"Iraqi army launches fresh assault toward Mosul center" Topic

"Iraqi army units surged toward the center of Mosul on Tuesday in an attack from the city's southeastern edges that could give fresh impetus to the seven-week-old battle for Islamic State's Iraqi stronghold.

Campaign commander Lieutenant General Abdul Ameer Rasheed Yarallah was quoted by Iraqi television as saying troops had entered Salam Hospital, less than a mile (1.5 km) from the Tigris river running through the city center.

If confirmed, that would mark a significant advance by the Ninth Armoured Division, which had been tied up for more than a month in close-quarter combat with Islamic State on the southeastern fringes of the city…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Keep up the pressure, keep going … Daesh in Iraq is on it's way out. And hopefully Baghdadi and his adult son[if he has one ?] if not killed in a drone/CAS strike. They get captured by some Shia militia and "reap the whirlwind". Let this "payback" be a warning to others like Daesh, etc., … You'll be lucky to die by a drone strike, than be captured by other religious inspired fanatics, etc., …

It's going to be a very long, hard slog.

This is the easy part.

Keeping the peace, and avoiding guerrilla attacks after they've "won" will be the real challenge.

Once Daesh no longer is a real threat … there are all the other factions, etc., in the region. But as long as those "factions" don't target the US/West. They should be left to their own devises to work out their difference. Which always seems to lead to bloodshed and not only to "combatants" …

The Iraqis took some heavy casualties recently (around 2,500) meeting fierce resistance. Morale and cohesion remain high which is good. The high casualty rate is probably due to not taking the "bomb them, civilian casualties be damned" approach seen in the Battle of Aleppo.

They should be left to their own devises to work out their difference.

Indeed. When you remove a dictator who quells dissent and leave a power vacuum for various parties to fight over, you create chaos out of stability. In the space of a decade Iraq, Libya and Syria went from stable to failed or semi-failed states. Even "allies" like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey are much more authoritarian than democratic. The west's attempts to spread liberal democracy through globalism in the ME is a grand failure.

The high casualty rate is probably due to not taking the "bomb them, civilian casualties be damned" approach seen in the Battle of Aleppo.

Iraqis don't have military capability required for indiscriminate bombing.

As undiminished as the SyAAF is, it is a vastly more potent force than Iraq.

Current Iraqi fixed wing assets include a small number of F-16s (14 delivered out of 36 ordered, 1 attrited), and 18 sU-25s (out of 21 delivered). Armed Cessna Caravans only equip with Hellfire.

Though there have been allegations of civilian casualties inflicted by Iraqis.

I don't quite trust it as it comes from the propaganda armed owned ISIS' old supporter, Qatar.

aljazeera.com/news/2016/12/iraqi-army-mistakenly-bombs-civilians-isil-held-city-161207153748815.html

No doubt the Iraqis have probably killed some civilians including some deliberately (Shia and Kurdish militias have been accused of warcrimes by more reliable sources).

The Iraqis rely almost entirely on the US for air support, which is why many ISIS insurgents survive to inflict massive casualties on the Iraqi Security Forces.

My point is that as long as ISIS embeds themselves in the populace and use civilians as shields they will not be bombed from the air. This isn't a big concern to the Syrian AF in Aleppo, thereby drawing international condemnation.

This isn't a big concern to the Syrian AF in Aleppo, thereby drawing international condemnation

It's basically a political game. USA and UK are all too happy to sell weapons and provide intel to Saudis to bomb hospitals, schools and funerals.

There must be a whole heap of weapons company CEOs having a very happy Christmas after getting tasty bonuses for arming the Saudis and co.

These are pictures of schools and hospitals destroyed not by Syrians but Saudis.

�

From a pure technological perspective, the Syrian indiscriminate bombing tactics make more sense than the Saudi ones.

The Saudis have latest technology including Precision Guided Munitions and US targeting and have completely neutralised Yemeni IADS. They can thus bomb accurately without fear of aircraft losses.

The Syrians have 1970s fighter bombers with WWII style weapons and thus rely on dumb bombing. Their complete lack of PGMs means accurate bombing can only be achieved by low level runs. This increases risk to pilots of being shot down by enemy IADS (which includes a variety of MANPADS and ZSUs and other AAA and even SA-8S). Thus they revert to higher level indiscriminate bombardment to reduce the risk.

----

More on fighting in Mosul: Iraqi army withdrew from hospital after fierce IS counterattack

reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-iraq-idUSKBN13X1EI

The Iraqis rely almost entirely on the US for air support, which is why many ISIS insurgents survive to inflict massive casualties on the Iraqi Security Forces.

My point is that as long as ISIS embeds themselves in the populace and use civilians as shields they will not be bombed from the air. This isn't a big concern to the Syrian AF in Aleppo, thereby drawing international condemnation.

I agree totally. Regardless of some here that constantly chant the US military is not concerned about CD.

My routine reply is : "If the USA didn't care about CD, there would be places on the planet that would look like the dark side of the Moon." Then for the intellectual academics idealists I have to add. "Using only conventional ordinance and munitions., NO WMDs …" Otherwise they get their torches and pitch forks and say I'm calling for genocide, I'm no better than the radical islamists I want to see killed, etc., etc., … Geez !

It's basically a political game. USA and UK are all too happy to sell weapons and provide intel to Saudis to bomb hospitals, schools and funeral

I look forward to the day when the US, UK, the West, etc. tells the Saudis to pound sand up their and gag in their own oil.

But that probably won't happen in my lifetime …

I agree totally. Regardless of some here that constantly chant the US military is not concerned about CD.

My routine reply is : "If the USA didn't care about CD, there would be places on the planet that would look like the dark side of the Moon." Then for the intellectual academics idealists I have to add. "Using only conventional ordinance and munitions., NO WMDs …" Otherwise they get their torches and pitch forks and say I'm calling for genocide, I'm no better than the radical islamists I want to see killed, etc., etc., … Geez ! huh?

There's too much emphasis on CD. Western forces are being strangled by restrictive ROEs.

It's why the French preferred African allies for combat missions over NATO ones in Mali.

The truth about war is if it's not fought decisively, it will drag on and civilian casualties will increase over the long run compared to a short, more decisive war.

You won't get an argument from me … The military takes it's orders from the elected civilian officials. Which I agree with and laud. However sometimes this does not make the military's job any "easier". And lengthens the conflict, etc. … And many non-combatants die either way …

Deadles – absolutely. A short and brutal war will have less casualties than a long drawn out one; and both are absolutely last resort options.

But in many corners the academic intellectuals don't see it that way. Which in turn causes conflicts to last longer and many non-combatants [and combatants] die either way. It is estimated the liberation of France in WWII. The Allies killed 60,000 French civilians. A horrible figure … but to effectively defeat the Germans it was sadly "the cost of doing business" … Again War is a very "bad business" … regardless of the economic concerns … bloodshed is very much part of the equation.

Now I'm not saying disregard CD completely. But again in the long run more deaths occur no matter what.

And of course, fanatical insurgents, like Daesh, use that against the West. As we see, they use entire populations as human shields/hostages, etc., … If Daesh knew they couldn't get away with this sort of method. They'd probably cease to use it.

The intellectuals academics say well how would you feel if those civilians killed were your kin, etc. ? The sad bottom line is the math of this sort of thing. Better to lose 1000 today than 10,000 tomorrow. So how would the intellectual academics feel now if some of those 10,000 that survived were their kin ? Again, I'm not saying disregard CD … but be very much more realistic.

In this paradigm some say this creates more jihadis, etc., … At this point, IMO, that camel has left the tent long ago. They are going to be radicalized and join regardless. And just like in conventional warfare, if the enemy reinforces troops, leaders etc. You just kill them too. Until their losses exceed their abilities to get more replacements, leaders, etc., … And lose the will to fight.

In WW2 that was indeed the cost of doing business. These days it isn't thanks to improved munitions..

Civilian casualties and friendly fire incidents are inevitable. That does not mean they should be routine or greeted with a shoulder shrug when they happen.

Once again .. NO ONE said that … But the fact remains, by being too concerned about CD, the longer the conflict becomes … the more people on every side, faction, group will die … I'm sure most understand that.

And the paradigm that fanatical islam, like Daesh, AQ etc., has created. Lends itself to more non-combatant loses. It's not only insurgent dogma, but radicalized islamists' "policy" …

There is again something to be said about what PMC posted and I agree, "A short and brutal war will have less casualties than a long drawn out one; and both are absolutely last resort options." I think radical islam has pushed this concept to very much a last resort.

Now we, the West should not disregard CD, etc., like Syria and the Russians are doing in Aleppo, etc. But I think there has to be a better balance in the way the West conducts the GWOT.

Or we will continue to fight a forever war, with all the factions of radicalized, fundamentalist, fanatical, islam. Which again, has little to do with the West at this point. But more about the Sunni-Shia divide. Along with all the various factions, tribes, ethnicities, etc., that are the seminal reason, IMO for what is going on it the Mid East, North Africa and the land that time forgot – Afghanistan …

The only thing I will "greet" … will be when all of conservation islam realizes it's really their "problem", at this point. And not the West's. And stop blaming the West for everything that is "wrong" on their world. Move into 21st Century. And stop attacking the West, at home and abroad.

They have to move away from what happened in Crusades, etc., … And hate the US for supporting Israel, etc. Seems to me this will take a very long time for this to happen, if ever.

However IMO the "best" the West can hope for is they keep their terrorist attacks, etc., to their own lands, regions, etc. among themselves. And the West will no longer have to suffer from these types of attacks … Will more moslems still be getting killed by other moslems ? Yes … but they'll be killing each other and not Westerners. It is their problem to work out … not ours … That is the hard, cold, dark, reality of the situation … IMO …