BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq's armed forces will move to retake the major northern city of Mosul from Islamic State once they capture the western city of Ramadi, Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi said on Friday.
Capturing Mosul would deprive the militant group of its biggest population center in both Iraq and Syria, effectively abolishing the state structure of IS in Iraq, depriving it of a major source of funding and dealing a blow to its influence.
The capture of Ramadi would give the army a major psychological boost in its move toward Mosul.
WNU Editor: The liberation better come soon .... apparently air-strikes on Mosul are having a devastating impact on the civilian population .... Coalition strikes on Mosul leave devastation: social media footage (Sydney Morning Herald)
More News On The Iraqi Prime Minister's Remarks That After The Recapture Of Ramadi The Iraqi Army Will Retake Mosul
Op to liberate Mosul to follows Ramadi liberation: Iraq PM -- Press TV
Iraqi Forces Set Sights on Mosul as Ramadi Offensive Continues -- WSJ
Iraqi forces plan to retake Mosul from Daesh after battle for Ramadi is complete -- Albawaba
Iraq forces to retake Ramadi, then Mosul -- News.com.au
12 comments:
The heavy use of US air in Ramadi indicates a need/want to take this city by Christmas, definitely before the weekly news cycle begins. It also reflects the US's lack of confidence in the Iraqi army's tactical prowess against well known light infantry tactics for defending urban areas. This is more for political theater than actual military advantage. I'd expect a "Ramadi has been retaken" message before late Sunday evening regardless of conditions on the ground.
This is not to say they will never take Ramadi, but....
Also if they are having this much trouble against a vastly outnumbered and out gunned ISIS in a small urban environment, what do they really expect to accomplish at Mosul.
Mosul is a terrorist capital city by comparison Ramadi is small town.
Yeah, you're right phill. They've screwed around with these guys and let them get stronger, smarter, and better trained.
Ramadi just going as Tikrit went, nothing new, and those who planned the timing, are deserve a cookie.
About Mosul, I may know one or two rational strategy which would involve retaking Mosul anytime soon. It's just there is no use of it, just a worthless move of Iraqian forces. There is barely any point on retaking Mosul, but as always it's sounds well in the media.
mlacix,
You might very well be right, but I'll believe it when I see it.
mlacix,
Don't get me wrong, I want ISIS to be defeated in toto. It's just that the lying has been so pervasive and constant that I have a hard time believing anything any of these people say (not to mention the past performance of the Iraqi military) and have been forced to read between the lines and rely on my own experience. That said, I still haven't seen anything that impresses me. Maybe I'll get a big surprise in the next few days or weeks, I just don't know.
You are probably right James. They have been saying that Ramadi is on the verge of being retaken since September. And while they will eventually take it .... the fact that a few hundred ISIS fighters kept thousands of Iraqi soldiers and militias at bay .... with coalition air support .... does not give me confidence for the future.
// Running our of character limit, posting in two part.
James:
Don't worry mate, I do not get you wrong. The only thing you need is faith. Who will give that to you, not me for sure, neihter the news, nor Obama :), you just will find it somewhere or not. It's true, that hard to read the situation, most of the news are missleading, promoting a side or just simple made by wrong logic/lack of knowladge. Even reading between them will not give you the right/perfect view ( which without military inteligence is impossible ) but at least give you a better one. Your doubts of winning, or about the power of Iraqi forces are right, it is not impressive what they have or what they have done, but it's just a game. That game have many possibilities in it, and not easy to play it well, but at least IS is not playing it not so well so to say.
If (only speaking about Iraq) we do not count what happened after 2003, first half of 14 was the worst for Iraq, with army collapse, loosing large areas, including big cities and towns, but was 15 really that bad? I would say, compared to the situation, this is a fair stance. It's could have been better thats true, but it's not bad. The frontlines are stable, advances, even if minor ones are made and in progress. Tikrit, Baji, Sinjar, Ramadi are all archivments of this year, and thats made to happen in a country which army is bearly exist, and mostly militias taking the fight against IS. Just look at the possibilities, what could have happen with Iraq having a relative normal regual forces (which probably won't happen in the following few years, but still the potential is there)?
I'm not a big fan of militias, based on political views/organisations, tribes, local groups, because I see the roots of diversion, and feel them scattered. I think a para or semi-military transition is the way to create usefull forces from the civil population (good example is the NDF in Syria, or National Guards in different countries). But still even the sometimes poorly organised and trained ( mostly lack of procedures and tactics, not about how to use weapons ) militias could fight IS with some success. Now thats the key. One team only can play as good as the other team let it to do so, and if the "bad" team is winning, what does that mean?
But if we go a litle bit back in time, what are the common elements of the advances made this year by Iraqian forces ( other than all of them was based on militias, and were fought in urban environment )? Slow encircling phase that take months of fighting (which never got media attention) and a final push with US airstrikes (which always got big attention). It's offen said that urban warfare is the hardest and the worst (same has been said to every type of warfare by some), but it's really hard. Being poorly trained militias just not make it easier. To keep up the moral of the motivation/moral led militias, they need to minimise their losses, thats make it to advance slower, with more destruction, and this make them looks weaker. They don't really count with time as a resource, even if it is one, and the modern armies know the value of time and lives, and not always the second one is the more important. I still think that I'm may the only person on this planet who find the US airstrike usefull and their strategy a success of their own, but it was a key in the final pusses so far.
Let's imagine we captured Ramadi, should we really go to Mosul? Would it fit to the only military tactic that we could use with success? We already failed the first phase of our strategy, which is encircling. Mosul recently got a litle bit closer to being encircled, thanks to the push made by the Kurds, west from Mosul, but the rest of the areas are still not covered, and the story end here. Anyone who came up with ideas like frontal attack on the city, just go get there first and tell the others how IS would respond. It's more likely to see a cut-off operation just west from Mosul, in the desert, than any attack on the city itself.
But let's see into the eyes of the enemy, what they done in the last year? Not much, other then deffending, loosing menpower, resources, territory, while improved nothing in technology, supplies, resources nor tactics. I got it, it's great to use cement or concret as armor in vehicles, but that's not gonna win a war. Time is against IS, just like many countries. Joining to them is not as popular now as it was back then, because why would anyone join to the loosing team? New recrutes can be sure in one thing, they gonna die within a year if they join. In 13 and 14, it was like a happy story of getting together, conquering the world and then chill, but not nowadays. There is an old waying of not underestimating the enemy, but with rational view to their military forces, these are what they have.
You said you are not impressed, I could say that too. I'm kinda fall asleep on the events of the last 3 month, only some minor event give some flame. But look all the things that went down there. It's not that bad. I'm not as impressed as I could be. It's would be more interesting to see the forming of a working regular Iraqian Army, seeing elements of modern warfares used, but thats not going to happen there. The best you can get is Syria, at least there are some bigger advances. So again James, just have faith, and worry no more, everything will be fine.
PS.: Sorry if I sound cynic/depresd/super positive/being under stuffs or whatever, it's just thats how sentences formed this time. Also sorry for the many use of words as "we" or "you", I like to use examples whenever I write, I still need to learn a lot on how to describe and form my thoughts in English.
mlacix. Your command of English and your analysis gets a big thumbs up from me. Super thanks (as always) for your input.
mlacix,
Your thoughts came through just fine. As far as being pessimistic, I am and I am not. If you want to take a long enough time line yes ISIS will lose, actually it should be more that they can't win.
As far as the Iraqi arena goes it's the obvious shia/sunni fight. Yes I could go with your thoughts that a veteran militia could fight ISIS on better than even terms, as long as it's on or near their home territory. I think Ramadi is just about at the edge of the Iraqi army/Shia militia's area of effectiveness. Beyond there whether it is to Mosul or anywhere else in Sunni territory they will have an impossible task to keep open lines of communications and supply.
I will elaborate more later on this thought, but for the anti-ISIS side Iraqi and Syrian arena are very different environments. Whereas ISIS has pulled off the trick of making them the same for themselves.
When I watch the videos it jumps out at me that the equipment and personnel you see have not been in fighting. There was a series of 113's that looked like museum pieces (with Shia flags), good paint no marks whatsoever, just like the Abrams in the prior post.
Ah, I'm just getting cranky, but even with my abilities really very old and unused some things just jump out. I don't share your optimism about ISIS declining, I think it's the opposite. Well that's enough for now. Keep posting mlacix, I rely on your analysis.
Your highlight of differences between Shia and Sunni areas could be a key. It's true that the Shia militias about to reach the last Shia majority areas, and the next step would be on Sunni area, but this is just something I cannot oversee for sure. Yeah I know about the differences between then, problems from the past and even from recent times, also there are the rumors (both Shias and Kurds) of ethnic and religious cleansing on the liberated areas, but thats all we know from the news. The reality on the ground could be different, even if in fact it is not, but the possibility is there.
Ukraine was a good example when it's came down to local (and also national level) support. News were simple useless during the early and active phase of the conflict, everyone said different things, some used the words to promote their goals, others did the opposite, but after a few months of fighting, the local residents, those who around the fighting went down, did not wanted other than peace, not victory of any ideology. I never been in Iraq, nor an expert of the country, but I can imagine what the local residents would feel, not only after IS taking control of their areas, but also the whole situation since 2003.
I'm not doubting that many of the Sunnis "supported" IS when they came, but as far as I know, the affected areas were heavily based on tribes (similar to Lybia or some parts of Syria). Tribes always tend to take side depending on force ratios, and you can guess what could happen to those who alone stand up against IS. Actually there were example for that, in Syria, Der-er-Zor area, there were tribes which went against IS, and statred to cooperate with SAA forces, well they are fighting since, but if any tribe would plan to survive, for them it's better to wait a little bit to switch to the winning team. I may not agree with their methods, but noone can blame them for try to survive.
I do not expect an IS made COIN warfare on the liberated areas, simple because those who were willing to fight for them were already joined to them, and those who did not felt that way were became refugees or stayed there and hoping for peace. I see the division in Iraq, but I feel them more united now than they were a year ago. I'm not saying liberating Sunni areas would go easily, without resistance from some locals, but I do not expect a larger relegion based driction between them. Anyway, we will see it in the upcoming months.
Post a Comment