Kurdish Peshmerga fighters stand guard on the outskirts of Mosul (Reuters/Azad Lashkari)
Daily Beast: Pentagon Scrubs Major Attack on ISIS
Just days ago, the generals were trumpeting plans to knock ISIS out of its most important stronghold in Iraq. Now, those plans are on indefinite hold.
The U.S. military’s goal to retake Iraq’s second largest city from the self-proclaimed Islamic State has been pushed back several months at least, defense officials told The Daily Beast. That’s a major shift for the Pentagon, which recently announced that the first major ground offensive in the war against ISIS could come in the next few weeks.
Defense officials once hoped that Iraqi troops could move into Mosul by the Spring and reclaim the city from ISIS. Now, those officials say, Fall is more realistic. And even that date was tenuous.
“It is an Iraqi decision but we don’t want to do anything until they are ready and can win decisively,” a military official explained to the Daily Beast. “They cannot now.”
WNU Editor: I just do no get it. Th U.S. has tens of thousands of soldiers, body armor, advance tech, satellites. aircraft, precision bombs, and alliances with scores of countries. The Islamic State numbers has a few thousand dedicated fighters .... and that is about it. But in this great match-up it is the U.S. that hesitates?!?!?!?! Something is wrong with this picture
More News On The Pentagon Scraping Plans To Recapture Mosul
Pentagon scraps attack on Mosul; Iraqi forces not ready for major battle -- Washington Times
US rethinks 'spring offensive' against ISIL in Mosul: Officials -- Press TV
Pentagon gives up plan to take Mosul from ISIS by springtime -- Haaretz
US rethinking plan to retake Mosul from ISIS -- WSJ/FOX News
13 comments:
We're always seeing pictures and videos of ISIS having celebration parades (with US equipment) down city streets or having mass executions out in the wide open desert and yet with all the Drones employed over there they move about freely ..
There's lots about this whole thing that don't add up to me .
This has always perplexed me as well.
Considering the range of airstrikes being done you would think that it would cripple them. And exactly how many drones are committed to this conflict?
I would have thought that the American intelligence network would be able to pick up the movements of large ISIS convoys and even smaller elements of them and deal with them.
The situation does get complicated when dealing with ISIS in urban zones, but outside of that, well, what gives?
They're obviously not doing enough, and it isn't just the Americans either...
Here is a Kurdish video about the fightings, and how IS got wiped on the way to Mosul (best part start at 5:13): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u7DEFZQe6c
I really don't share your worry about this picture. Communication is a key, even more than back in 1991, and to distract and confuse the enemy you really need to let them belive what you say. Pentagon doing a great job on this one, almost everyone belive they are so bad at their job. But in the background I'm sure they doing what they have to do, and with high efficiency.
I born in 1991, so I not had the possibility to see by myself the use of communication of the first Gulf War, but since then a lot of researchs had been made to see and learn how they used it. You just can't blame the generals why they not told the truth about their strategy until the war started, because thats was a part of the strategy and it's an aspect that saved your own troops lives.
ISIS has some troubles nowadays on the frontlines. They keep loosing ares in Hasakia and Kobani, Syria against the YPG and SAA, they are also got defeated in many areas of the city Der-er-Zor. The best for IS would be to get some time, and stabilise their frontlines and regroup some forces. SAA and the Syrian Rebels are have some heavy fightings in Aleppo, because the rebels fighting to hold the last connection between Northern Aleppo and Iblid province, while SAA want to cut this connection and breake the two years old siege on the towns of Nubl and Zhara, so they not have the will to attack IS now. As far as I seen IS have two independently working front (Army), which is basically separated by the Syrian-Iraqian border. If they reorganise or regroup units they probably will do it inside their front, and to stop the advancing YPG forces they need to find free units inside Syria, but for now they have enough.
Laszlo,
The only thing I'd add to what you say is that what we're seeing is a struggle between military and political priorities in Washington. You see this in statements mad by the upper echelon of the Pentagon. The US military has the tools and ability to defeat all known forces in the region separately and in any combination, but it is hamstrung by a lack of clear political leadership. Some of the US's problem is how to overcome it's own lawfare mentality to be able to defeat ISIS. I've said and I believe still ISIS won't be that hard to defeat, but it will have to be done in a pretty messy dirty way. That's one reason for the Arab/Peshmerga's being the proxies, to keep the current Administrations hands politically clean.
ISIS will see the activity of training for an assault on Mosul and read about increased activity.
So tell them what they expect.
Then put out that you are back peddling. Let ISIS think that all the activity now at somewhat reduced pace is just normal activity of training the 'incompetent' Iraqi army for some operation in the unforeseeable future.
Then hit them anyway.
That could be it, but James is correct and it might be no more than that.
This could be like all the talk by Shwatrtzkopf in the 1st Gulf War.
They know you are coming, the press is prying, so give them a show.
This could be like all the talk by Shwatrtzkopf in the 1st Gulf War.
They know you are coming, the press is prying, so give them a show.
Aizino,
You're right, that's what they should do, but apparently no plan can be kept secret in DC if someone thinks they can get any political gain at all from making it public. Oh I forgot, Laszlo on the video, I don't how many vehicle were behind the first two (if any), but if there were, they should have let at least three or four more through before opening up. Make more of them come over that rise to try to save the front ones.
Consider a few things:
This was briefing was given on the last day of (and at) Mr. Obama's " summit on violent extremism." Judging by the (rather mild, in my opinion,) statements, neither the rump Iraqi government nor the Kurds were likely briefed beforehand. There were also no comments from the other members of the coalition on this.
It's safe to surmise that this (much like the summit itself) was political theater. Likely it was also a test-balloon to see how it would be received by US domestic factions. My cynical opinion is that planning is being done and preparations are being made. However, most of it, for now, is for the US domestic political battlefield.
To sort-of answer D. Plowman: I don't think US intelligence capabilities are as robust as they could be. I suspect that most of the attacks are predetermined targets based on sat-data, with the rest from opportunity observation. That may and likely will improve over time.
As for László Mikó's remarks: Your observation about IS essentially being two separate 'franchises' with regards to Iraq and Syria is spot-on in my opinion. The Iraq theater is a lower priority for IS. However, I don't exactly share your enthusiasm regarding the Kurds. They are doing well enough, but my opinion is that their public-relations are more effective than their actual combat ops.
James: The use of Iraqis and Kurds as proxies is an integral factor in the US strategy and has been since the White House felt pressure to get re-involved. Yes, it's to keep some political distance, mainly on the domestic front. However, if things "go south" in Mosul and elsewhere, the blame is still going to fall on Mr. Obama, his administration, and (via the domestic media) on the Pentagon.
Phil: I'm mostly with you, but I don't know about the O guys getting the blame (with this media) if it falls flat. I still remember how regardless of LBJ's and MacNamara's it ended up being Nixons war, and that with a media that wasn't as blatantly in the tank for the Dems as the current. I really really agree with you on the Peshmerga.
Ooops should have said LBJ's and MacNamara's involvement in the Viet Nam war.
James, I should've been more specific; the Obama administration will face blame in the Arab/Muslim world (blame helpfully suggested/supported by other actors such as Russia and Iran) if things go south in Mosul - something it desperately does not want.
You're right in that the blame will shift to others on the domestic front (I figure the Pentagon, but it could just as easily be Congress.)
Phil,
I hope so, in all of my experience I have never seen anything like this administration's foreign policy moves. We have become de facto allies with Iran. They supply the ground forces and we the air force against ISIS. Iran gets the bomb and an air shield against Israel and we get an agreement that would shame Chamberlain. I firmly believe that not only does this administration not know what it's doing, it actually believes it's own hype about how smart it is. They have no idea that they have set in motion forces that have not only taken on a life of their own are now headed inexorably to armed conflict that will approach or exceed in scale WWII. I really hope that I am wrong.
Post a Comment