Possibly. It may be misinformation... an intentional leak. Encourages less-than-zealous Daesh to flee the city, making the showdown easier.
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?
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?
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?
PsyOps take all sizes and shapes. You have an estimated force of 1000-2000 ISIS militants in Mosul and announce an offensive of 30,000 supported by US air power. The rats may scatter.
Starve Mosul and make the Iraqis do it themselves.
^ This, exactly this. :thumbsup:
PsyOps take all sizes and shapes. You have an estimated force of 1000-2000 ISIS militants in Mosul and announce an offensive of 30,000 supported by US air power. The rats may scatter.
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.
Not necessarily. In the first place, it's difficult to conceal an operation like that in today's world anyway, and impossible if it consists of Iraqi soldiers. So we don't really lose much by telegraphing our moves. In the second place, this publicly commits the shakey Iraqi government; they can't back down without losing face. In the third place, a huge part of modern war as practiced by the West is minimizing civilian casualties, so this gives them a chance to flee. (Assuming ISIS allows.). And in the fourth place, we want a pitched battle. That's our strength. Trying to fight ISIS in a thousand little towns where they have made themselves the local government and religion is considerably more difficult and equally difficult to gain decisive results than by taking them on in a major operation.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?
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?
Not necessarily. In the first place, it's difficult to conceal an operation like that in today's world anyway, and impossible if it consists of Iraqi soldiers. So we don't really lose much by telegraphing our moves. In the second place, this publicly commits the shakey Iraqi government; they can't back down without losing face. In the third place, a huge part of modern war as practiced by the West is minimizing civilian casualties, so this gives them a chance to flee. (Assuming ISIS allows.). And in the fourth place, we want a pitched battle. That's our strength. Trying to fight ISIS in a thousand little towns where they have made themselves the local government and religion is considerably more difficult and equally difficult to gain decisive results than by taking them on in a major operation.
This really is our strength. To resist, ISIS must concentrate and fortify. And for air power, that solves our biggest problem - who and what to target. Try to take out the judge dispensing Sharia justice and you'll probably just be taking out your informant's personal enemies. My biggest hope is that Iran, Turkey and Russia haven't yet given them much in the way of AAA.
Why would Turkey and Iran provide aid to ISIS? Iran is Shi'a, which ISIS considers apostates and enemies who should be killed. Turkey is a somewhat secular country that has politics. ISIS doesn't play politics in the secular, state borders with ambassadors and diplomatic relations sense. They are a caliphate, which means they are only a caliphate while they are fighting non-caliphate enemies and providing social services.
I know Iran is a constant boogieman for a lot of the west, but compared to a lot of the countries in the middle east, they're pretty tame. Sure, they put on good kabuki shows, and like every other country in the region provides arms and intelligence to their allies, but otherwise, name a war started by Iran in the last 2000 years.
Turkey has no interest in helping ISIS either. They are right up against the border of ISIS controlled territory. They know damn well they're next.
OK, I get that. Captured equipment, not like Russia/Turkey/Iran is currently shipping stuff to ISIS or whatever they're supposed to be called.Daesh have fought with other groups supported by Iran/Russia/Turkey as well as the Iraqi army and have captured some antiaircraft weapons, including one that was shot in Kobane (unsuccessfully) and at least one other one that shot down an Iraqi helicopter.
By the way Turkey supported various rebel groups, including the predecessor to Daesh, before Daesh broke away as a separate group. These groups often split and merge, so supplying one of them with antiaircraft weapons means that other groups may get them eventually, via merger, coercion, or violently taking the weapons for themselves.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...al-turkeys-attacks-on-syrian-regime-positions
Iran/Russia probably would never supply antiaircraft to Hezbollah or Shia militias since the Sunni insurgents have zero air targets. But Russian anti-aircraft weapons might be captured by insurgents battling the Syrian army.
The Iraqi army has of course donated plenty of equipment to Daesh.
Either ISIS burns out and/or morphs into a non-barbarous more secular state.
Burns out as in they can't provide what they are required to provide as a Caliphate (in re: the Atlantic article on ISIS).Can I have some of whatever you're smoking?
OK, I get that. Captured equipment, not like Russia/Turkey/Iran is currently shipping stuff to ISIS or whatever they're supposed to be called.
If I had to guess, our jets are probably capable of getting past whatever they currently have, minus perhaps the stuff we were bringing over there from 2003-2012.
For me, this is just one more example of why Empire is pretty much useless except for the people profiting from selling the weapons and the beads and bracelets we dump into their "freed markets". Knock out one dictator, and then you have a huge chunk of land that only the most violent, ruthless people can control. Kinda goes back to the whole Saddam was evil because that's what it takes to control a hobbled-together chunk of land that was never a country to begin with. I mean, if the people can't get along together without having them all fearing their neighbors telling on them, perhaps they aren't really neighbors.
At this point, support the Kurds in the north, Shi'a in the south, and let them contain ISIS. Either ISIS burns out and/or morphs into a non-barbarous more secular state. Dropping bombs and cruise missiles on a couple of jeeps driving through the desert is one expensive way to "contain" ISIS. Let the Kurds have their own state, along with the Shi'a. If Turkey and neighbors start bitching about independent Kurdistan tell them OK, good luck, we're out. You pay to prop up an Iraq that has to be propped up else it crumbles. Pretty f-ing pointless.
Edit.
About Iran.
I never said they're saints. Of course their government does bad shit. They aren't innocent in a lot of the garbage going on over there. Just as the US government isn't innocent of a lot of the garbage going on over there. If we can agree that the US has been stirring up BS in Iran since, oh, 1953, then we can agree that while Iran isn't a particularly helpful actor, they aren't alone.
The west and just about every g-d country in the middle east has blood on their hands. Who knows what would have happened had the US and UK not toppled Iran's democratically elected PM in 1953 and then installed a brutal dictator who was friendly to US and UK governments and business interests. But to pretend that a lot of what Iran does isn't clearly blowback for us sticking our g-d foot into that hornet nest isn't being totally honest.
Since 1953, many Iranians have considered us the enemy for what we and the UK did. As you might be able to tell, I f-ing loathe Empire, and the coups we pay for and direct. We talk about democracy in the middle east, yet when these countries were first given independence proper, we just had to decide that their democracy wasn't particularly appealing. So, in that sense, I'm not surprised. Toppled their government and stick a dictator in power who is our little puppet, and go figure they get pissed and do all sorts of bad things in response.
Look at Cambodia. Just about the same story. Nicaragua, Guatamala, Argentina, Chile. Etc, ad nauseum.
Is Iran a saint? Nope. But let's not pretend that they're bad actors and we've only ever been ye olde good guys.
I do have an axe to grind with regards to UK/US Empire. A whole hell of a lot of problems are created from playing Empire. Why, exactly, is ISIS in control of parts of Iraq? What happened there from 2003 when Iraq was clearly a secular state that wasn't currently scaring multiple countries into bombing it?OK clearly you have some sort of ax to grind vs the UK/US. We weren't talking about the UK/US, we were talking about Iran.
You can hate on the UK all you want (they were the ones who talked the US into the '53 coup) and the US for going along with it, but that does not excuse Iran.
I'm not saying that the average Iranian hates us. As I said in my first post, their government is good at kabuki theatre.Oh and by the way have you ever met Iranians? Most don't like the Iranian theocracy any more than they like the Shah! If Iranians hated the US/UK so much, you should ask yourself why so many of them seem to love living in the US/UK! Even many Iranians still stuck in Iran don't like their government, but they say so quietly for fear of retribution.
The fact of the matter is that the Iranian clergy hijacked the Iranian revolution and turned it into an Islamic revolution. Hence the theocratic dictatorship today with only token representation as the Supreme Leader has final say.
Iran tries to suppress news about the uglier aspects of Sharia law against women, how it persecutes journalists/activists, how it censors the media and internet to the best of its ability, how corruption is rampant, etc.
My favorite bit is how Iran criticizes the US whenever possible, lately on Ferguson and racism. Guess what, Iran is a lot worse, but you'd never know going by Iran's state-sponsored propaganda mouthpieces. You'd never know that Iran has institutionalized racism and religious persecution (e.g., of atheists and Bahá'í and Jews).
Right.But enough about Iran, your plan neglects the intricacies of everything over there. If it were that easy to simply establish Kurdistan we'd have done it already. It's not. Turkey is unfortunately still necessary as a partner, though if AKP manages to rewrite the Constitution and Erdogan becomes another Putin, then all bets are off... but assuming that Turkey gets rid of AKP at some point, it's still a necessary semi-secular ally. Which means not antagonizing them over the Kurds. Not right now, anyway. I'd protect the Kurds with airstrikes and arms if necessary, but that's about it for now. KRG should be happy enough with a Kirkuk referendum after all this is over.
As for the rest of Iraq, the problem is that most of the oil is towards Basra in Shia hands so simply splitting Iraq into Kurdistan/Shiastan/Sunnistan isn't going to work from the Sunni Arab perspective. I think it may happen anyway, but the Sunnis will feel pissed off about it.
I don't think we necessarily disagree on substantive parts of the fighting ISIS. Syria is whatever at this point. Minus the rebels, who are/aren't also ISIS-related (?), there needs to be an overarching "strategy" of what is measurably possible over there, and what is just more kicking cans down roads driven by ISIS jeeps.Going back to original topic, I would let Daesh burn itself out like so many extremists before them. They are losing popularity even among Sunnis and will likely fragment. While Daesh is busy burning out, I'd try to broker some sort of deal among the Iraqi Arabs. KRG gets Kirkuk referendum. Rojava gets autonomy. Hopefully that takes care of Iraq.
That still leaves Syria, though.
You see, Daesh is not the real problem... Daesh is the most visible bad actor but they are nothing compared to the long-term bad actors in the neighborhood.
The real problem is how to resolve the Syrian civil war. Some people don't want to risk another Libya and would rather Assad stay. I disagree, as his presence will continue to fester and attract insurgents due to all the blood on his hands from the tortures and executions of civilians. I'd rather kick him out and replace him with a Parliament or at least somebody more inclusive, even another Alawite if necessary. But not by force. By diplomacy and sanctions. We might be able to pry Iran or Russia away from Assad, and Assad needs both (Iran for money to buy Russian equipment, ammunition, and spare parts). The wild card is Iran nuclear negotiations, though. Iran wants full lifting of sanctions immediately, which I hope Obama isn't dumb enough to give.
TL;DR: Protect the Kurds with airstrikes and arms if necessary. They are the only reliable allies we have left in that region. Stabilize Iraq; broker peace between the Arabs. As for Syria, try to pry Iran or Russia away from Assad so he can be replaced (peacefully) with someone else, preferably a Parliament. Such diplomacy may take a while. In the meantime, let Daesh/JaN/FSA/etc. and Iran/Iranian proxies destroy each other in Syria. And definitely NO GROUND TROOPS from any non-Arab Coalition country!
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?
All those so called rebels who took up arms and started causing chaos because they did nto like quadaffi just sold their own kids lives under a bus.
The fundie line of preference goes "Allah > me > my sect of Islam > other sects of Islam > non-Christian religions/non-Western Christians > USA > Israel." Iran aids them to the extent they use those weapons against American, the West, and what they consider Islamic states which are puppets of the West. Iran's leaders dream of leading a pan-Islamic caliphate, and providing weapons to ISIS weakens ISIS as well as those nations fighting them. That's hardly a unique foreign policy tact. In fact, we do it all the time, arming regimes fundamentally opposed to us so that they will fight our common enemy.Why would Turkey and Iran provide aid to ISIS? Iran is Shi'a, which ISIS considers apostates and enemies who should be killed. Turkey is a somewhat secular country that has politics. ISIS doesn't play politics in the secular, state borders with ambassadors and diplomatic relations sense. They are a caliphate, which means they are only a caliphate while they are fighting non-caliphate enemies and providing social services.
I know Iran is a constant boogieman for a lot of the west, but compared to a lot of the countries in the middle east, they're pretty tame. Sure, they put on good kabuki shows, and like every other country in the region provides arms and intelligence to their allies, but otherwise, name a war started by Iran in the last 2000 years.
Turkey has no interest in helping ISIS either. They are right up against the border of ISIS controlled territory. They know damn well they're next.