US considering ground invasion of Mosul?

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,701
60
91
http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/06/us/isis-mosul-troops/index.html

The idea of going into Mosul with troops to take the city back is a lot to swallow. ISIS doesn't just own the city, many of the people there support them and will also fight. And it's not like ISIS will let people leave so it's either invade and fight man to man door to door or just raze it with overwhelming artillery and air support.

Could an invasion of Mosul result in a modern d-day?
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Jesus just stay with air power. The Iraqis have to do this themselves on the ground.
 

blastingcap

Diamond Member
Sep 16, 2010
6,654
5
76
Starve Mosul and make the Iraqis do it themselves. A mob could wrestle AK's out of Daesh hands and from there spread insurrection. If some Daesh don't do it themselves by shooting their commanders like some have done elsewhere.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
The article makes no mention of an American "invasion" of Mosul. It says that the US is considering putting US spotters on the ground in support of Iraqi troops.

I don't think it's a good idea & I doubt that the Obama Admin would authorize it.
 

manimal

Lifer
Mar 30, 2007
13,560
8
0
what can people on the ground do that Awacs cant up top? Probably spot individual targets.
 

alcoholbob

Diamond Member
May 24, 2005
6,271
323
126
Better to just balkanize as all multi-ethnic states do without a dictator or powerful state to keep it all together.
 
Nov 25, 2013
32,083
11,718
136
The Kurds have been pushing on Mosul for a while now.

From a Jan 22nd article in The Guardian:

"Until this week, Islamist militants were able to transfer goods, petrol and military equipment from eastern Syria into Mosul, Iraq’s second city and the biggest urban centre under their control. The Kurds have now shut off the city from three sides. They also now control several key villages and intersections."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/22/mosul-isis-occupation-kurdish-fighters
 

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,701
60
91
The article makes no mention of an American "invasion" of Mosul. It says that the US is considering putting US spotters on the ground in support of Iraqi troops.

I don't think it's a good idea & I doubt that the Obama Admin would authorize it.

the invasion could be manned by kurds and iraqis. But the US could nudge it along by saying they will be supportive with air power and special forces on the ground to help paint targets.

It would be a "Coalition Invasion" not an American one. With Jordan pounding on ISIS from the south, now might be a good time to pin ISIS down some more and force them to grind down supplies and men.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
The article makes no mention of an American "invasion" of Mosul. It says that the US is considering putting US spotters on the ground in support of Iraqi troops.

I don't think it's a good idea & I doubt that the Obama Admin would authorize it.

Yeah, I don't see any mention of US invasion etc.

I'd bet loads of money I don't even have that we have already have spotters on the ground in Iraq.

I see nothing new here except for the news that ISIS appears to be weakening according to this report.

Fern
 

Ventanni

Golden Member
Jul 25, 2011
1,432
142
106
I was reading an article last night about the current overall status of the Syrian Civil War, since it largely involves ISIS as well, and it detailed out the overall status of ISIS as well since they're fighting wars on multiple fronts. I wish I had the link, so I'll just go over it roughly:

Iraq: Since the introduction of American and coalition air power, ISIS has taken a beating, especially in Iraq. They're still far from beaten, but you're not seeing them making the same advances as they did 6 months ago. What ISIS is doing now is digging in. Everything rests on whether Iraq has the stomach to retake ground. If they can't retake ground, then there's no reason for the coalition to conduct air strikes, and ISIS knows this. The upcoming Battle of Mosul will be the true turning point of the war.

Syria: ISIS has made some gains in Syria south of Damascus since the focus of our air strikes are in Iraq, but they're also facing a more resolute Syrian Army as well. The Syrian Army is about half the size as it once was at the start of the conflict, but it's much more effective than it was before, as is making gains against the rebels in the north (Aleppo/Homs region). All things considered, the FSA (rebel groups) is largely fragmented, ineffective, and/or defeated. The Syrian regime's true enemies now are terrorist groups, with ISIS being the strongest, followed by al-Nusra (which is al-Qaeda). The important thing to note here is that every time we arm and support the FSA, the weapons fall into the hands of the Al-Qaeda.

(My words here) I'm of a different opinion on this one, but I think what we should be doing is arming and supporting the Syrian regime here. I get that Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and other countries want Assad out of the equation, and that they're also supported by both our and Israel's enemies (Hezbollah and Iran), but they're one of the two major powers in the region actively fighting terrorist groups on the ground. If they fall, you're going to see genocide on a whole new level. Unfortunately in this case also, the rebel groups are far too fragmented to be effective at leading a state. The only alternatives we have in the region are ISIS, al-Nusra (which is Al-Qaeda), or Assad. Who do you want in power? My vote goes to Assad. /end my personal words

Kurdistan: ISIS is learning that Kurds are not Arabs, and fight to a different tune. Kurds have long survived against overwhelming odds, but they lack the heavy equipment that they need to make truly effective gains against ISIS. The only reason the Kurds were able to oust ISIS from Kobani and make gains around Mosul is because of coalition airstrikes. Without air support, they'd melt under the advances of ISIS. Unfortunately arming the Kurds is a political issue. The Turks hate them, and the Iraqis don't want them declaring their own independent state. This sucks, because they're the only true friends we have in the region.

Jordan: New front. Wasn't mentioned in the article, but I'll add to this anyways. This will most likely be an extensive air campaign conducted by the Jordanian government in the southern Syrian region (where the Syrians need help most), but they could be a serious tipping point if they decide to utilize ground forces.
 

oobydoobydoo

Senior member
Nov 14, 2014
261
0
0
This hasn't been widely reported yet, but ISIS is making a "strategic withdrawal" from Daara and the Kurdistan region to avoid airstrikes. Their rationale is that without US airstrikes they have a much better chance of taking SAA and NDF positions, and thats pretty accurate. They are really struggling to deal with USAF taking out so many of their best commanders. The Kurds will not follow them back to Mosul, why would they? It would be a slaughter and they don't care about Mosul. Honestly I'm impressed that they have the sense to back down and consolidate. Normally with these kind of insurgencies, once they start to "govern" things quickly fall apart. We are seeing some of this now


What we will probably see now is ISIS ceding ground to JMA, JAN, and other rebel groups while they consolidate and prepare the defense of Mosul. The U.S. will likely want to take Mosul with the Iraqi militia, supporting them with airstrrikes and spec ops/ drones but not committing ground forces. It's not gonna be pretty.


Edit: This is still unconfirmed but based on the Twitter accounts I saw... Yeah.
 
Last edited:
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
(My words here) I'm of a different opinion on this one, but I think what we should be doing is arming and supporting the Syrian regime here.

What a crazy turn of events, but it might make some sense. In short, the Middle East was better off with its dictators than it was with extremist anarchy in their absence. Saddam! Please come back! Oh that's right, he's dead. We killed him. The Republicans created this entire mess.
 

blastingcap

Diamond Member
Sep 16, 2010
6,654
5
76
Seriously stop paying Mosul civil servants, who just hand over their paychecks to Daesh anyway: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/05/opinion/how-iraq-subsidizes-islamic-state.html?_r=0

Just completely cut off the town from supplies and paychecks and make the "civilians" help out. Guns aren't that scary if you have numbers, you can swarm Daesh when they least suspect it, capture some of your own AK47s and start sniping the hell out of Daesh... be the insurgents vs Daesh to keep off-balance as the Coalition rolls in. Else it's going to be a nightmare of house to house fighting.
 
Last edited:

Nograts

Platinum Member
Dec 1, 2014
2,534
3
0
We should air drop pallets of pork chops and crates of "tickle-me-mohammed" dolls for the poor people under siege.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
I was reading an article last night about the current overall status of the Syrian Civil War, since it largely involves ISIS as well, and it detailed out the overall status of ISIS as well since they're fighting wars on multiple fronts. I wish I had the link, so I'll just go over it roughly:

Iraq: Since the introduction of American and coalition air power, ISIS has taken a beating, especially in Iraq. They're still far from beaten, but you're not seeing them making the same advances as they did 6 months ago. What ISIS is doing now is digging in. Everything rests on whether Iraq has the stomach to retake ground. If they can't retake ground, then there's no reason for the coalition to conduct air strikes, and ISIS knows this. The upcoming Battle of Mosul will be the true turning point of the war.

Syria: ISIS has made some gains in Syria south of Damascus since the focus of our air strikes are in Iraq, but they're also facing a more resolute Syrian Army as well. The Syrian Army is about half the size as it once was at the start of the conflict, but it's much more effective than it was before, as is making gains against the rebels in the north (Aleppo/Homs region). All things considered, the FSA (rebel groups) is largely fragmented, ineffective, and/or defeated. The Syrian regime's true enemies now are terrorist groups, with ISIS being the strongest, followed by al-Nusra (which is al-Qaeda). The important thing to note here is that every time we arm and support the FSA, the weapons fall into the hands of the Al-Qaeda.

(My words here) I'm of a different opinion on this one, but I think what we should be doing is arming and supporting the Syrian regime here. I get that Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and other countries want Assad out of the equation, and that they're also supported by both our and Israel's enemies (Hezbollah and Iran), but they're one of the two major powers in the region actively fighting terrorist groups on the ground. If they fall, you're going to see genocide on a whole new level. Unfortunately in this case also, the rebel groups are far too fragmented to be effective at leading a state. The only alternatives we have in the region are ISIS, al-Nusra (which is Al-Qaeda), or Assad. Who do you want in power? My vote goes to Assad. /end my personal words

Kurdistan: ISIS is learning that Kurds are not Arabs, and fight to a different tune. Kurds have long survived against overwhelming odds, but they lack the heavy equipment that they need to make truly effective gains against ISIS. The only reason the Kurds were able to oust ISIS from Kobani and make gains around Mosul is because of coalition airstrikes. Without air support, they'd melt under the advances of ISIS. Unfortunately arming the Kurds is a political issue. The Turks hate them, and the Iraqis don't want them declaring their own independent state. This sucks, because they're the only true friends we have in the region.

Jordan: New front. Wasn't mentioned in the article, but I'll add to this anyways. This will most likely be an extensive air campaign conducted by the Jordanian government in the southern Syrian region (where the Syrians need help most), but they could be a serious tipping point if they decide to utilize ground forces.
Interesting analysis, thanks. I generally agree. It would be difficult for us to support Assad after Obama's red line incident, but a frank "we screwed up" followed by intense negotiations might be well worth it. Our interests are aligned with Assad's, and that might be enough to get him off some of his worst behavior in return for our assistance. After all, this is the guy Clinton called a reformer; surely there's some common ground.

As to the Kurds, we are giving MRAPs to American police departments that manifestly do not need them. Those should be going to the Kurds. We should also be buying the hell out of Textron's light armor and turning that over to the Kurds. Some light APCs and Stingray IIs would turn this into a rout, and also position the Kurds better against both Turkey and the rest of Iraq.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
Just having access to drones that take pictures for intel and satellite observations can help a lot. The right air support can make a big difference to support ground troops.

I think Americans should start putting kill switches on all out military equipment. That way we can destroy or at least keep the enemy from using what gets captured.

A130 GUNSHIPS.
 

oobydoobydoo

Senior member
Nov 14, 2014
261
0
0
I was reading an article last night about the current overall status of the Syrian Civil War, since it largely involves ISIS as well, and it detailed out the overall status of ISIS as well since they're fighting wars on multiple fronts. I wish I had the link, so I'll just go over it roughly:

Iraq: Since the introduction of American and coalition air power, ISIS has taken a beating, especially in Iraq. They're still far from beaten, but you're not seeing them making the same advances as they did 6 months ago. What ISIS is doing now is digging in. Everything rests on whether Iraq has the stomach to retake ground. If they can't retake ground, then there's no reason for the coalition to conduct air strikes, and ISIS knows this. The upcoming Battle of Mosul will be the true turning point of the war.

Syria: ISIS has made some gains in Syria south of Damascus since the focus of our air strikes are in Iraq, but they're also facing a more resolute Syrian Army as well. The Syrian Army is about half the size as it once was at the start of the conflict, but it's much more effective than it was before, as is making gains against the rebels in the north (Aleppo/Homs region). All things considered, the FSA (rebel groups) is largely fragmented, ineffective, and/or defeated. The Syrian regime's true enemies now are terrorist groups, with ISIS being the strongest, followed by al-Nusra (which is al-Qaeda). The important thing to note here is that every time we arm and support the FSA, the weapons fall into the hands of the Al-Qaeda.

(My words here) I'm of a different opinion on this one, but I think what we should be doing is arming and supporting the Syrian regime here. I get that Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and other countries want Assad out of the equation, and that they're also supported by both our and Israel's enemies (Hezbollah and Iran), but they're one of the two major powers in the region actively fighting terrorist groups on the ground. If they fall, you're going to see genocide on a whole new level. Unfortunately in this case also, the rebel groups are far too fragmented to be effective at leading a state. The only alternatives we have in the region are ISIS, al-Nusra (which is Al-Qaeda), or Assad. Who do you want in power? My vote goes to Assad. /end my personal words

Kurdistan: ISIS is learning that Kurds are not Arabs, and fight to a different tune. Kurds have long survived against overwhelming odds, but they lack the heavy equipment that they need to make truly effective gains against ISIS. The only reason the Kurds were able to oust ISIS from Kobani and make gains around Mosul is because of coalition airstrikes. Without air support, they'd melt under the advances of ISIS. Unfortunately arming the Kurds is a political issue. The Turks hate them, and the Iraqis don't want them declaring their own independent state. This sucks, because they're the only true friends we have in the region.

Jordan: New front. Wasn't mentioned in the article, but I'll add to this anyways. This will most likely be an extensive air campaign conducted by the Jordanian government in the southern Syrian region (where the Syrians need help most), but they could be a serious tipping point if they decide to utilize ground forces.
Great analysis, and I agree that removal of Assad is no longer a good option. He would be replaced by Al Queda or ISIS.




IS is going to consolidate and take stock... and reinforce mosul. If the coalition is going to take Mosul they should start ASAP, because every minute more IS fighters return to Iraq from Syria to reinforce their positions. It will be a bloodbath, but it has to happen at some point.
 

NetGuySC

Golden Member
Nov 19, 1999
1,643
4
81
Iraq has 34+ million citizens. let Iraq work out its own problems with with ISIS. I really do not want to see any american soldiers burned alive or suffer some other horrible torture.
 
Last edited:

moonbogg

Lifer
Jan 8, 2011
10,637
3,095
136
No way will Americans stomach this. More dead soldiers? For what? This is the kind of shit that grows in the middle east. Rushing in to kill them is like mowing your lawn and expecting it to be a permanent solution.
 

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,763
327
126
Does no one see what is wrong with this picture? Why are we scheduling a battle, announcing it to the world, and telling everyone how we are going to do it. What idiot approved this strategy?
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
69,563
27,873
136
Does no one see what is wrong with this picture? Why are we scheduling a battle, announcing it to the world, and telling everyone how we are going to do it. What idiot approved this strategy?
I heard that on the radio yesterday. Methunk it retarded.

Ted Striker: My orders came through. My squadron ships out tomorrow. We're bombing the storage depots at Daiquiri at 1800 hours. We're coming in from the north, below their radar.
Elaine Dickinson: When will you be back?
Ted Striker: I can't tell you that. It's classified.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |