Aiman Qaddoumi
By Aiman Qaddoumi
American officials have been warning of a sectarian war in Iraq in case pro-Iran militias keep taking over ground in Anbar province. They ignore that the war they are avoiding has already erupted between the self-proclaimed Islamic State (ISIS) and the Shia militias. The argument is whether the war is between Baghdad’s government and a terrorist group or a proxy one excluding the Iraqi army and involving Iranian-linked militias against a Sunni-majority province.
The Telegraph warned on May 26 of ‘bloody sectarian conflict as Shia militias fight back against IS in Ramadi’. Until recently, the war has been taking place in the heartland province of Anbar where the majority of IS manpower is indeed Sunni and the counter offensive is spearheaded by Shia forces close to Iran. These facts shone a harsh spotlight on the mutual atrocities perpetrated by both parties under religious pretexts.
However, that fact that ISIS is a terrorist group does not exonerate the other party, particularly Kitaeb Hezbollah, key militia in the so-called popular mobilisation units (PMU) designated as a terrorist organisation by the United States.
Moreover, the PMU are taking the upper hand after the US and Iraqi army. The situation is becoming more critical if Iran keeps fostering its influence in Iraq. “The fall of Ramadi has damaged Iraqis’ confidence in the US”, Kenneth Pollack, a Middle East expert at the Brookings Institution, noted in his article. The fear of Shia militias’ revenge is aligning with disillusionment with the US administration and culminated in more support among Sunni incubator to ISIS.
Atrocities committed by PMU in the seized areas in Western province of Anbar are not merely variances. The truism is that Iranian-backed militias are utilising religious slogans to antagonise the Sunni inhabitants just as ISIS does. More seriously, the foggy policy of the American administration in Iraq that is not ready for a decisive action against ISIS is more likely to support a major role of Shia militias in the upcoming battle to retake Ramadi based on the lack of fighting forces.
“The continuing shift toward Iran leaves the United States struggling to assert influence in the Iraqi military it spent $25bn to build”, The Washington Post said on May 30. Nevertheless, the US is not confident of the readiness of the Iraqi army. The American newspaper quoted Brig Gen Sabah Al Azawi, Commander of the Iraqi army’s 16th division, as saying, “the PMU are now a national institution”. The Iraqi statement conveys clear message of the coming role of PMU considered as legal forces along with the Iraqi national army.
It seems negotiations between Washington and Baghdad are running on for a while on the participation of PMU in Ramadi’s liberation campaign and beyond. Still, the weakness of Iraqi forces and the absence of the alternatives do not give Washington a moral excuse to ignore engaging oriented paramilitary units built on radical thoughts, which do not differ significantly from its counterpart, Daaesh, the Arabic acronym of ISIS.
On the contrary, enrolling Shia militias into Iraqi army for combat operations against fragile areas suffering repression and marginalisation may cause a backlash and open the door for prolonged civil conflict or even expand the ongoing sectarian war in Iraq to the whole region.
