20 October 2016
A Tale Of Two Cities
The battle for Aleppo and the battle for Mosul; significant differences.
By Neil Tidmarsh
In Syria, the Russian-backed regime is fighting to drive rebels from the city of Aleppo. In Iraq, the US-backed regime is fighting to drive Isis from the city of Mosul.
Compare and contrast…
The most obvious similarity is that both regimes are largely Shia, and their opponents – the rebels in Syria and Isis in Iraq – are largely Sunni. The most obvious difference is that the battle for Aleppo is part of a civil war, whereas the battle for Mosul is part of a war against an invasive terrorist occupying force. But even this difference could be challenged by some. Assad insists that his war is also a war against terrorists. (Most of the international community, however, aren’t taken in by this; while it’s true that one of the many groups opposing him is affiliated to al-Qaeda, his claim that all his enemies are terrorists is widely seen as a cynical excuse to bomb his own citizens.) And in Iraq, some might argue that the occupation of Mosul and surrounding areas (Sunni territory) by Isis (a Sunni group) is also a kind of civil war, or at least a consequence of the Shia/Sunni civil war and the largely Shia regime’s vindictive treatment of the Sunni population in its aftermath.
But the most significant difference is in the tactics and strategy of the two attacking forces; the Syrian regime attacking rebel-held quarters of Aleppo, and the Iraqi regime attacking Isis-held Mosul.
The battle for Mosul has only just begun, but it follows months (if not years) of preparation. The possible fate of the civilian population of the city has loomed large in the planning. The population of any besieged city is extremely vulnerable, but Mosul’s civilians (estimated to number somewhere between 750,000 and 1.8 million) are in a particularly dangerous position. As well as the usual possibilities of being caught in the cross-fire, of having their homes destroyed, of food running out, of diseases breaking out following the collapse of healthcare and other services, they face the near-certainty of being used as a human shield by the Isis defenders and the possibility that vengeful elements in the largely Shia attacking forces will punish them for being Sunni.
Iraq knows that a humanitarian disaster could happen, and it recognises that such a disaster would not only be a moral defeat but could also nullify victory in battle. Massive civilian casualties could be exploited by Isis, feeding the propaganda which they use to pose as the champions of victimised Sunni innocents. It could also breed widespread Sunni resentment, fuelling further sectarian conflict in Iraq.
“The population are our greatest challenge” said Major-General Najim Abed al-Jabouri, the Iraqi commander, earlier this week. “So we must fight Isis outside Mosul, not inside.” Rather than completely surrounding the city and then closing in to trap and destroy Isis in its centre, he is planning to leave a corridor open in the hope that he can squeeze Isis out of the city and then engage them outside the heavily-populated urban areas where civilians would otherwise suffer. He has also given orders that the PMF Shia militias (the al-Hashd al-Shaabi, who have a record of vengeful atrocities against Sunni civilians) will be limited to operations outside the city, and the Iraqi prime minister Haider al-Abadi has himself insisted that they will not take part in any action inside the city. The inclusion of Turkish-trained Sunni militias in the Iraqi forces suggests that some effort has been made to form a non-sectarian army backed by a non-sectarian alliance.
The battle was preceded by warplanes dropping tens of thousands of leaflets over the city, warning the population of the impending conflict and advising them to keep calm and remain in shelter. The prime minister broadcast a television message to them, a message of hope (“God willing we will meet in Mosul to celebrate the liberation and your salvation from Isis…”) and of reassuring solidarity (“…so we can live together once again, all religions united…”) Six camps for refugees have been set up outside the city, with 60,000 tents. The sites may well be overwhelmed within weeks – hundreds of thousands of civilians are expected to flee the city – but at least provisions for them have begun, and the United Nations and charities such as Save the Children are urging Iraq and the world at large to do more. Aid organisations have also called for safe corridors to be opened through which civilians could escape the conflict zone; these requests have been considered, but it’s generally agreed that they are not practical, given that such corridors can only be established if all parties in the conflict agree on them.
Whether the battle for Mosul results in a humanitarian disaster remains to be seen, but at least the Iraqi regime has recognised the danger and has taken steps to avoid civilian casualties and ameliorate civilian suffering.
Meanwhile, in Syria…
The soldiers of Assad’s regime and the warplanes of his ally Russia continue to pound the rebel-held areas of Aleppo indiscriminately. Their barrel-bombs, artillery shells, bunker-busters, phosphorous incendiaries, thermite bombs and (allegedly) thermobaric bombs continue to fall on civilian and fighter alike. Markets, hospitals, schools and aid convoys continue to suffer as collateral damage or even (so allege many on-lookers) as deliberate and illegal targets. Humanitarian aid is held up, obstructed or even destroyed.
One regime building concern about the safety of civilians into its strategy, and planning tactics which should reduce their suffering. Another regime showing an utter disregard for civilian life. This is the most significant difference between the two battles. It tells us much about the difference between the two regimes. It tells us even more about the difference between their respective backers – the USA and Russia.
If you enjoyed this article please share it using the buttons above.
Please click here if you would like a weekly email on publication of the ShawSheet