Daily Signal: A Look at Life on the Front Lines in the War Against Islamic State
MOSUL FRONT, Iraq—The Daily Signal foreign correspondent Nolan Peterson recently visited the Kurdish peshmerga’s front line positions surrounding the Islamic State stronghold of Mosul—Iraq’s second biggest city.
The peshmerga, which translates to “one who faces death,” are an ally of Operation Inherent Resolve, the U.S.-led international coalition combatting Islamic State, the terrorist army also known as ISIS.
Read more ....
More News On Kurdish Forces Launching A Major Offensive Near Mosul
Kurds: Peshmerga eye Mosul in advance on ISIS territory -- CNN
Peshmerga launch major offensive near Mosul -- NRT
Thousands of Peshmerga move on ISIS in major offensive -- RUDAW
U.S.-led coalition troops seen near front line in new Iraq offensive -- Reuters
13 comments:
So little of the images match the rhetoric. This reporter is really gullible and indulges in a lot of wishful thinking.
Where is your optimism James? You just need to belive in.
Mlacix is being facetious again. :)
Hey Mlacix,
How you been? Long time no hear from you.
Pessimism kept me in the "Land of the living", I'm kind of leery of being any other way.
WNU: Why can nobody take me seriously? :)
James: I'm doing okey, just needed to focus on things, other than Iraq, Syria and wars generally, but I try to keep my eyes on it, even if I do no comment all the times. But I really meant the optimism, havent you impressed about the recent progresses made in Iraq?
mlacix,
"havent you impressed about the recent progresses made in Iraq?"
No, not really. I just don't think we are getting anything in the news that is even close to the truth. Bits and pieces that I can pick up here and there do show that ISIS can be beaten even by troops that are half ass capable. The Peshmerga are capable, but are under supplied, under politically supported, and restricted in movement, but do a good job when they close with them.
It's the news reports such as the above that heighten my pessimism. Not only were those guys not working infantry, they haven't been even shot at for a awhile. No bullet holes anywhere, everybody sticking their heads up high (the terrain is a snipers paradise) all their clothes are very clean and well laundered and they're feeding that wide eyed reporter silly war stories.
The part where they make a big deal out of sharing radio freqs with the bad guys and laughing about it is going to come back and bite them.
Ha! Other than all of that yeah everything seems to be going hunky dory. What are busy working on?
Don't read this then,
http://time.com/4340379/u-s-policy-afghanistan/
Thank for the link Jay. I read it a few days ago and put it on my post summarizing Afghanistan. I should have put it as a post by itself .... which is what I will do in the next hour or two.
James: Not much, just real life thing, because I cannot make a living just from watchin wars. :)
We talked about this just around the recapture of Ramadi, that in the war in Iraq, and also in Syria, on most of the frontlines, such units "fighting", who are basically good only for guarding an area, but the real fight is done with smaller, better trained and equiped forces. Now those forces went to Falujah. I really like the progreses which were made on the sides of Euphrates river. Falujah will fall this summer, no question, and with this, only minor areas remain controlled by IS south/west from the big lake, mostly on the northern side of the river. And after that, there is only the desert until Sinjar. I almost feel the encirclment. Doesn't it feel to you that the generals in Iraq taking advises from us, from the comments? Because so far they doing what we saying. I'm just saying. :)
mlacix,
The problem I have with reports like the above is that though it may show place holders while the real fighting is done elsewhere by others, it's still a lie in the way it's presented and in the long run very corrosive to the political dimension of the struggle.
On the ground, I do see the gains that you mention, but how they are done is disturbing and I don't see any really strategic gains being made at least in my eyes. Perhaps the most ominous thing I've noticed is all the Iranian military big boys showing up for the Fallujah fight. I felt originally that the Fallujah operation was just a clearing operation in response to Isis's Baghdad bombing campaign, but with Solimeini et al appearing together puts a much different light on it. I don't think we are getting very good info on what's going on and what is being put out is very suspect to me.
I think the Iranians and their surrogates have been taking a beating and they've got to get a win. I also think this Administration has found themselves stuck to the Iranians in ways they wish weren't true (mainly through wanting the nuke agreement so badly) and are changing their operational characteristics in ways they don't want to talk about.
I hope I'm wrong.
James:
Such reports as above are as old as modern journalism. Were the things different in WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, or in any other conflict in the past? No, and for all the same reason. There are always need for reports which show the fairly tale of a war. However these things does not effect the real decision making, they got to have better sources, and understanding of the situation, yet may the mass belive in it (at leas in Hungary they do).
What part do you mean disturbing in the recent gains? Does it the fighting method, or the sides, or the way of political (un)support of events?
I never seen the Baghdad bombing as a reason or it's resolve as a goal, because such scale bomb attacks were a thing in the last 13 year, so thats no news. The whole past 6 month just start to draw out a method, which we already talked about in the past, and it's in short the clearing out of the populated areas between Baghdad and Haditha. Ramadi was a good start, because it was in the middle, so it just gave more option to the Iqarian forces to further operations. But Falujah will be harder then Ramadi was, at least I see a bigger force is allocated to the job.
I understand your opinion on the Obama administration, (even if I think I am the last person on this world who still think the US led airstrike and the whole operation is good), but I think they had to make a decision, and they choosed the one which hurth themself and their country less, and I do not have the right to blame them for saving their owns, even if that make others die. Would it be better if the nuclear deal wouldn't exist now, Iran would kept as an isolated enemy , and for now US troops (not just advisors and special forces) should have been deployed on Iraq and Syria. Or isn't it kind of acceptable to let Iran out of the box, bring it to the big playground where if need it can be put back where it came from, but still we can use (among the many thing) it to weaker themself and also our enemies (as an addition supporting their fights against each other), and by this we could hit two bird with one stone.
Yeah I know Israel and the Saudis are afraid of an unleashed Iran, but as long as Iran throwing their money to useless wars which bring them only weak friends, I do not see any at all threat from Iran (and I say that not just from military viewpoint). Fears of growing Shia power in the region is an unrealistic thing (in the light of the recent Sunni military drill made in Saud Arab.). Fear that a big Iran alliance will make a threat to the ME/Sunni countries is also not realistic, and also who would be in that alliance? Syria, with like 50% of the whole population died/wounded/became refugee, and so much inside tension that the country would need 50 years to have a new generation that allove it to do anything, or Iraq with the same thing, or not even mention Jemen? Oh there would be the Kurds who will uppon all the previous things, they still need to face a NATO country as a direct enemy, plus the Iraqian Sunnis? This alliance is not an alliance, and not a threat.
I may be too optimistic, just as always, but really, things are not as bad as it looks like. After Ramadi you promised you will belive in the fight more.
mlacix,
"After Ramadi you promised you will belive in the fight more."
Oh I do. It's hard to change something (pessimism) when it has served you well in the past.
" Were the things different in WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, or in any other conflict in the past?"
Here I have to say yes, starting in Viet Nam the disconnect between what was reported and what was demonstrable fact, began to have serious impact on the political dimension of prosecuting the war.
As far as the decisions made by the Obama administration vis a vis the Iranians (yes I disapprove of them) they in end could be quite right in making those moves, but it is hard for me to see the benefits you enumerate.
As you say and I agree the US Administration is trying to fight a war as we used to say "on the cheap" the intent may be good, but the dangers of such a policy are very great.
The successes I see so far, seem to come from the use of local ground forces(Kurdish, Shia militia, and some local tribes) stiffened by special operator groups and supported with direct air. This begs the question, can they ever be successful in the short and long term in historically Sunni areas?
Oh well, I've babbled on enough. The longer they let these guys (ISIS) exist the harder it's going to be to get them.
Don't underestimate Iranian intentions in the area.
Enough, let's talk again I'd say in about 3 1/2 weeks. Yeah, nothing like armchair generals!
Okey, to be continue under another post related to Iraq, just you said a month for now.
Post a Comment