"Mosul offensive enters second week: All you need to know" Topic

"The terrifying scene has played out time and again. Amid a chaotic battlefield, an unknown vehicle barrels across the Nineveh plains, kicking up clouds of dust in its wake. It's speeding toward Iraqi or Kurdish Peshmerga front lines with a cargo of high explosives. Soldiers fire rockets and missiles in a frantic effort to destroy the vehicle before it kills them. Sometimes they find their target; sometimes not.

In the first week of the Mosul campaign, there have been dozens of suicide vehicle attacks by ISIS. Those that have got through have caused many casualties. ISIS has deployed its full repertoire: snipers, booby traps, a web of tunnels for ambushes.

In some places, it's taken Iraqi and Kurdish forces days to clear villages -- but they have made progress taking an area of several hundred square kilometers from the east, north and south…"
More here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Been watching intently on the news. Between all the other reported in the media … IMO, it will probably take until early next year at best before Mosul may be retaken.

AND, they're still miles from the objective.

I'm guessing it'll be at least 30 days before they get a single soldier inside Mosul, and that might even be delayed until next year, given their current very slow pace.

It seems that there is a Mosel resistance movement attacking ISIS fighters inside the city. They are also sending Intelligence reports to Iraqi security forces.
link

Mako…you seem to think taking urban areas from well entrenched fanatics is easy…

"All you need to know" from CNN, lol.

you seem to think taking urban areas from well entrenched fanatics is easy…

No one thinks that … Especially while attempting to limit CD. And an enemy that use hostages as human shields …

jdginaz

It seems that there is a Mosel resistance movement attacking ISIS fighters inside the city. They are also sending Intelligence reports to Iraqi security forces.

Hopefully it this is accurate. It is their town, their backyard etc., …

"All you need to know" from CNN, lol.

Well since we are not on the ground. We have to rely on some media sources. In an attempt to see what is going on. As we all know media sources, on TV, on line or in print can not always be accurate or unbiased.

Now something I heard on the news. That US SecDef, talked about coalition forces, like the Kurds and Turks, etc.. actually taking Raqqa too. I always thought that would fall to Assad forces with heavy Russian support. Do the Russians know about this ?

Will they just let the US led local forces attack Raqqa ? With no coordination, etc., ? After Assad's and Russian air assets turns Raqqa into the dark(er) side of the Moon before the US lead local forces can even do anything ?

I say let Assad and the Russians take care of Raqqa. The Russians seems much of "efficient" when dealing with Daesh types …

There you go again Bangor, trying to put words in my mouth.

I never said anything like that, nor did I imply it.

However, until one actually starts the battle on the city itself, it isn't really a battle for the city, merely propaganda.

I agree with Legion on Raqqa. The Russians and Syrians are far more brutal and efficient, so seem like the perfect troops to take down ISIS' capital city.

As to the ace of the operation. Gotta give the ISIL fighters the time and opportunity to leave if they are so inclined. Let them flee to Syria where they are no longer the problem of the Iraqi Army and militias. Why risk Iraqi lives if some of the enemy are willing to retreat and make the battle that much easier for the Iraqis? That would be my guess at the "deliberate" pace of operations around Mosul. What will become of the Mosul Dam which lies NW of the city. Will ISIL attempt to destroy it? That too might factor into an Iraqi calculation not to see a quick and decisive victory at Mosul which could panic the ISIL leadership. Iraq's interests may not align with those of the West's in this struggle, or perhaps, more disturbingly, maybe they do? Would the PTB's in the West like to see the preservation of ISIL long enough to be a useful causus bellus for military operations in Syria?

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

Gotta give the ISIL fighters the time and opportunity to leave if they are so inclined. Let them flee to Syria where they are no longer the problem of the Iraqi Army and militias.

That only is a temporary solution. As long as Daesh has a good number of bodies, they are still a threat.

Now I'm all for leaving an axis of retreat for Daesh in the direction of Syria. And take them out as they try to escape/withdraw. It's a completely legal and standard form and tactic used in conflicts …

The Basra Road comes to mind in GWI. A retreating force is not a defeated force. They are withdrawing, retreating, trying to break contact to fall back. Rearm, refit and prepare to go on offensive ops again.

The example IIRC that I was taught, was Gettysburg. Had the Union force under Meade went after Lee and his depleted and attrited Rebels. Before they could rearm, refit, etc. … The war may not have lasted so as long as it did. And reduce overall loses in the long run. To both sides.

So no … I'm not a fan of letting Daesh just sneak back to Syria without being very significantly attrited. Or eliminated to almost the last man, woman, goat, Toyota pick up truck, etc., … And make sure Baghdadi and any of his adult male heirs don't make it out of Mosul alive. They should be taken out with Drones, CAS, FA, a firefight, etc. To keep them alive would only make for another Daesh jihad, etc.. Yes, if dead they'd be martyred in Daesh's mind. But that is better than any other solution at this time, IMO.

As long as Daesh has a good number of bodies, they are still a threat.

Daesh are a side show and just one of the many Islamist groups fighting in this part of the world.

No doubt once they disappear, the Arab Gulf states will just refund these same guys under a new name.

Argh, I up-graded my I-pad's IOS and now all I do is fight the damned auto-correct on each sentence I type when I post. The first sentence should read, "As to the pace of the operation." Crap it auto-corrected me again to 'ace' instead of pace. I frak'in hate technology when it gets in the way. And what the hell is a "causus bellus"? That should be 'casus bellus'. Damn, it's doing it again! FFRRAAKK!!!

Legion 4:

Perhaps I didn't make my point clearly. ISIL might be viewed by some both in the Middle East and elsewhere as a useful tool to keep around for awhile longer. A quick and decisive victory might be very undesirable to some of the players in this latest iteration of the Forever-war. Military priorities may be playing second-fiddle to more sinister and opaque interests in this conflict.

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

Rod,

Regarding ISIL as a useful tool, I've been wondering since this whole IS thing began as to whether the Sunni oil states led by Saudi Arabia are going to allow Shias expand into Mosul.

Given Shia and Kurds have both been busy ethnically cleansing Sunni areas they recapture from IS, it makes the Sunnis position in Iraq untenable. In fact the Sunnis in Iraq are shrinking and most of their cities have been raised to the ground. Even once Sunni Bagdad is now overwhelmingly Shia.

The future of Iraq is looking increasingly Shia and Kurd. Their political orientation has been pro-Iranian and no doubt this will continue. This would be a massive loss for the Sunni cause.

Will the Sunni Arabs allow all of Iraq to become a pro-Iranian Shia dominated bastion?

It's a long road across open desert to get from Mosul to Syria. Makes targeting from the air a lot easier than in Mosul itself.

Deadles asked:

Will the Sunni Arabs allow all of Iraq to become a pro-Iranian Shia dominated bastion?

I don't know the answer to that question. But I might ask a related question and try to answer that one. Do the Sunni Arab States have the means to halt or reverse such a process? The chief state drivers of this Sunni displacement and disenfranchisement are Shia-controlled Iraq, Iran, and by their inaction due to other priorities, the USA, the U.K., France and perhaps some other second-tier European states. What Sunni Arab states have both the means and the position to stop this process? Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States have soft power but as Yemen has proved they are military paper-tigers. Unless they want to use economic and cyber warfare, they really have no option at their disposal to oppose this process. Pakistan is not Arab but it's close ties to the Saudis means it could be a Saudi proxy, however location and the threat of India makes their ability to intervene unlikely; except perhaps to transfer nuclear weapons to Saudi Arabia. North African states such as Morocco or Algeria are too removed and too weak to make much of a difference.

That leaves Turkey, Egypt, and Jordan. Jordan is too closely aligned with the US to challenge such a trend openly, so again only soft power is at their disposal. Egypt is too unstable and also too closely tied to the US to openly resist this process. That may change as Egypt is exploring new directions in alliances these days but to me it is doubtful whether Egypt could realign itself in time to save Sunni Iraq. Turkey is the one hope for the Sunnis in Iraq and since the waning of Sunni power in Iraq is paralleled by the waxing of Kurdish power and influence, there is ample reason why Turkey might want to intervene. On its own this could be very difficult and very possibly futile. However, with Russian military support, Saudi financial backing and Gulf State cyber and media backing the Turks might be convinced to intervene successfully on behalf of the Iraqi Sunnis. If this did happen, then the conflict would immediately spread to Syria as well. Assuming Turkish success (by no means certain) a new drawing of borders might take place in a foolish repeat of the 1915 Sykes-Picot Agreement where Turkey, Ruusia, Saudi Arabia and perhaps the Arab League impose new borders on the lands which were once Iraq and Syria.

How would such an effort be opposed? The Iranians could be neutralised by threats of Russian cruise missile strikes from the north. Both air-launched and sea launched strikes (from ships and subs in the Caspian Sea) would be a deterrent to Iranian direct action against a Turkish intervention. The considerable Gulf State capability in cyber warfare could cause some real difficulties for Iran and Iraq too. If not deterred then air strikes and border incursions into Iran and Iraq could be used. Limited Saudi demonstrations of military force into southern Iraq and logistic support to Iraqi Sunnis fighting in Iraq and Syria would likely happen. Saudi proxies of non-state actors could destabilise Iraq in general and make repulsing a Turkish invasion much more difficult for the Iraqis. Saudi money and influence/public relations might be able to neutralise US political will to oppose such an intervention. Gulf State Cyber capability could be used to threaten or covertly distract or entangle the Americans for a while. Europe would likewise be rendered ineffective by the same tactics and by threats from Russia in the former Soviet near-abroad. The US might be further distracted by Russo-Saudi diplomacy triggering conflicts around the globe to temporarily overwhelm the US military capacity to respond to a shotgun blast of localised challenges to the preferred US-designed status quo.

The wild card, as always, would be Israel. I have no idea what they might do.

There is however another dimension to this which might moot all of this. I do not know, but I suspect that there may have been a decision to make or at least permit this sectarian cleansing to happen. Like the Allies elected to force the repatriation of 14-16 million ethnic German non-nationals back to a ruined Germany, I wonder whether the powers that be have perhaps decided to let this sectarian cleansing take place in the hopes that separating these two major sects in Iraq will ultimately bring more peace to Dar al Islam. This is of course a mistaken notion as the intertwining of shrines and holy places makes such a segregation impossible. But outsiders can be wilfully ignorant and short-sighted when faced with inconvenient and perpetually irritating realities. So the people of the Sunni Triangle and of Mosul may become the new Rohingya of Mesopotamia. I hope not but I will not dismiss the notion at this point.

I don't see the will on any side to take such dramatic or risky steps to counter the disenfranchisement and displacement of the Sunni Iraqis, so I think the Sunnis of Iraq will be marginalised and those Sunnis who are problematic will be the victims of sectarian cleansing or worse. I expect it would be a gradual process, ironically modelled after the very gradual (some would say alleged) Israeli ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. Sunni Iraq might die with a slow, soft whimper rather than in the fast burning fires of sectarian strife.

Cheers?
Rod Robertson.

"Gotta give the ISIL fighters the time and opportunity to leave if they are so inclined".

I don't agree with that, but perhaps some do.

I think they should all be eliminated, so they can't go on to kill and maim others.

Mako 11:

I don't agree with it either but neither you nor I are making the decisions about the Mosul campaign and a wider Mesopotamian strategy. Those who are may have very different priorities than we would expect.

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

Mako – you have been constantly stating that the Iraqis arne't fighting for Mosul because they're miles away form the city.

Oddly enough, that means The Battle of Berlin didn't start when all the history books said it did… because the Red Army wasn't on the outskirts of Berlin when the offensive began….

It was said that it would take many weeks, and so it shall.

Perhaps I didn't make my point clearly. ISIL might be viewed by some both in the Middle East and elsewhere as a useful tool to keep around for awhile longer. A quick and decisive victory might be very undesirable to some of the players in this latest iteration of the Forever-war. Military priorities may be playing second-fiddle to more sinister and opaque interests in this conflict.

I don't see that narrative holding any water to the West. End it … and start assisting with rebuilding infrastructure, open trade/markets in full, etc., … The only "sinister and opaque" interests as I see is with the local islamic players/states. With the various factions hoping to eliminate the other. Whom they have hated for many generations, etc., …

With the Sunni Saudis and Shia' Iranians being the main puppet masters behind the curtain. Both with very separate agendas and narratives. But with the seminal objective being eliminating and/or enslaving the other based on religious differences, etc., …

Unless you are playing your favorite card. That the US is behind all this and the reason for all the world's problems. Because of it being run by "Darth Vader" type politicians and high ranking military officers. With evil intent in their hearts.

Daesh are a side show and just one of the many Islamist groups fighting in this part of the world.

As long as they demonstrate being a threat to the general populous of many Western nations. It is any Republic's, etc., first priority to protect it's people. Even if some believe that since only a few percentagewise are being killed on their own streets. It's OK, acceptable … the new normal. I don't find that acceptable at all as do many others.

No doubt once they disappear, the Arab Gulf states will just refund these same guys under a new name.

Don't forget Iran's involvement in this endeavor too. Even if they are the other side of the same coin.

Regardless until the moslem world gets it's lunatic fringe under some sort of positive control. Those terrorist threats have to be addressed by the West. I'm not willing to accept this is a new normal. That every few months or so, islamic terrorists, home grown or otherwise, slaughter innocent Westerners in their own towns and cities. Call me old fashioned …

Islamic State militants are kidnapping thousands of people to use as human shields

"Islamic State militants have rounded up thousands of villagers at gunpoint to use as human shields as they retreat toward their stronghold of Mosul, according to Iraqi military officers and people who escaped, the latest brutal war tactic to bring suffering to the civilian population in areas they control.

Some villagers said they ran and hid in the desert to avoid being taken. Others were forced to walk toward Mosul and away from the advancing Iraqi forces, but later managed to flee. Those who refused were shot, they said.

Military officials said they did not know exactly how many people were forced to leave, but residents of at least seven villages south of Mosul were moved deeper into Islamic State territory…"
More here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Some 60 Iraqi Soldiers Killed in Mosul Offensive, 250 Wounded

"Iraqi forces lost some 60 soldiers in the operation to liberate Mosul from the Daesh, while about 250 others have been wounded, US Central Command commander Gen. Joseph Votel said on Wednesday.

On October 17, Iraqi Prime Minister Haider Abadi announced the start of a military operation to recapture Mosul from the terror group with air support provided by the US-led coalition. About 30,000 Iraqi soldiers and 4,000 Kurdish Peshmerga fighters are reportedly taking part in the operation…"
More here
link

Amicalement
Armand

The Daesh scum wants to hold on to Mosul as most likely Baghdadi and his adult sons are there. At least primarily that is their objective … They will do just about anything to hold on to Mosul. As they have to know by now, the Russians and Syrians are much less circumspect about CD in the Daesh capital of Raqqa …

Crimes like Daesh using human shields is just another in a long list of their heinous actions. Which should insure there will not be too Daesh take prisoner. They want to be martyred anyway. Only a few for intel purposes. Then sentenced to death by the Iraqi government … crucifixion would be appropriate, IMO …

There is however another dimension to this which might moot all of this. I do not know, but I suspect that there may have been a decision to make or at least permit this sectarian cleansing to happen. Like the Allies elected to force the repatriation of 14-16 million ethnic German non-nationals back to a ruined Germany, I wonder whether the powers that be have perhaps decided to let this sectarian cleansing take place in the hopes that separating these two major sects in Iraq will ultimately bring more peace to Dar al Islam. This is of course a mistaken notion as the intertwining of shrines and holy places makes such a segregation impossible. But outsiders can be wilfully ignorant and short-sighted when faced with inconvenient and perpetually irritating realities. So the people of the Sunni Triangle and of Mosul may become the new Rohingya of Mesopotamia. I hope not but I will not dismiss the notion at this point.

Rod I doubt the Sunni Arabs would allow Iraq to be de-Sunnified. It would be a massive blow to them.

I think what happened in Iraq is the result of a badly implemented American intervention and occupation which shifted the power from Sunnis to Shias (natural result of democracy given Shias are the largest group) and which in turn shifted Iraq into Iranian orbit.

I also think that's why the Arabs "allowed" ISIS to drive down to the gates of Baghdad.

I wouldn't be surprised if the objective for them in the early stages would be ISIS and Al Nusra taking over Iraq and Syria and destroy the Shias and in turn destroying Iranian influence.

If the US didn't get involved in Iraq to defend the Baghdad Shia regime, I suspect ISIS would've won with tacit and probably covert Arab support.

The Arab bombing of ISIS was limited other than the Jordanians. It was token support and they quickly dropped it in favour of striking where they could ie Yemen but also Libya where UAE and Egyptians have been involved fighting against Libyan Dawn.

As much as the Americans have been screwing up middle eastern policy since 1991, the Arabs haven't done much better.

The Iranians on the other hand seme to be keeping their cake and eating it too – they got the sanctions lifted, were allowed to continue refining uranium and keep what they made, have seen Iraq go from a major enemy to a vassal state, scored big PR wins in Yemen, damaged the Saudi-US relationship (thanks to that weapons deal) and got in bed with the Russians thanks to Syria.

Good time to be an Iranian ayatollah!

900 Islamic State Fighters Have Been Killed In The Battle For Mosul (So Far)

"The US and its allies have killed between 800 and 900 ISIS fighters in the operation to retake Mosul, US Army Gen. Joseph Votel said Thursday.

US military officials estimate that there are 3,000 to 5,000 ISIS fighters defending the last major stronghold of the terror group in Iraq, and an additional 1,500 to 2,000 ISIS soldiers in a zone outside the city.

Votel is the head of US Central Command and is assisting the Iraqis in the fight for Mosul. A coalition of about 100,000 forces began the operation 10 days ago, and have been slowly gaining ground toward the city, liberating villages from ISIS rule along the way.

Clashes with ISIS fighters are expected to intensify the closer in troops get, and in Mosul itself bloody street-to-street skirmishes are expected, CNN has reported. ISIS is now sending "suicide squads" to Mosul from its symbolic capital of Raqqa in Syria, which the US and coalition forces also plan to try to capture soon…"
More here
link

Amicalement
Armand

DELETED………

So 900 ISIS have been killed.

Now assuming an extremely lethal kill to wounded ratio of 1 fatality for every 2 wounded, ISIS has lost nearly 3,000 men.

Applying a less lethal ratio (say 1 fatality for every 5 wounded), that means 5,400 casualties.

In either case ISIS is wiped out in Mosul and all that's left is mopping up.

Yay the war is over.

Daesh is executing locals, taking some hostages for human shields and continues their reign of terror, regardless …

Maybe the 900 casualties are not only "killing"… maybe it involved also wounded/deserters/ etc…

Amicalement
Armand

Maybe it's a wild guess, like the guess as to how many ISIS fighters are in the area.