"The biggest offensive against ISIS so far happened without American help—but with plenty of assistance from Iran.
The Iraqi military launched a major campaign to take back a key city from the self-proclaimed Islamic State over the weekend—a move that caught the U.S. “by surprise,” in the words of one American government official.
The U.S.-led coalition forces that have conducted seven months of airstrikes on Iraq’s behalf did not participate in the attack, defense officials told The Daily Beast, and the American military has no plans to chip in.
Instead, embedded Iranian advisers and Iranian-backed Shiite militias are taking part in the offensive on the largely Sunni town, raising the prospect that the fight to beat back ISIS could become a sectarian war.
The news is the latest indication that not all is well with the American effort against the terror group. On Friday, U.S. defense officials told The Daily Beast that a planned offensive against the ISIS stronghold of Mosul had been indefinitely postponed. " Daily Beast
*************
Shia militia to the fore

- The Popular Mobilisation (Hashid Shaabi), comprising dozens of Shia militia, takes a lead role in Iraqi operations against Islamic State (IS)
- It was formed by the Shia-led government in June 2014 after the army collapsed in the face of an advance by IS militants across northern Iraq
- Thousands volunteered to fight after Iraq's most senior Shia cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, called on people to take up arms and defend their country and its holy sites
- Iran provides funding, weapons and military advisers to militia in the Popular Mobilisation, and reportedly controls several of them directly
- The Popular Mobilisation is headed by Jamal Jaafar Mohammed, also known as Abu Mahdi al-Mohandis, a former Badr Organisation commander who is close to Iranian General Qassem Soleimani
- Militiamen have been accused of committing atrocities and acting with impunity. Activists say Sunni Arab civilians have been forced from their homes, kidnapped, and in some cases summarily killed
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-31708996
---------------------
Apparently, there is no US coalition air power involved in this effort to re-conquer Salah al Din Province and the city of Tikrit. Many will doubt that Baghdad did not inform the US of this effort but I see no reason to doubt that datum. Iran is the Shia government of Iraq's natural ally, not the US. The US now objects to oppression of the Sunni Arabs by the government and by the Shia militias aligned with the government. This makes no sense to the Shia. For them, an enemy is an enemy, period, end of story.
At the same time the openly heralded offensive to Mosul several hundred miles beyond Tikrit has been postponed "indefinitely." IMO this represents a prudent worry on the part of the Iraqis and their Iranian advisers that (as I observed in an earlier post ) such a deep thrust would carry a great risk of reversal beyond the point of culmination of the drive.
It is a good idea from the Shia point of view to run a "test" of their ability t campaign to the north. Let us see if they can do that. pl
I think this will be a good test of the will of IS vs the Shia state. Some good Stalingrad style UO/MOUT or whatever alphabet soup name they're giving it nowadays. The Shia will not give quarter, and IS will not ask for it.
I'm sure Kerry will ring his hands about the violence, but so be it. I imagine they will have a more lasting victory than the half ass war imposed from above that the US fought.
Posted by: Tyler | 03 March 2015 at 11:40 AM
I'd take a deeply motivated militia armed with AKs, hatchets and bags full of grenades and leaders acutely aware of their soldiers' strengths and weaknesses over US air power any day... especially in street fighting.
Posted by: The Twisted Genius | 03 March 2015 at 12:25 PM
There are some ten Sunni groups and tribes taking part on the government side - several thousand in total.
It is wrong, in my view, to present this as a purely sectarian fight. That angle was and is often used by U.S. media and politicians to "divide and conquer" in Iraq. It often makes no sense. It wasn't Maliki's alleged sectarianism that let ISIS kill 1700 Iraqi soldiers at Camp Speicher. Sunnis were well represented in Maliki' government - above their population proportion - and most of the Sunnis were not and are not in bed with the Islamic State. Nearly all civilians fled from Tikrit and half of Mosul's population fled when IS took over. These people will fight to get back home.
Posted by: b | 03 March 2015 at 12:25 PM
b
There is no doubt that there are Sunni in the Iraqi government's forces. There is also no doubt that the whole thing is Shia run for Shia purposes. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 03 March 2015 at 12:46 PM
Tyler,
It was called MOBA (military operations in built up areas) at Fort Benning in 76. We had an Australian major as a MOBA instructor. I vividly remember his description of targeting the rear decks of tanks from second floor windows with 90mm recoilless rifles and LAWs. "Swisho! Right up the ole cake hole." No wonder my ears ring and I can't hear for shit any more.
Posted by: The Twisted Genius | 03 March 2015 at 12:48 PM
b,
the national army of Iraq under Sadaam's command defeated Iran. After destroying the social order in the country and creating this Shia dominated government Iran has immense influence. Sunni influence in Maliki's government? Is that a joke? They had essentially no say and little membership in the 'new' army. Perhaps there's been some change in this new, new army but this is more a temporary alliance against a common enemy than a new 'inclusive' government.
Posted by: Fred | 03 March 2015 at 01:59 PM
TTG,
It's a good thing I stuck with torpedos.
Posted by: Fred | 03 March 2015 at 02:01 PM
Since the point is to retake and hold it, after success at the mighty Battle of Tikrit,and the fall of Mosul some time hence, I really wonder is there any plan?
Is anybody thinking about how to get a broader hudna going, draw some new borders, or is itjust fight til Iran is reduced to chaos along with the rest?
Posted by: Charles I | 03 March 2015 at 02:30 PM
Man I just watched Jude Law's latest rather lame movie, Black Sea, and better you than me, glad you surfaced, is I all can say to a submariner.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2261331/
Black Sea (2014)
114 min -
Ratings: 6.6/10 from 2,838 users
In order to make good with his former employers, a submarine captain takes a job with a shadowy backer to search the depths of the Black Sea for a submarine rumored to be loaded with gold.
Posted by: Charles I | 03 March 2015 at 02:36 PM
Charles I,
"Iran" reduced to chaos along with the rest? Did you mean to say "Iran"?
Posted by: different clue | 03 March 2015 at 03:09 PM
Colonel,
Through the fog of war and propaganda, the one clear thing is that the war parties are in charge; stoking ethnic and religious hatreds. Tunnels and collapsed concrete and steel buildings make almost perfect defensive fortifications. The only counter are tanks and deep penetration precision bombs or nuclear war. The only way for the Shiites to take Tikrit without NATO or Iranian air support is encirclement and starvation. The Middle East is on the verge of a regional Sunni Shiite Jihad. This is not good. Only God knows what the Saudis and Israel will do if the USA signs a peace treaty with Iran and the Shiite Crescent once again spreads across the Levant. From Ukraine through to Somalia; the world is in flames and it is spreading our way. The only counter to this is to quarantine violence, build strong borders and return government to serving the people not warmongers.
Posted by: VietnamVet | 03 March 2015 at 03:36 PM
"the national army of Iraq under Sadaam's command defeated Iran."
Iraq invaded Iran in 1980 but were repelled in 1982 and held their own till the end of the war in 1988. Not much of a defeat.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/iran-iraq.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/iran-iraq.htm
Posted by: notlurking | 03 March 2015 at 04:30 PM
TTG,
Gonna be using "Swisho! Right up the ole cake hole!" as much as possible in daily convos around here now.
Also concur with your assessment of a motivated militia with hatchets, AKs, grenades, and maybe a few LAWs/AT4s in addition to a light mortar section or two.
As we like to say "Dis gun b gud".
Posted by: Tyler | 03 March 2015 at 04:41 PM
Since at least November Iraqi army officials had been saying that they would retake Baiji where a major refinery is then take Tikrit and then Mosul or Samarra. Baiji is done. Tikrit is now under siege. It looks to me like the Iraqi government and Iran Quds are following a plan, it just isn't our plan. If I read right then current report is that after Tikrit the target will be to the south at Samarra. I might be missing something but this seems like a credible plan by the Iraqi government with Iranian support and existing resources.
Posted by: bth | 03 March 2015 at 05:37 PM
notlurking
In the last year of the Iran/Iraq War the Iraqis conducted a series of massive offensives that destroyed the Iranian forces and captured most of their equipment. I was there. I should know. When Iran accepted the UN sponsored armistice the Iraqis were everywhere on Iranian soil. they did not advance farther because they did not wish to try to occupy Iran with its vast territory. " During the 1988 battles, the Iranians put up little resistance to the Iraqi offensives, having been worn out by nearly eight years of war.[49]:253 They lost large amounts of equipment; however, they managed to rescue most of their troops from being captured by the Iraqis, leaving Iraq with relatively few prisoners.[39] On 2 July, Iran belatedly set up a joint central command which unified the Revolutionary Guard, Army, and Kurdish rebels, and dispelled the rivalry between the Army and the Revolutionary Guard. However, this came too late, and Iran was believed to have fewer than 200 remaining tanks on the southern front, faced against thousands of Iraqi ones.[133] The only area where the Iranians were not suffering major defeats was in Kurdistan.[104]" wiki on Ira-Iraq War. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 03 March 2015 at 05:51 PM
Absolutely
Posted by: Charles I | 03 March 2015 at 06:47 PM
yes, read Vietnam Vet's comment below
Posted by: Charles I | 03 March 2015 at 06:50 PM
notlurking,
right, how many Iranian dead by 1987? What was the Shia domination of the Iraqi government in 1988-2003? Some victory. Their influence came after the US destroyed the Iraqi government and overturned the social order in Iraq.
Posted by: Fred | 03 March 2015 at 09:28 PM
Charles,
I'll second that thought. I will have to check out that movie, haven't seen it yet. I am rather partial to "operation petticoat" with Cary Grant. I'm pretty sure my guys could have hit a truck too.
Posted by: Fred | 03 March 2015 at 09:32 PM
Charles,
here's some prescience from a former commenter here.
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2009/07/iraq-and-the-neocon-delusion.html
Posted by: Fred | 03 March 2015 at 09:32 PM
Bring our forces back. From Europe, from Korea, from MENA. Now that we have destroyed Iraq, if Iran is to be the dominant actor, let it be so. Let the Europeans either start paying for their own defense. Ditto the South Koreans. And someone please kick Carl Levin in the ass every day for blocking F-22s for Japan and the Aussies.
Other things on the list but I'm already ranting.
Posted by: BabelFish | 04 March 2015 at 09:14 AM
I think the only people really talking about Mosul are Americans. The Iraqi Army, militia and Quds are all going after Tikrit and then Samarra. Iraq army has been saying this since at least November. How is it that the American military is surprised by this development when reading any recent news would make this clear? Are our generals this out of touch?
Qussem Soleimani was photographed having tea with front line troops outside Tikrit on Tuesday. Iraqi general was interviewed on BBC I think yesterday saying how American air attacks are just not enough to make a difference. CENTCOM press statements and unnamed government sources in US look like drum major marching down the street without a band following behind.
Posted by: bth | 04 March 2015 at 12:50 PM
Is it possible that all the blather about Mosul is maskirovka? Perhaps using the jihadi's desire to humiliate the West against them?
Posted by: Medicine Man | 04 March 2015 at 01:47 PM
I have a new word for us: Bibistan. Precludes other Stans.
Posted by: Charles I | 04 March 2015 at 02:44 PM
Perhaps its a cunning deception but I seriously doubt it. Even the strategies talked about to take Mosul are poorly conceived. Better to isolate its supply routes and let ISIS feed its population though the Summer.
Posted by: bth | 04 March 2015 at 04:40 PM