How Iraqi Fighters Feel About The Extremists Arriving On Syrian Buses

[Saif al-Arab]

Bad Guys On Buses:
How Iraqi Fighters Feel About The Extremists Arriving On Syrian Buses
Mustafa Habib
Iraqi forces are upset about the safe passage granted to Islamic State fighters from Syria. They will enter Iraq, where, locals say, thousands of their comrades await them in the extremists’ secret capital.
7.09.2017 | Baghdad
Security

Last week, Lebanese officials confirmed that around 670 defeated members of the extremist group known as the Islamic State would be given safe passage. Some would be allowed to travel from the Lebanese-Syrian border to the Syrian-Iraqi border. The fighters, aboard a number of buses, were bound for Albu Kamal, a Syrian border town. On the Iraqi side of the border lies the town of Al Qaim. Both of the towns are strongholds for the extremist group.

Naturally the Iraqis were far from pleased at this turn of events. Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi has described it as an insult to the Iraqi people and plenty of other senior politicians and officials have also criticised the controversial move.

Why are hundreds of extremists being transported to our borders? There is a conspiracy to give Anbar back to the terrorists!

The main reason it is of concern is because the Islamic State, or IS, fighters will doubtless also head over the Iraqi border towards Al Qaim.

In August 2014, the IS group declared a new state on this border, abolishing the existing borders between Iraq and Syria, and since then, the area has remained one of the safest for the group. There are various reasons for this but one involves the geography of the area. Basically, the location of the city means that it would require both countries to coordinate in a campaign against the IS group.

Additionally, as Omar al-Ubaidi, an officer with the Iraqi army’s 7th Division, explains, Al Qaim is a long way from any military bases. “Fighting for Al Qaim would be very difficult,” says al-Ubaidi, who is stationed at the Ain al-Asad air base in Anbar, working alongside US soldiers. The IS fighters would move to the other side of the border for a while and then return to Iraq, he explains: “Iraqi forces can’t control the 600-kilometre-long border by themselves.”

The Iraqi military fought in the province of Anbar, where Al Qaim is located, and pushed the IS group out of major cities like Fallujah and Ramadi. However they decided to leave Al Qaim until after they had retaken Mosul, in the north.

Iraqi army officers in the deserts of Anbar.

Local politicians have been asking the Iraqi government to speed up the operation for Al Qaim and to secure the borders, fearing increased attacks by the IS group. But they are being ignored, they say.

This Lebanese deal done with the IS group is a disaster for Anbar, says Rajeh al-Issawi, who heads Anbar’s provincial security committee. “Everyone knows that the IS group’s strongest force is concentrated on the borders with Syria, that they consider Al Qaim and Albu Kamal one city and that they call it their Euphrates state,” al-Issawi argues. “Why are hundreds of extremists being transported to our borders?! There is a conspiracy to give Anbar back to the terrorists,” he said angrily, before calling upon the Iraqi government to send reinforcements to his province to prevent further attacks by the IS group.

Majid al-Mahalawi is on the frontline of this fight and he too has grave concerns about the convoy heading to the Iraqi-Syrian border. The tribal leader and his fighters are in Haditha, about 150 kilometres from Al Qaem. The tribal fighters and the Iraqi army have repelled many attempts by the nearby extremists in Al Qaim to take over Haditha.

Together with the Iraqi army’s 7th division, the fighters here have built earth mounds up to prevent suicide bombers in cars from getting into town. They also launch infrequent raids on the surrounding desert areas to ensure that there are no extremists hiding out nearby.

“The Euphrates state, which includes Albu Kamal and Al Qaim, is the IS group’s secret capital,” al-Mahalawi explained. “The organization’s leaders are based there. A lot of people think that the IS group’s main strength was in Mosul or in Raqqa, but they are mistaken: It is here and the organization will meet its end here, nowhere else. But it will be difficult and complicated.”

His intelligence indicates that thousands of IS fighters, who fled battles in Anbar, Salahaddin and Mosul, are now gathering on this border. The recent deal between the IS group and Syrian and Lebanese forces is a serious problem, al-Mahalawi notes. “We do not, and we will not, negotiate with terrorists,” he adds.

http://www.niqash.org/en/articles/s...t-The-Extremists-Arriving-On-Syrian-Buses.htm

That deal is unacceptable and the Al-Assad regime showed its hostility towards Iraq once again as that regime has shown many times before. Hezbollah should never have agreed to such a weak deal or the weak Lebanese military. Those convoys should have been blown up quite frankly. Absurd deal. Luckily this shameful deal was met with enormous disproval by Iraqis and certain biased people woke up to the reality that I have been speaking about openly for many years including to such people in person or online (Arab forums, social media). Always been saying that patriotic people and nationalists are needed in power. Not only in Iraq but every Arab country.

In any case it was good news that SAA broke the siege in Dayr az-Zur. Not a fan of the Al-Assad regime (who are just 1 Syrian family that happens to rule that country) but I will always only wish the best for Syria and our Syrian brothers and sisters and every sane person should be able to see that Daesh is a obvious cancer and enemy of the Arab people as it leads to nothing but misery, killings, oppression, backwardness and bad publicity. Amazing that a minority (nowadays) of people cannot see such a simple thing yet.

 

[Saif al-Arab]

Must watch:

Our friend @Malik Alashter will probably defend this deal somehow. Sad, bro. Very sad.

 

[TheCamelGuy]

They broke the siege because of this deal, whilst it's good news that they broke the siege they did not really break it militarily. They just moved that problem to their neighbor, massive cunts

 

[Saif al-Arab]

They broke the siege because of this deal, whilst it's good news that they broke the siege they did not really break it militarily. They just moved that problem to their neighbor, massive cunts

The siege would have been broken regardless. It was a question of weeks if not a few days. What they did was basically dumping their own problem right onto the head of a supposed ally knowing fully well that it is like giving a ticking bomb to a friend or brother as a gift. Unacceptable behavior and there is no excuse for it.

As I see it this deal cannot be described any differently than outright a hostile act. I simply do not understand this deal after all the private individuals from Iraq that have lost their lives fighting for Al-Assad in Syria or whatever motivations that they had. A bit of respect for them at least would not have been an outrageous move by Al-Assad. The worst thing is that we have a small minority of completely brainwashed people defending this deal and everything that certain regimes are doing despite this hurting their country and people. This reminds me of MB, Daesh and other groups of people (blind regime followers in genera, Uncle Toms etc.l) in every Arab state. This kind of thinking is a problem that must be dealt with quite frankly.

For instance Hadi al-Amiri only voiced his displeasure after the reaction of the people became clear. This is disappointing but not unexpected given his ideology and allegiances. Similar Al-Maliki. I understand that people have different beliefs and ideologies but important personalities in a country that have a lot of influence compared to the average person (the same average families who are sending their sons to the battlefields) should not engage in hostile actions against their own country.

No sane person is going to buy the excuses of Nasrallah either.

Anyway I am not surprised by such behavior from Bashar. He has done much worse pre-2011 and his father Hafiz, also did treacherous actions against Iraq.

Here we once again have a perfect example of what regimes in power (a few families with real power) can do to hurt the relationships between historically brotherly countries and people which should not be the case. Such behavior should be shunned upon and responsibility must be taken. However we all know that politics is a jungle but hopefully one day the average person will no longer not just not accept such actions against friendly peoples or nations but take actions in order to ensure that such a thing does not happen and when it happens by mistake or deliberately, that the damage will be as small as possible. This is not possible currently due to the regimes in power and their nature (systems in place). However when that day comes, expect many of the current problems to disappear.

 

[TheCamelGuy]

The siege would have been broken regardless. It was a question of weeks if not a few days. What they did was basically dumping their own problem right onto the head of a supposed ally knowing fully well that it is like giving a ticking bomb to a friend or brother as a gift. Unacceptable behavior and there is no excuse for it.

As I see it this deal cannot be described any differently than outright a hostile act. I simply do not understand this deal after all the private individuals from Iraq that have lost their lives fighting for Al-Assad in Syria or whatever motivations that they had. A bit of respect for them at least would not have been an outrageous move by Al-Assad. The worst thing is that we have a small minority of completely brainwashed people defending this deal and everything that certain regimes are doing despite this hurting their country and people. This reminds me of MB, Daesh and other groups of people (blind regime followers in genera, Uncle Toms etc.l) in every Arab state. This kind of thinking is a problem that must be dealt with quite frankly.

For instance Hadi al-Amiri only voiced his displeasure after the reaction of the people became clear. This is disappointing but not unexpected given his ideology and allegiances. Similar Al-Maliki. I understand that people have different beliefs and ideologies but important personalities in a country that have a lot of influence compared to the average person (the same average families who are sending their sons to the battlefields) should not engage in hostile actions against their own country.

No sane person is going to buy the excuses of Nasrallah either.

Anyway I am not surprised by such behavior from Assad. He has done much worse pre-2011 and his father Hafiz, also did treacherous actions against Iraq.

Here we once again have a perfect example of what regimes in power (a few families with real power) can do to hurt the relationships between historically brotherly countries and people which should not be the case. Such behavior should be shunned upon and responsibility must be taken. However we all know that politics is a jungle but hopefully one day the average person will no longer not just not accept such actions against friendly peoples or nations but take actions in order to ensure that such a thing does not happen and when it happens by mistake or deliberately, that the damage will be as small as possible. This is not possible currently due to the regimes in power and their nature (systems in place). However when that day comes, expect many of the current problems to disappear.

PMU shouldn't act that weak on the political level as they're bigger and weigh heavier than Hezbollah politically and militarily, they should warn them for this deal. Then pull order back all those thousands of Iraqis fighting in Syria whilst they're at it, Syrians can refill those positions.

Some on the forum had difficulty understanding that this deal is dirty, emptying Hawija of IS to send them to Syria would be the same. Recall Mosul where Syria and Russia raised problems about IS fleeing, then the PMU sealed the western flank. This made the fight against IS far tougher as they knew they had nowhere to escape. How does Syria repay the ISF for these efforts? By sending terrorists, some here bash me for stating the truth about an 'ally', which officially is not an ally to start with.

Now this one deal itself is not the massive problem, those buses can be bombed into the ground by the air force. The problem is that their political leaders are willing to accept such deals, this only tells more problems are ahead in the future.

 

[Saif al-Arab]

IRAQ PULSE
Pro-Iranian Shiite factions lose popular support in Iraq
READ IN: العربية

Ali Mamouri September 4, 2017

A convoy of Islamic State fighters and their families begin to depart from the Lebanon-Syria border zone in Qalamoun, Syria, Aug. 28, 2017.REUTERS/ Omar Sanadiki

ARTICLE SUMMARY
The recent agreement between Hezbollah and a group of pro-Islamic State fighters to arrange their evacuation from the Lebanese-Syrian border to the Syrian-Iraqi border triggered an outburst of public anger against Hezbollah and Iraqi factions fighting alongside Hezbollah on Syrian territory for years.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Aug. 30, 308 Islamic State fighters along with 670 members of their families were allowed to evacuate from the Qalamoun area along the Lebanese-Syrian border to the town of Bou Kamal in Deir ez-Zor province near the Iraqi border. The operation was carried out using 16 buses and ambulances sent by the Syrian government in collaboration with Hezbollah.

Bou Kamal is located opposite the Iraqi al-Qaim area on Syrian territory. The distance between both areas that are under IS control since 2014 is about 22 miles. The evacuation of IS fighters to Deir ez-Zor allows them to take part in the resistance against Iraqi forces set to liberate al-Qaim. A Sept. 4 report by The Washington Post states that IS fighters on a stranded convoy have escaped to Iraq.

The criticism against the Hezbollah deal was widespread in Iraq, including among several Shiite religious figures, the Kurdistan government and Sunni tribal leaders. It also resulted in creating a clear distinction between pro-Iranian forces in Iraq and national independent forces. On the one hand, the pro-Iranian factions within the Popular Mobilization Units(PMU), former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and Shiite clerics loyal to Iran supported the deal, while on the other hand, current Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, the Sadrist movement and a number of Iraqi Shiite clerics opposed the deal strongly.

In an Aug. 28 interview on Al-Manar TV, Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallahadmitted the agreement was concluded with Hezbollah, citing the fact that the arrangement allowed to pinpoint the location of bodies of Lebanese army soldiers as well as Hezbollah fighters. Nasrallah said that had Hezbollah continued the fight to eliminate IS fighters, these bodies would have been lost forever. This means that Nasrallah preferred to reveal the fate of a number of bodies over the losses that would be incurred by these fighters on Iraqi forces in the upcoming liberation operations.

Last year, Nasrallah had warned the Iraqi government that the United States is conspiring to open the way to IS fighters in Mosul to flee to Syria, while praising the Iraqi forces for not allowing IS fighters in Fallujah to head to Syria and eliminating them once and for all. He said, “True victory in Iraq means bombing IS, arresting its leaders and members, throwing them in prison and offering them a fair trial — not allowing them to flee to Syria.”

Hezbollah’s deal with IS outraged Abadi, who stated Aug. 29 that “transporting such large numbers of terrorists across long distances to areas neighboring the Iraqi border is unacceptable, disturbing and is considered an offense to the Iraqi people.” He also criticized the lack of coordination with the Iraqi side on such matters and pointed out that Iraq is currently eliminating the IS threat inside Iraqi territory and under no circumstances is allowing a safe passage to Syria. He noted that the deal struck by Hezbollah will cause more losses to the Iraqi and Syrian people and that striking deals with IS is completely unjustified at this time.

Parliamentarian Ali al-Badri of the National Alliance considered the deal a conspiracy against the Iraqi people and addressed Hezbollah by stating, “The blood of our youth and our people is not cheaper than Lebanese blood. Today the Syrian government is rewarding the young Iraqi men who went to defend the holy sites and gave their lives in Syria by evacuating IS fighters to the Iraqi border.”

Hisham al-Hashimi, an independent researcher and specialist in security affairs and armed groups, wrote in a Facebook post Aug. 29, “Only a selfish ally transfers the IS threat from Lebanon to Iraq, while Iraqis have turned their second-largest city to rubble in order to avoid the escape of IS fighters to inflict harm on neighboring populations. The Lebanese and Syrian people never accepted to give up on their villages for the sake of Iraq.”

In a statement opposing Abadi's position, Ahmad al-Asadi, the spokesman for the PMU, and the secretary-general of Kata'ib Jund al-Imam affiliated with the factions loyal to the leader of the Iranian Revolution said that the transfer of fighters to the area of Bou Kamal does not pose a problem for Iraq. "IS is already present in the Bou Kamal area. The group is also present in the Iraqi desert facing Bou Kamal," he said.

Asadi added, "Iraq needs a few hours to eliminate the group there," noting that the number of IS fighters who were transferred to Bou Kamal is about 700, which is more than double the number Nasrallah has transferred.

On Aug. 30, the Karbala provincial council expressed strong objection on the Hezbollah deal to transfer the IS militants to Bou Kamal. The council considered that this action threatens the security of Karbala and Iraq in general, and called on the government to take measures to address this situation militarily and politically.

Of note, since 2003, Deir ez-Zor province has been a gathering and departure point for terrorists undertaking attacks in Iraq due to its location that facilitates terrorist movement into Iraqi cities.

In the same context, Mohammed Karbouli, a member of the parliamentary Security and Defense Committee, said that a number of IS fighters who moved to Bou Kamal "have infiltrated Rawa and Aana in Anbar province."

In another similar stance to the pro-Iranian PMU factions, three PMU factions loyal to Iran — the League of the Righteous, Iraqi Hezbollah and Saraya al-Khorasani — withdrew from the Tal Afar operations because of the participation of the US-led coalition in the liberation operations of the city. Although the Joint Operations Command denied the news in a statement published on its official website, it removed the news later without any clarification. These three factions had previously demanded that the coalition be prevented from officially taking part in the liberation of Tal Afar.

Meanwhile, other Iraqi factions loyal to Iraqi Shiite cleric Ali al-Sistani — including al-Abbas Combat Division, Imam Ali Division and Ali al-Akbar Brigade — continued to fight in the Tal Afar battles. These factions proved their commitment to the Iraqi government and did not head to Syria to fight.

They are now receiving major support from the government itself, which would make them more powerful than the factions loyal to Iran. Sistani has been calling, through his spokesman, upon all Iraqi factions and forces to distance themselves from regional projects, considering that other stakeholders, whether regional or international, are looking after their own interests, which are not necessarily in line with those of Iraq.

The different factions operating under the PMU umbrella are divided between those that are pro-Iran and those that are loyal to Iraq's national politics. With this issue becoming clearer, criticism is mounting against the pro-Iranian groups.

Found in:ISLAMIC STATE, NON-STATE ARMED ACTORS

Ali Mamouri is Al-Monitor's Iraq Pulse Editor and a researcher and writer who specializes in religion. He is a former teacher in Iranian universities and seminaries in Iran and Iraq. He has published several articles related to religious affairs in the two countries and societal transformations and sectarianism in the Middle East.


Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/ori...-isis-iran-shiite-militias.html#ixzz4s2Neiio5

I always wrote that political factions or ideologies in country x or y, most importantly in your average Arab country where most people are very patriotic and nationalistic (tend to be so at least), who often and openly act in a manner that is harmful for the nation and people or support such actions, are doomed for failure. Let alone serve the interests of foreign entities, in this case not even fellow Arabs (Iranian regime). Always will be.

MB supporters among Iraqi Sunni Arabs also failed. The likes of Anas al-Tikriti (google him if you do not know about him - probably you do). Their whole project I mean which was anti-Iraq and in fact anti-Arab.

What has been a constant thing since the emergence of modern-day Iraq, has been the fact, that most Iraqis are nationalistic and patriotic people who want a strong and prosperous country that is a part of the Arab fold in every way. This is why most Iraqi Shia Arabs (vast majority), despite unpleasant experiences with certain Arab Islamists and certain failed policies by foreign Arab regimes, remain very much pro-Arab as evident by their comments below every Youtube video where Arab unity or Iraq's relations with Arab country x or y is discussed. Only a tiny minority are what I would call sellouts in the sense that such likes would be supporting this deal we are discussing simply because it had the approval of Nasrallah, Khamenei etc. Similarly the ridiculous accusation of Iraqi Sunni Arabs somehow being "Arab sellouts" (as if they were not Arabs themselves) in the sense that their allegiance lies with the House of Saud, Jordan, Syria or whatever, is also completely ridiculous and contrary to the ground realities.

Now people will say "but you are not the biggest fan of the current Iranian regime" or nonsense of "but you are not a Shia" but I have the exact same view of Saudi Arabian MB supporters who would sell themselves out and their country for foreign interests or other similar elements (Uncle Toms towards the West). I am not really asking for more and my views are not in the minority but rather the vast majority, in particular the silent majority. The average Ali, Abdullah, Muhammad, Ibrahim, Haidar etc. in say Samawah, Karbala, Najaf, Basra, Nasiriyah etc. has no reason to hate or want to hate an brother across the border in KSA or vice versa. Or an Iranian Arab brother across the border to Ahwaz. It's all regime politics and nothing else. Nor is any sane Iraqi, in say Al-Qaim, going to hate an Syrian brother in Albukamal, because of what Bashar approved and did along with some of his allies.

This kind of moronic thinking that fundamentalists or as I prefer to call them "principlists" have on all sides in all Arab countries, are of great harm for the societies. Not limited to Arab countries but all countries of the world. But this is especially felt in our region nowadays due to the ground realities and challenges that we face. A good example of this is the current Qatari regimes (current ruler and his father's) dividing policy in the Arab world that, as far as I can see, has not given us any positives or Qatar for that matter. Similarly KSA's policy (as well as other Arab nations) post 2003 towards Iraq, until a few years ago, was also a complete failure and this must be spoken about and recognized in order not to commit similar mistakes in the past.

I believe that we as Arabs, regardless of nationality, ties to Arab country x or y or more (as is very common), should wish for each other the best and not blindly follow regime policies but always have an independent mind and always look out for what is beneficial for our countries, people and the Arab world as a whole and region. In other words reach the maturity of some European regions, say Scandinavia, that despite having a lot in common, are nowhere close to what for instance KSA and Iraq have in common or Iraq and Syria or KSA and Jordan, KSA and Egypt, Iraq and Egypt etc. In other words a hell lot.

 

[Ceylal]

They broke the siege because of this deal, whilst it's good news that they broke the siege they did not really break it militarily. They just moved that problem to their neighbor, massive cunts

You are accusing the wrong party..Turkey and Qatar are the culprits...They moved a lot of them to Lybia too..

 

[vizier]

Similar agreements of tactical sendings could have happened in ww2 against nazis sending them to other occupied areas to be liberated later. What would be wrong is forgeting about al bou kamal shifting total focus to idlib after liberating deir al zawr turning it to a safe haven for isis. After several weeks or a month it would be a perfect opportunity for puppet masters of isis to organize them to attack iraqi forces at the other side of the border to create a rift between Syria and Iraq as well as organize another international terror attack from alboukamal so usa can accuse Syria for this agreement to reverse the gains currently raising momentum. Some forces need to focus on liberating alboukamal while others are repositioned for idlib operation.