Open Letter to US led Coalition Fighting ISIS

Dear US led Coalition fighting ISIS,

The war on terrorism in the middle east has taken its toll on both soldiers and innocent civilians to the point where the enemy can control the emotions of all who live under their reign of terror. Countless lives have been taken in what appears to be the enemy’s definition of propaganda; beheading journalists and children alike with no remorse or guilt. Thousands more lives are being taken by mother nature as refugees attempting to escape the war sink in the harsh waters, only a few short miles away from a new home and a new life. And yet the so-called Islamic State still cling onto what territory they can claim, fighting with a fanaticism only previously seen in the troops of Hitler’s Third Reich. However, there is a ray of light in these seemingly-endless clouds of darkness, although it is on the horizon. This ray of light may very well be the final offensive needed to deter the Islamic State and replicate circumstances similar to those faced by the Wehrmacht in early 1945. The final push required to undermine the morale of the enemy soldiers and commanders to a point where their capacity for armed resistance is fatally weakened. I am referring to the Iraqi- led offensive on Iraq’s second largest city, Mosul.

Mosul is like a gleaming jewel in the string of victories that ISIS has gained. After capturing the city in 2014, the terrorist organization controlled vital supply lines and resources that helped to fuel its war machine. According to the BBC, after the fall of Mosul in June of 2014, the militant group had assets worth “$900m (£500m) Afterwards, this rose to around $2bn (£1.18bn).” Though you may consider me in an unworthy position of advising your military actions, this letter is merely destined to be a beacon of hope, or of warning to all who view it. As you are probably aware of, the Iraqi forces are leading a 2 pronged assault on this city, hopefully starting later on this year. However, I would like to draw your attention to the flaws within the battle plan set out. The main battle tactic draws on a strategy known as the mainstay of the iraqi forces and their war against ISIS, wherein the troops will surround and cordon off any exits or entrances to and from Mosul. Before gradually tightening the circle, meanwhile American troops will move into the city and clear out any remaining resistance. I am not a military general, but I have seen this tactic employed by its creators, Erwin Rommel and the like. Back then this tactic reaped huge amounts of rewards and minimal casualties, but this was when the blitzkrieg concept of warfare was in its infancy. Nowadays this tactic is hardly surprising if any general employs it on the battlefield. Furthermore, ISIS has been preparing for this attack for quite a while.

Mosul is a city ISIS will never surrender, so they have prepared a vast network of defenses to eliminate any attacking force who dares step foot within their city. Trenches filled with oil, capable of being ignited by a stray bullet or spark and creating a scene one can only describe as if though “A piece of hell had been sliced up and put on this planet”. A vast network of IEDs planted in such close proximity and in such large numbers, one can claim it to be a modern “Devil’s garden”. Finally, a network of underground tunnels in and around Mosul, so any bunkers or emplacements neutralized can easily be refilled again by reinforcements from the city center. Such defenses took months to completely obliterate by you 60 years ago in the Pacific and with horrendous losses at that. With the Iraqi forces surrounding the city, it seems logical to assume that ISIS will gather its forces outside and inside of the city in order to attempt a counterattack or, in the least, a breakout. I am not saying that the Iraqi forces are weaker than the American forces, since they’re being led by commandos and elite divisions trained extensively. But I am suggesting that you as the secondary country taking part ought to surround the city. I shall now iterate my point as to why this seems more safer, effective and less costly.

Firstly, if we had Iraqi troops surround the city, then they would therefore gain a very heavy burden to hold their positions until all troops within the city have either been killed or surrender. This also comes with its own range of responsibilities, mainly ensuring that no enemy troops break out of the perimeter, but also coordinating very closely with the American to make sure they push the circle boundaries. The Iraqi troops, despite being very experienced, do not have the same amount or quality of battlefield support that you do. Mainly high quality, fast medical care (BBC news). Meaning that it will take some time before minorly injured soldiers are sent back into battle, or before soldiers that are badly injured received medical care in the time that they have to live. Furthermore, if an enemy counterattack is launched, then it would be very likely that the Iraqi forces suffer more casualties than if you were holding the “noose” on Mosul.

You on the other hand, are holding far more reins that the Iraqis, your close air support and long-range artillery will keep the enemy either on the run, or fearful to launch a counterattack. Now while some people may argue that you won’t be able to communicate as effectively with the Kurdish Peshmerga fighters, who have been tasked with isolating the city from the east and north. There can be several Iraqi commandos spread out throughout the forces to overcome the communication problem. The very layout and terrain of the offensive location poses its own problems for your troops, according to the New York Times, the militants will mostly focus their defenses on the West Bank or the East Bank, since Mosul is divided by the Tigris river. The West bank hosts a multitude of narrow streets, which will pose obstacles for tanks and artillery to operate. Yet out in the open desert, these weapons will be able to effectively position and camouflage themselves before proceeding to rain death down on the enemy. The Iraqi forces, on the other hand, have been training for street-to-street combat for the past few months. This comparison seems reminiscent of the German and Soviet forces during the battle for Stalingrad. One side relying too much on machines to fight a gentlemen's battle, the other having been raised for brutal close quarters combat. Now I’m fairly certain that you know the outcome of that battle and would not prefer to be the Wehrmacht in this case. Therefore, in order to avoid high Iraqi casualties and maximize the effectiveness of your own troops, you ought to reconsider the battle plan.

Secondly, the Iraqi military has chosen this battle plan since this is their country they are fighting in. They do not want anyone interfering in their business, this is their battle and theirs alone to fight. According to your battle plan, it seems almost ironic that the Americans will have the honor of storming into the city heart. It seems far more reasonable that the Iraqis should hold this honor so that it will be their troops who raise the victory flag over Mosul. Historically, this scene resembles the final battle of Berlin, with the Russians on one side and the American, British and French on the other. Despite the fact they were all on the same side, each one was rushing to the city center, with all eager to see their flag waving triumphantly above the rubble of the Reichstag building. I am fairly certain that, given your American born sense of honor, you will allow the Iraqis to claim this victory for their own. However, with the current battle plan, it seems that you will be given the spotlight after entering the city and ending an era of fear and terror within the civilians there. It seems more reasonable then, that you ought to give the Iraqi forces their time in the spotlight, there is a sense of patriotism driving them after all. You could even play the gentlemen’s role in this battle and withdraw your forces, providing only aircover and long-range artillery if requested. But I assume that this is too risky given the number of ISIS troops within the city and the lack of high quality battlefield medical care that the Iraqis currently possess. Therefore, I ask that you at least consider negotiating the plan with the Iraqi forces to ensure that they will be the ones showered with praise and glory after liberating their homelands from this threat. To wrap up my points I shall explain how the humanitarian aid will be a big point in the fight to crush the terrorist threat.

Mosul, despite being a huge milestone in defeating this generation of ISIS, is only a stepping stone in the grand scheme of things. From there, your troops, as well as the Iraqis, will be pushing off into Syrian territory to flush out the remaining terrorists. However, please remember that there have always been innocent civilian casualties in battles such as these. For the 1 million who call Mosul home, it will be a sight for sore eyes to see more of their countrymen roll in and cheer for the city’s liberation. But there is no doubt that the terrorist fighters will try their absolute best to use fear as a weapon against your coalition. With videos of beheadings and executions made viral, it is only reasonable to assume that Mosul will be the high-point of all these actions. It’s even likely that ISIS will threaten to bomb the city should the American and Iraqis get too close for comfort. Not to offend you or anything, but your tactics are more suited to the open spaces around the city, not within it. Your armies prefer to make grand entrances and make their presence as significant as possible. Your airstrikes have shown just how much of a bang you like to cause when you arrive on the battlefield. The Iraqis on the other hand, prefer stealth and surprise over brash and big. They have been trained in the same military city fighting doctrines as the Soviets. They know how to storm a house and take it room by room, while minimizing any possible civilians caught in the crossfire. Furthermore, your recent peace treaty with ISIS backfired when you accused Russia of launching Airstrikes in and around Aleppo, as well as destroying a UN humanitarian aid convoy that would’ve given relief to the thousands deeply impacted by the war. It is therefore crucial that you maintain good relations with the Iraqis and changing the battle plan is the best way to do this. Let the Iraqis be the ones who storm into the heart of the city, while your devastating war machines blast away at the hopes of a counterattack or escape from Mosul. I thank you for allowing me to iterate my points and ask that you hold on for a little longer while I draw a conclusion from them.

In order to liberate the last ISIS stronghold within Iraq, to liberate the 700,000 beleaguered civilians living within the city grounds, to demoralize the remaining ISIS fighters who dare rebel against peace in this world and to gain a stepping stone in eliminating terrorism in the Middle East; it is essential that you change your battle plan to allow the Iraqis their glory and pride in cleansing their country of this virus, to increase the effectiveness of your forces and to prevent another Stalingrad of the 21st Century. Before joining the Iraqi troops on their offensive, I sincerely hope that you take this letter into serious consideration. I also sincerely thank you for allowing me to provide my standpoint on the matter, despite my lack of authority.

Regards

A Concerned Muslim

Sources:

Cooper, Helene, Eric Schmitt, and Michael R. Gordon. "U.S. Set to Open a Climactic Battle Against ISIS in Mosul, Iraq." The New York Times. The New York Times, 07 Oct. 2016. Web. 20 Oct. 2016.

News, BBC. "Syria Iraq: The Islamic State Militant Group." BBC News. BBC, 2 Aug. 2014. Web. 20 Oct. 2016.