This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/04/world/middleeast/a-us-concession-to-reality-in-the-battle-against-islamic-state.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
A U.S. Concession to Reality in the Battle Against Islamic State A U.S. Concession to Reality in the Battle Against Islamic State
(about 14 hours later)
WASHINGTON — In the battle to retake Saddam Hussein’s hometown, Tikrit, from the Islamic State, the United States and Iran have found a template for fighting the Sunni militancy in other parts of Iraq: American airstrikes and Iranian-backed ground assaults, with the Iraqi military serving as the go-between for two global adversaries that do not want to publicly acknowledge that they are working together. WASHINGTON — In the battle to retake Saddam Hussein’s hometown, Tikrit, from the Islamic State, the United States and Iran have found a template for fighting the Sunni militancy in other parts of Iraq: American airstrikes and Iranian-backed ground assaults, with the Iraqi military serving as the go-between for two global adversaries that do not want to publicly acknowledge that they are working together.
The template, American officials said privately this week, could apply in particular to the looming battle to retake Mosul, Iraq’s second-largest city. Given that President Obama has ruled out the use of American ground troops in Iraq, and that the Iraqi military remains ill-trained for urban warfare, the fight for Mosul will require some combination of American air power, Iranian-backed Shiite militias, Iraqi military forces and perhaps Kurdish pesh merga fighters.The template, American officials said privately this week, could apply in particular to the looming battle to retake Mosul, Iraq’s second-largest city. Given that President Obama has ruled out the use of American ground troops in Iraq, and that the Iraqi military remains ill-trained for urban warfare, the fight for Mosul will require some combination of American air power, Iranian-backed Shiite militias, Iraqi military forces and perhaps Kurdish pesh merga fighters.
“You can see where this is going,” a senior Pentagon official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity. “Are the Iraqi forces ready yet? I would say no.”“You can see where this is going,” a senior Pentagon official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity. “Are the Iraqi forces ready yet? I would say no.”
That means, the official said, that any campaign to retake territory from the Islamic State may have to include the Shiite militias, no matter how much American officials proclaim otherwise.That means, the official said, that any campaign to retake territory from the Islamic State may have to include the Shiite militias, no matter how much American officials proclaim otherwise.
Similarly, neither Iran’s government nor the militias it backs want to admit that they needed American airstrikes to help retake Tikrit. On Thursday, militiamen claimed that they could have liberated the city earlier if the American-led airstrikes had not taken place.Similarly, neither Iran’s government nor the militias it backs want to admit that they needed American airstrikes to help retake Tikrit. On Thursday, militiamen claimed that they could have liberated the city earlier if the American-led airstrikes had not taken place.
But few military experts accept that. The Tikrit fight, which began on March 2, largely stalled after two weeks, as the Iranian-backed Shiite militias took heavy casualties, prompting a pause that was portrayed as allowing the Iraqi government to bring in reinforcements. Iraqi officials then asked the United States, which had been sitting on the sidelines, for airstrikes, which eventually helped to break the siege.But few military experts accept that. The Tikrit fight, which began on March 2, largely stalled after two weeks, as the Iranian-backed Shiite militias took heavy casualties, prompting a pause that was portrayed as allowing the Iraqi government to bring in reinforcements. Iraqi officials then asked the United States, which had been sitting on the sidelines, for airstrikes, which eventually helped to break the siege.
“What you’re seeing play out is the challenging prospect of creating synergy between two entities, the United States and Iran, who don’t want to work together, who hate each other, but who need each other,” said James G. Stavridis, the former supreme allied commander of NATO, who is now dean of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. “But if we’re not going to put ground troops in, then guess what? We’re going to have to occupy the same battle space as the Shia militias.”“What you’re seeing play out is the challenging prospect of creating synergy between two entities, the United States and Iran, who don’t want to work together, who hate each other, but who need each other,” said James G. Stavridis, the former supreme allied commander of NATO, who is now dean of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. “But if we’re not going to put ground troops in, then guess what? We’re going to have to occupy the same battle space as the Shia militias.”
In the fight for Tikrit, American warplanes pounded key Islamic State defensive positions for five consecutive days beginning March 25, destroying buildings, bridges, checkpoints, staging areas, a command-and-control facility and roadblocks. The airstrikes allowed Iraqi troops and Iranian-backed militiamen, who had been pinned down in Tikrit, to advance.In the fight for Tikrit, American warplanes pounded key Islamic State defensive positions for five consecutive days beginning March 25, destroying buildings, bridges, checkpoints, staging areas, a command-and-control facility and roadblocks. The airstrikes allowed Iraqi troops and Iranian-backed militiamen, who had been pinned down in Tikrit, to advance.
Since the end of the operation, the ambivalence felt by both Iran and the United States over their indirect cooperation has been on full display.Since the end of the operation, the ambivalence felt by both Iran and the United States over their indirect cooperation has been on full display.
In announcing the United States airstrikes in Tikrit, administration officials initially said that they had made American participation contingent on the withdrawal of the Iranian-backed militias that had been doing most of the fighting there. During testimony to Congress last week, Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III, the commander of the United States Central Command, denounced the militias, which once conducted a deadly campaign against American forces in Iraq.In announcing the United States airstrikes in Tikrit, administration officials initially said that they had made American participation contingent on the withdrawal of the Iranian-backed militias that had been doing most of the fighting there. During testimony to Congress last week, Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III, the commander of the United States Central Command, denounced the militias, which once conducted a deadly campaign against American forces in Iraq.
“I will not — and I hope we will never — coordinate or cooperate with Shiite militias,” General Austin said.“I will not — and I hope we will never — coordinate or cooperate with Shiite militias,” General Austin said.
For their part, the Shiite militias initially boycotted the fight, claiming anger over the American involvement.For their part, the Shiite militias initially boycotted the fight, claiming anger over the American involvement.
But both the administration and Iran quickly modified those stances. The militias ended their boycott after just one day. And a senior Obama administration official said in an interview this week that General Austin’s comments before the Senate Armed Services Committee “may have gone a little far.”But both the administration and Iran quickly modified those stances. The militias ended their boycott after just one day. And a senior Obama administration official said in an interview this week that General Austin’s comments before the Senate Armed Services Committee “may have gone a little far.”
“What we’ve been trying to say is that we are not coordinating directly with Iran,” said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “That is just policy.”“What we’ve been trying to say is that we are not coordinating directly with Iran,” said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “That is just policy.”
For the White House, the caution stems partly from the continuing negotiations with Iran to rein in its nuclear ambitions. The tentative framework announced on Thursday between Iran and world powers left a few issues to a final agreement in June, and both the American and Iranian governments must now sell an accord to skeptics at home — the Republican-led Congress for Mr. Obama, and hard-liners in Tehran for President Hassan Rouhani.For the White House, the caution stems partly from the continuing negotiations with Iran to rein in its nuclear ambitions. The tentative framework announced on Thursday between Iran and world powers left a few issues to a final agreement in June, and both the American and Iranian governments must now sell an accord to skeptics at home — the Republican-led Congress for Mr. Obama, and hard-liners in Tehran for President Hassan Rouhani.
With so much on the line, neither leader wants to appear as if he is making nice with the other, foreign policy experts said. Beyond that, the Obama administration must manage growing criticism from Sunni Arab allies like Saudi Arabia that the United States is getting too close to Iran.With so much on the line, neither leader wants to appear as if he is making nice with the other, foreign policy experts said. Beyond that, the Obama administration must manage growing criticism from Sunni Arab allies like Saudi Arabia that the United States is getting too close to Iran.
“The U.S. is working in the direction of a nuclear deal, but it does not want to give the impression that it is cooperating with Iran on all issues,” said Vali R. Nasr, a former special adviser to Mr. Obama who is now the dean of the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. “So the U.S. has gone out of its way to distance itself from Iran’s regional activities, by underscoring its support for Saudi Arabia in Yemen, and getting involved in Tikrit but going out of its way to assert that Tikrit can happen without Iran.”“The U.S. is working in the direction of a nuclear deal, but it does not want to give the impression that it is cooperating with Iran on all issues,” said Vali R. Nasr, a former special adviser to Mr. Obama who is now the dean of the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. “So the U.S. has gone out of its way to distance itself from Iran’s regional activities, by underscoring its support for Saudi Arabia in Yemen, and getting involved in Tikrit but going out of its way to assert that Tikrit can happen without Iran.”
Dr. Nasr called the approach “not practical.” Landon Shroder, an intelligence analyst for corporations in Iraq, went further, saying that “the U.S. has to recognize the military realities of fighting the Islamic State in Iraq, and those realities, at this time, start and stop with the militias, for better or worse.”Dr. Nasr called the approach “not practical.” Landon Shroder, an intelligence analyst for corporations in Iraq, went further, saying that “the U.S. has to recognize the military realities of fighting the Islamic State in Iraq, and those realities, at this time, start and stop with the militias, for better or worse.”
“Attempting to sideline the militias is about domestic U.S. politics, not the practical requirements actually needed to defeat ISIS,” he added, using another name for the Islamic State.“Attempting to sideline the militias is about domestic U.S. politics, not the practical requirements actually needed to defeat ISIS,” he added, using another name for the Islamic State.
As for the American role, Mr. Shroder said the same thing applied. “As we just saw in Tikrit, the precision capabilities of the U.S. helped break the siege,” he said. “These kinds of capabilities will be needed in a place like Mosul, where the urban density peaks at over a million people.”As for the American role, Mr. Shroder said the same thing applied. “As we just saw in Tikrit, the precision capabilities of the U.S. helped break the siege,” he said. “These kinds of capabilities will be needed in a place like Mosul, where the urban density peaks at over a million people.”