• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Announces Plan for Massive Counter-ISIS Attack [W:228]

Google:

" senior official with U.S. Central Command said Thursday a force of roughly 20,000 to 25,000 Iraqis, retrained by the U.S.-led coalition will ultimately lay siege to Mosul, likely in April or May."

and then explain how you read "President Obama said" and that the Pentagon didn't know of the announcement out of that.:roll:

On who's orders did this "senior official with U.S. Central Command" do this? Not too many out rank a "senior official with U.S. Central Command".

Violating operational security is a violation of some of the most basic and most fundamental precepts of military operations, needlessly putting troops and the mission at risk. No, I'm thinking this is a politically motivated decision, that has Obama's and / or the White House's finger prints all over that, as this is what they typically do: politics uber alles.
 
ONLY if we can convince them to then go get in those bunkers for us. If only they'd do that this would be a piece of cake.

Bunkers? :lamo

You think ISIS is leaving the territory they control without a fight?

How's the drone campaign working?
 
All I have to say is to tell the enemy when you are coming or leaving is ****ing (pardon my french) insane....

Ummm... didn't we do just that when we first invaded Iraq? :roll: Didn't we announce we were coming over for ... oh... I don't know... 6 months before we actually did?
 

The belief that giving ISIL a week or even a month's heads up will make any difference is absurd. What are they going to do? Ready up their tanks? Dust off their helicopters? Upgrade their nuclear arsenal? :lol:
 
The level of stupidity in the government gets more astounding literally, by the day.

You don't give the enemy advanced notice of when you plan to attack!


It is because it scores them political points for the world to know that the US is going after ISIS and what do politicians care about most? Political position. What the announcement may mean from a strategic standpoint is of little concern for them.
 
Ummm... didn't we do just that when we first invaded Iraq? :roll: Didn't we announce we were coming over for ... oh... I don't know... 6 months before we actually did?

false.

nobody divulged target lists , troop strengths, or unit compositions.

servicemembers who do this open themselves up to prosecution under the UCMJ
 
The belief that giving ISIL a week or even a month's heads up will make any difference is absurd. What are they going to do? Ready up their tanks? Dust off their helicopters? Upgrade their nuclear arsenal? :lol:

is there ever any reasons to keep military operational plans secret?.. and what would those reasons be?
 
The level of stupidity in the government gets more astounding literally, by the day.

You don't give the enemy advanced notice of when you plan to attack!

My first thought is that those are pretty damned small brigades, if it takes that many to make up that number of troops. Of course you're right about never warning an enemy, but I always suspect disinformation when I see announcements like this. It would be unthinkable to try to recapture Mosul using nothing but local forces.

I am sure a good part of the hundred M-1 tanks, 18 self-propelled 155mm. howitzers, three dozen or so Bradley fighting vehicles, etc. that are on the way to that theater would support local infantry in any campaign to retake Mosul. M-1's are pretty much invulnerable in urban fighting--provided they have infantry to protect their rear, where the armor is thinner. A strong force of local infantry on foot and in armed vehicles would neutralize that threat. Continual real-time reconnaissance from drones overhead would also be a big tactical advantage in an assault on Mosul. (So would informers in the city that special forces had previously recruited.)

It might be well, too, to remind the inhabitants of Mosul that the U.S. has even bigger hammers available than tanks, and that it would not hesitate to use them even if it killed some civilians. I'm sure it would be a comfort to any ground commander to have a half-dozen B-52's and B-1's circling safely 35,000 feet overhead, each one loaded with twenty tons or more of guided bombs. For example, jihadist forces trying to assemble or train on the city soccer field might find it disruptive to have the whole field and stadium plastered with a couple dozen large bombs.

I'm assuming all Mosul's electric, gas, water, telephone, and sewer services, its trucks, its warehouses, its radio facilities, its fuel tanks, its roads, wharves, and bridges, and any rail lines or airports would be destroyed in the weeks before any assault. It's usually possible to put these things out of commission only temporarily, so that no enormous cost is incurred to reconstruct them later.
 
Why don't you people go fight for ISIS if you think our president, country, and military are such failures. God I'm sick of the bickering and armchair generals. If you served under me I'd tell you to shut the hell up and go clean the latrines!

Good grief!

And our president is not "BO." His name is designation is president Obama commander in chief of the United States of America. Have some respect for the office.


Oh quit carrying BO peeps water.....just because you can't handle that you chose a failure. Doesn't mean you can cry to those of us who actually know what to do.

Now I know you lefties are literalists.....but can you like actually figure out what the Guys initials are. So we wouldn't have to show how smart you are.
 
Last edited:
The 2003 Iraq invasion wasn't exactly a secret, either.
 
The belief that giving ISIL a week or even a month's heads up will make any difference is absurd. What are they going to do? Ready up their tanks? Dust off their helicopters? Upgrade their nuclear arsenal? :lol:

How about harden defenses, traps, set up civilians by key strategic facilities, move valuable equipment around, and of course hostages.
 
false.

nobody divulged target lists ,

CNN.com - U.S. launches cruise missiles at Saddam - Mar. 20, 2003

US military sources have told the BBC that five key members of the Iraqi regime, including Saddam Hussein, were targeted in the first attacks.

troop strengths,

Powell Advised Bush to Add Iraq Troops (washingtonpost.com)

Less than three weeks after the White House meeting, the Pentagon announced that it would boost the U.S. military presence in Iraq by 12,000 troops, to 150,000.

USATODAY.com - Army chief: Force to occupy Iraq massive

Army spokesman Col. Joseph Curtin said later that Shinseki was only giving a rough estimate.

Pentagon officials have said that U.S. forces massed in the region number about 200,000, about half of them Army.

Defense.gov News Article: Rumsfeld: No U.S. Troop Increase Foreseen for Iraq

In fact, Honduras, Nicaragua and El Salvador are sending a combined total of about 1,000 troops to Iraq, including about 350 troops from Honduras, U.S. defense officials said. News reports cite El Salvador also sending about 350 troops to Iraq, with Nicaragua providing around 250.
Earlier in the day Rumsfeld visited with about 500 U.S. Joint Task Force Bravo troops at Soto Cano, a Honduran air base.

or unit compositions.

servicemembers who do this open themselves up to prosecution under the UCMJ

http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1103920.html

U.S. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher yesterday announced the 30 countries that have confirmed they will participate: "Albania, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Estonia, El Salvador, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Mongolia, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, South Korea, Spain, U.K. and Ukraine. Their participation in stabilization operations is already confirmed."

But there is skepticism among some military experts and analysts about the number of soldiers that many of these countries can offer. The largest contributor to the multinational division will be Poland with some 2,300 soldiers. Ukraine is posting 1,800 troops to Iraq, while Spain has pledged 1,300.

Bulgaria is sending about 500 troops into Iraq. Hungary has pledged several hundred. Romania and Latvia each are deploying about 150 soldiers, while Slovakia and Lithuania each are sending in 85. Kazakhstan has offered to send 25 soldiers.

Coalition forces now in Iraq include about 150,000 U.S. soldiers and some 11,000 British troops. But according to Ian Kemp, editor of the London-based military affairs publication "Jane's Defence Weekly," many experts estimate that another 100,000 troops are needed to ensure stability across the country.

We get it, these things didn't happen. :)
 
Last edited:
How about harden defenses, traps, set up civilians by key strategic facilities, move valuable equipment around, and of course hostages.

Harden defences... against what exactly? Set up civilians by key strategic facilities? Moving hostages? Lol. Were they not doing these things already? Gee, one would think that big bad ISIL would have started doing these things now that they've gotten into fights the Kurds, Jordanians, Iran-backed Shiites, etc. Wait, they're only doing it now that the US is getting involved? Lol. Get serious.
 
Harden defences... against what exactly? Set up civilians by key strategic facilities? Moving hostages? Lol. Were they not doing these things already? Gee, one would think that big bad ISIL would have started doing these things now that they've gotten into fights the Kurds, Jordanians, Iran-backed Shiites, etc. Wait, they're only doing it now that the US is getting involved? Lol. Get serious.

You get serious. ISIS was leaving Mosul completely open to attack. But now that one of Hussein Obummer's stooges has let the cat out of the bag, they will be fortifying the place like Camelot. Theses Iraqi's might have stood a chance if they assembled a force and attacked in complete secrecy, but now that BO has given ISIS time to fortify the city, there's no way they can win.
 
You get serious. ISIS was leaving Mosul completely open to attack. But now that one of Hussein Obummer's stooges has let the cat out of the bag, they will be fortifying the place like Camelot. Theses Iraqi's might have stood a chance if they assembled a force and attacked in complete secrecy, but now that BO has given ISIS time to fortify the city, there's no way they can win.

Drats! How could BO and his fellow dopes have been such fools! 20,000-30,000 people moving across a desert in complete secrecy!? ISIL would have never seen them coming! How could they? It's not like they could have thought of using scouts, informants, and your basic neighbourhood snitches to figure out we were coming! It's not like they would have noticed large numbers of people moving towards a city. We've been foiled. And to think, we almost freed Iraq.
 
Last edited:
Harden defences... against what exactly? Set up civilians by key strategic facilities? Moving hostages? Lol. Were they not doing these things already? Gee, one would think that big bad ISIL would have started doing these things now that they've gotten into fights the Kurds, Jordanians, Iran-backed Shiites, etc. Wait, they're only doing it now that the US is getting involved? Lol. Get serious.


So you don't know much about military tactics, nothing about logistics. Do you think that harden defenses, moving in more anti Air, setting more mines. Inside a city that has bridges and that has an underground that you laugh at the fact that defenses could be improved on from what one had set up from their beginning. Have more withdrawal points that they can fight from when looking to cut and run. A bit much for you to try and conceptualize huh? To difficult to comprehend, eh.

Wait do you know anything about trying to stay alive when a known offensive is coming in a combat area? Anything at all?

Yeah I get a good chuckle out of those that think they know some **** about the Military.....when they actually don't. Is that what your civilian handbook tells ya. :lamo
 
Here's what others are posting:

"DAMN THAT TRAITOR GENERAL MacARTHUR FOR GIVING THE JAPANESE ADVANCE NOTICE THAT HE WAS GOING TO RETURN TO THE PHILLIPINES GIVING THEM ADVANCE NOTICE!!!"

Stupid old guys fixed at ranting because that's the only thing they do.

We have a different enemy here. Telling them when we are coming and what our troop strength will be gives them time to build a defensive structure where they shoot from behind civilians chained together as a human entrenchment. What do we do when their is 10 civilians surrounding every ISIS fighter?
 
We have a different enemy here. Telling them when we are coming and what our troop strength will be gives them time to build a defensive structure where they shoot from behind civilians chained together as a human entrenchment. What do we do when their is 10 civilians surrounding every ISIS fighter?

Same thing we've always done.
 
We have a different enemy here. Telling them when we are coming and what our troop strength will be gives them time to build a defensive structure where they shoot from behind civilians chained together as a human entrenchment. What do we do when their is 10 civilians surrounding every ISIS fighter?

Mornin Ironhorse :2wave: Its worse than that. But the only real reason to telegraph in detail is to get the word out to civilians.



Still, the move bewildered some former top military commanders.

“I was surprised to see them do this,” says retired Lt. Gen. David Barno, who served as commander of US forces in Afghanistan from 2003 to 2005. “It’s a little perplexing to me to go into the amount of detail and the timelines that they did.” It makes some sense, however, to reinforce US confidence in the Iraqi security forces as they move to retake the ground, he adds. And from a psychological warfare perspective, “It sends a message that they are taking back the city.” It might, for example, cause IS forces to converge on the city, drawing them away from fighting elsewhere. Or it could inspire them “to make a tactical withdrawal and go somewhere else, if they realize war is coming.” Analysts including Mr. Barno agree that there is slim chance of the latter scenario. More likely – and important: This could be an effort to avert civilian casualties by encouraging people to leave before the fierce fighting begins.

The problem with telegraphing the plans to retake Mosul, however, is that it allows IS fighters to prepare. “That’s one of the downsides,” says Barno, who is now a distinguished practitioner in residence at American University’s School of International Service in Washington. IS forces will not stand and fight “in big chunks of 500 here and 1,000 there.” Instead, they will plant roadside bombs and set booby traps, using their capabilities “to make it a deadly place.” In the second battle of Fallujah, insurgent fighters set up Jersey barriers and rigged homes with explosives. Like Fallujah, Mosul is a large city of 1 million people, and any US-backed invasion with Iraqi troops will prove to be a “very tough urban fight,” says Dr. Mansoor, chair in military history at Ohio State University in Columbus.....snip~

US outlines mission to retake Mosul from Islamic State. Why so public a plan?

Yeah, notice how top military analysts state that it gives ISIS time to prepare. Thats even after having control of the city since last year. After hanging out and partying, running their slave ring, setting up cells, and garnering support from civvies.

As you see kind of hard for some to Imagine, comprehend, and understand huh? Nothing to be concerned about at all according to the leftists here. Its par for the course, nothing new here.

Other than 25k military troops trying to take a city of 1 Million.....with an embedded enemy.
 
Last edited:
Mornin Ironhorse :2wave: Its worse than that. But the only real reason to telegraph in detail is to get the word out to civilians.



Still, the move bewildered some former top military commanders.

“I was surprised to see them do this,” says retired Lt. Gen. David Barno, who served as commander of US forces in Afghanistan from 2003 to 2005. “It’s a little perplexing to me to go into the amount of detail and the timelines that they did.” It makes some sense, however, to reinforce US confidence in the Iraqi security forces as they move to retake the ground, he adds. And from a psychological warfare perspective, “It sends a message that they are taking back the city.” It might, for example, cause IS forces to converge on the city, drawing them away from fighting elsewhere. Or it could inspire them “to make a tactical withdrawal and go somewhere else, if they realize war is coming.” Analysts including Mr. Barno agree that there is slim chance of the latter scenario. More likely – and important: This could be an effort to avert civilian casualties by encouraging people to leave before the fierce fighting begins.

The problem with telegraphing the plans to retake Mosul, however, is that it allows IS fighters to prepare. “That’s one of the downsides,” says Barno, who is now a distinguished practitioner in residence at American University’s School of International Service in Washington. IS forces will not stand and fight “in big chunks of 500 here and 1,000 there.” Instead, they will plant roadside bombs and set booby traps, using their capabilities “to make it a deadly place.” In the second battle of Fallujah, insurgent fighters set up Jersey barriers and rigged homes with explosives. Like Fallujah, Mosul is a large city of 1 million people, and any US-backed invasion with Iraqi troops will prove to be a “very tough urban fight,” says Dr. Mansoor, chair in military history at Ohio State University in Columbus.....snip~

US outlines mission to retake Mosul from Islamic State. Why so public a plan?
It also puts ISIS in the position to say any civilian caught trying to leave will be burned alive. The old "forewarned for armed" thing. The Art of War is exactly opposite of what Obama is doing.

"All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near."
 
It also puts ISIS in the position to say any civilian caught trying to leave will be burned alive. The old "forewarned for armed" thing. The Art of War is exactly opposite of what Obama is doing.

"All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near."


I would agree.....and it allows ISIS time to gather up important people and relatives of those Iraqi Officers and Politicians. What is amazing is.....that it was BO's own Team members that were stating it will take 3 years to train the Iraqis so they can take back Iraq.



Pentagon: why training Iraqis to take on Islamic State will take '3 years, minimum'.....

US general says needs include: assess and repair what the Iraqi troops actually have in their arsenal, rotate units out for training, and convince Sunni tribes to rejoin the fight.

Washington — The US training of Iraqi security forces is proving to be a complicated job that is going to take “three years, minimum” to bear results, a top US general stressed this week.....snip~

Pentagon: why training Iraqis to take on Islamic State will take '3 years, minimum' - CSMonitor.com
 
Back
Top Bottom