government asked the US to help out with air strikes.

The US refused unless the Iran-linked Shia militias pulled back. The US didn't want to "help Iran."

The militias pulled back and came up with this protest story to save face.

The air strikes came and went, the Iraqi army without the Shia militias is too weak to take Tikrit by itself, so now the militias are back.

Or so I read.

[happyslug]

3. Another view is the Shia Militia did NOT trust the US...

i.e. the Shia Militia was afraid they be the one's hit, so they retreated to a safe location, then the US Air Force dropped they bombs.

Another alternatives is US ground controllers (the one actually calling in the Air Strikes) did NOT want to operate with Iranian troops, so the "Militia" pulled out rather then give up their Iranian troops (Who can call in Iranian Artillery and Iranian Air Strikes, Iran is operating some Russian SU-29 and actually hit ISIS position BEFORE the US intervened).

Keep in mind this whole mess, Syria-ISIS-Iraq and Yemen is part of the "Cold War" between Iran and Saudi Arabia. I also suspect this fighting is part of the generational change occurring in both countries. Khammani is of the generation that over threw the Shah, they are getting old. Being a Pseud-Democracy, they have been some change in the ruling elite as new people get elected to lower and middle management positions and some high government positions. Thus it is not a complete change in leadership in a short time period, just a partial change, but enough to cause some problems internally.

On the other hand, the Generation that followed King Saud I (The founder of Modern Saudi Arabia, he died in 1952) were his sons. Every king of Saudi Arabia has been a son of King Saud I since 1952. The Youngest members of that family are in their 60s, with most in their 90s and 80s. The Family of the House of Saud have kept tensions low as long as the brothers were alive, but we are now seeing most of that second generation dying out and the grandsons of King Saud I moving into positions of power. This type of generational change always leads to infighting between the cousins (and this is complicated for being NON Western Europeans, they think nothing of marrying their firs cousins, which leads to some interesting alliances within the third generation).

Unlike Iran, which to a degree is being run by the generation who came of age after the fall of the Shah, Saudi Arabia is just leaving the sons of the sons of King Saud I into positions of power. Till now, Saudi Arabia was ruled by the sons of King Saud I, but in the last ten years the grandsons have taken on more and more positions of power within Saudi Arabia. Being an inheritary dictatorship the infighting as to who will be the first grandson of King Saud I to be King of Saudi Arabia is in full play. This includes showing how much more one support Wahhabism, the Sunni Cult the House of Saud belongs to.

I like comparing it to the Soviet Union in the 1980s. The old generation, the last ones to make it to the leadership under Stalin, were finally dying out and the new generation were fighting over who will take over when that Generation died out. During that time period you have the intervention into Afghanistan and the suppression of Solidarity. The infighting later lead to the fall of the Soviet Union, but most of the leadership of the post Soviet Republics had been members of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union prior to 1989 (and that includes Yeltsin).

The infighting lead to massive changes in Eastern Europe and Russia, but that had more to do with the fact the Soviet System had embraced a policy of trying to be as powerful as the US, when the did not have the resources to be so. Given the infighting and the acceptance of the need to cut the military budget the Soviet Union Collapsed.

I do NOT expect the same for the House of Saud, for Saudi Arabia is NOT trying to equal US defence spending, but the House of Saud fears Iran, for Iran has support among the Shia people of the Persian Gulf, including the Eastern part of Saudi Arabia, where most of the oil is. Furthermore, you do NOT have any group of people (outside the Shitte AND al Queda) that can take charge of all or parts of Saudi Arabia (Unlike the Soviet Union where such sub groups within the Communist Party did exist in the Soviet Union).

Given this situation, Iran just does NOT trust the US or the House of Saud. Thus Iran will work with the US and Iran's ally, the present Government of Iraq, but will avoid to much contact with the US, given the US alliance and close relations with the House of Saud.

The US also has a commitment to the present government of Iraq, and it is for that reason the US is supporting this attack on ISIS. Had ISIS just concentrated on Syria, the US would have been supporting ISIS, but as soon as ISIS moved into Iraq and Iraq had to withdraw its forces (Due to the fact the Iraqi Army was set up by the US under its concept of privatization, and its was do to that concept and its implementation that lead to the collapse of the Iraqi Army when hit by ISIS).

Do to the Collapse of the Iraqi Army, Iran stepped in and due to Iran's action the US had to do something, but given that the Iraqi Government had been set up by the US, bombing the Iranians for coming to the aid of Iraq was NOT an acceptable response. Thus the US had to come to the aid of Iraq in the form of Air Strikes, but given the relationship between Iran and the US, Iran (and its Iraqi allies, the Iraqi Militia) do NOT trust the US. Thus to protect themselves they made sure they were away from any accidental US bombing.

Yes, Iran and the Iraqi Militia do NOT trust the US and will protect themselves from any US Air Attacks and that seems to be what happened here.