Alwaght- The Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff General Joseph Dunford has noted that the negotiations have begun between some US and Iraq�s officials on the way of joining forces from two sides to recapture the city of Mosul which has been over one and half a year held by ISIS terror group. But the talk is currently about the viability of the US� role, as well as the risks of including the US-led international coalition in a war in which the military alliance has proven it would not stand by the Iraqi forces.

Meanwhile, the Iraqis are hesitating to allow the Public Mobilization Forces, accompanied by the Iraqi army, to lead the battlefield operation especially after the repeated successes it has made in designing and implementing military operations. But how could the significance of presence of the Public Mobilization Forces in Liberation of Mosul be highlighted?

The local and regional political developments are indicating that there are heavy attempts aiming at holding back the Iraqi government from resorting to its promised policy which is relying on the Iraqi army and the Public Mobilization Forces in Mosul�s liberation operation, an issue raising several questions which are to be mentioned in the analysis. But before that, we need to give a picture concerning the upcoming recapture operation.

Being the second-largest city in Iraq, Mosul still accommodates a majority of its population unlike what happened to Tikrit and Fallujah after they fell to the terrorists. The ISIS-linked armed groups have worked to keep the besieged residents inside the city, as the informed resources note that ISIS terror organization has introduced a bail system obliging anyone who leaves the city to suggest three people to be punished in case the person who left the city does not come back.

Given these facts, the liberation of Mosul would be a complex challenge for those who are intending to launch any military operation to cleanse the city of the terrorists while the civilians� lives safety should be taken into account. This consideration makes the military operation highly sensitive and accurate.

Another danger is introduced by the so-called operation planning, especially if the battlefield facts and the operation targets are not considered in a precise way. This gives ISIS group a powerful trump card. Therefore, the reality of the battlefield beside the risks posed to the residents put us in front of a battle in which the determining factor would be the guerrilla warfare which is a distinct area of skill of the Public Mobilization Forces. But reliance on the classic war methods, namely the air cover and the regular military engagement, would result in catastrophic outcomes.

Now and based on what was already mentioned and with regard to the Iraqi counter-terror battle experiences, the picture of the circumstances could be described as follows:

- Politically, the Iraqis are expecting their government to take the decision of handing over the battlefield management to the country�s army forces as well as the Public Mobilization Forces, specifically after the promising results achieved in the previous anti-terror operations. At the same time, a variety of the religious, political and social sides are questioning the causes which prevent use of the power factor, namely the Public Mobilization Forces, which is in the hands of the Iraqis.

- From the military aspect the situation is clearer. It is not right that the related sides are divided over the description of the accuracy of the battle and its difficulty due to the geography of Mosul beside the presence of the civilians in the city. All of the engaged sides, including the Americans, are well aware that the battle would need an accuracy of implementation. These issues are too easy, in terms of military planning, to draw any difference between those involved in the battle.

- Due to this, the US attempts to prevent the Public Mobilization Forces from leading the liberation operation would raise many questions, especially that the voluntary forces have proven their experience, great successes and their huge military capabilities which make them stand out from all the other Iraqi sides. Furthermore, according to the previous experiences, the international coalition has proven its failure in more than a single operation for example in Tikrit operation in which the size of US cooperation with the terrorism was highly obvious.

- In addition to Washington�s support for the terror groups, the US forces have relied on airstrikes which have disrupted the military operation on the ground many times in several battlefields, as they were responsible for taking lives of many Iraqi civilians. This is the distinction between the US forces which count on the air raids without making any sacrifices and the Mobilization forces which have an understanding of the situation on the ground and which send their fighters to the ground assaults against the terror groups. A prominent example of the US behavior is Washington�s striking a majority of the country�s infrastructure and houses during recapture operation in Ramadi, where people had no inhabitable places after their return to the city.

Therefore, it can be concluded that:

- The Mosul liberation operation cannot absorb any risks in planning and implementation. The most important point, learned during Salahaddin and Al Anbar liberation battles, is the necessity of logistics support for the forces spearheading the recapture operation, especially supply of ammunitions and weaponry. Besides, there is a need for designed-in-advance plans for provision of ongoing military backing. Therefore, the divide over whether to include a side in the battle or not dangerously poses a threat to success of the operation.

Thereby based on what was said, recapturing Mosul and restoring its stability must be considered as a lengthy and complicated operation and it takes not an air campaign but a ground operation in which the Public Mobilization Forces stand out while it is considered a weak spot for the American side which reposes trust on the air raids as part of a series of objectives special to it and its interests and are in accord somewhere with the terrorists.

- Here, the most significant result is the real cause behind discussing the issue of engaging the Public Mobilization Forces in Mosul operation. Also, the fact that the US interests are at odds with those of Iraq must be taken into consideration. Therefore, through experience, the Iraqis must remember Washington�s support for the terrorists more than once. At the same time, they have to see how the US forces have foiled the processes of several operations which were close to success whether through targeting positions irrelevant to the operation or bombing civilian sites.

Actually, Washington is trying to prevent success of Iraq�s anti-terror campaign. Mosul is the second-largest city and its liberation would bring about a specific prestige for the country. The Iraqis must well consider their clear interests which urge leadership of battlefield by the Public Mobilization Forces. Also, they must be notified that the US which is claiming to back them up presently is the same country which occupied their state in the past.

The Iraqis� strength lies only in their unity. The Public Mobilization Forces are the product of such a unity. So, the US should not be allowed to make the battle of Mosul a big loss for the Iraqis. This is the genuine reason why Washington tries diligently to keep the Public Mobilization Forces from leading the operation.

By Alwaght