"2 More Years for Mosul Fight?" Topic

Looks like the battle for Mosul will take a lot more than the two months the Peshmerga were predicting it would take, back in October, when one commander declared it would only take two months.

Boy, was he wrong, since the two months are already up.

A more reliable prediction is that it may take as long as two years or so, to win the battle against ISIS (assuming that happens, of course):

link

link

Here's the link to the more optimistic, and incorrect prediction:

link

"Home before the leaves fall."

With the limited use of CAS and FA, etc. and we know why this is. To limit and reduce CD. Which is a good concept. But that means the Iraqis and others involved in clearing Daesh from Mosul will be very, much slowed.

And cost the anti-Daesh forces, whoever that are more loses. Having to go house to house, room to room etc. Compounded by the fact many of the Iraqi forces still are not of high "quality" save for like their SF types. Which really are shock troops. And the other militias in the mix may be of varying quality. Again the Kurds being the most effective it appears.

But with all the various anti-Daesh forces involved, the interactions between all of them, etc. And Daesh's predilection to be martyred, etc. This probably will be a very long slog. And cost the anti-Daesh forces very many losses. And hopefully Baghdadi and/or his son will be killed in the fight.

That and attrition, etc., would go a long way to limiting Daesh's influence on some other moslems worldwide. Who want to join the jihad against the infidels, Crusaders, etc., bring about the "End Times", be martyred, etc., … Of course I've got nothing against "martyring" Daesh anywhere they are found or appear.

The battle to take Mosul and the battle against Daesh are two different things. Mosul is primarily on the Iraqi Army with the Kurds merely peripheral to the actual city fight. As has been stated, the overall Iraqi troop quality and a serious political unwillingness to inflict CD or suffer casualties makes it a slow slog at best.

The actual fight against Daesh will never be won although it can be knocked back into one more fringe Islamic Radical group. Daesh morphed from AQ in Iraq when the Shia majority under the spectacularly incompetent and corrupt al-Maliki managed to turn the bulk of the Sunni minority back into AQ-MK2 (Daesh) supporters. Daesh is fairly squashed in Libya and Nigeria and not terribly successful in Afghanistan but still present. Iraq and Syria and for that matter any nation with a large Sunni population and a Wahabist toe hold will likely always have a lingering Daesh presence as will 'lone wolf' type disaffected in the West but, absent real effort at stupid which both the Iraqi and Syrian governments have demonstrated, it can be limited to something equivalent to the current state of Al Qaeda, present but not a true existential threat to established nation states.

True … but in the shot run, Daesh is defending and holding Mosul. So that is a first step, I'd think. And loss of territory and assets, etc., that Daesh suffers is a move in the right direction. And yes, all this revolves around the much larger Sunni-Shia (un)civil war/conflict.
Along with many/some moslems having distain for the US because of our support of Israel and have for many decades. Well up until recently anyway …

Mosul is under siege and attacks which have previously bogged down due to high casualties inflicted on blue forces will resume with fresh reinforcements. The city should fall within the next few months.

The effort to retake Raqqa hasn't started yet, so it would be premature to predict its recapture at this point in time.

The Kurdish Peshmerga general's rosy prediction is predicated on their participation in the actual battle itself. Political considerations thus far have kept them out of the battle inside the city itself, since Mosul has a sunni population and "should be captured by sunnis and not shias or kurds."

If all the anti ISIS forces could actually stop fighting each other and cooperate then the fight would be over sooner .In the mess that is the Middle East sides do not necessarily want another side to do well Iran want an excuse to stay in the region, the Turks and Kurds hate each other and the Iraqui government can't see its own forces suffer as that is what keeps them in power Add in the sensitivity of supposedly avoiding civilian casualties to avoid media attention and everyone is careful

Imagine back in the 1945 Battle of Berlin what would have happened if the media and league of Nations demanded a halt to the fighting to evacuate civilians and to bring in supplies and medicine and at the same time the Russians start fighting the approaching allied armies as well. The Nazis could have held on a lot longer.

Mosul is under siege and attacks which have previously bogged down due to high casualties inflicted on blue forces will resume with fresh reinforcements. The city should fall within the next few months.

Yes, that appears to be the situation. Hopefully it will be over in a few months ? As I said, with the limited use of CAS and FA, etc. To limit and reduce CD. Which is a good concept. But that means the Iraqis and others involved in clearing Daesh from Mosul will be very, much slowed. And at a very high cost.

The effort to retake Raqqa hasn't started yet, so it would be premature to predict its recapture at this point in time.

The question may be who will attack first to recapture Raqqa. The US and Kurds, etc., were gearing up for this attack. That at least was reported a month or so ago.

Frankly, IMO, let Assad with his Russian, IRGC, etc., allies take it. It is Assad's territory whether some in the West like it or not. And let the Syrians and islamists, etc., bleed each other out. With Russian CAS in support of course.

And the US/Coalition needs not to lose anymore blood and treasure. However, you may see CD at the level of Aleppo … sadly.

And no matter what happens in Syria or Iraq, the Sunni – Shia battle will continue. As well as all the tribal, ethnic, etc., conflicts that are/will continue to occur … The West needs not to shed anymore of it's own blood on a region that is at war with itself. And has been for sometime and will probably continue in the future and beyond.

And it appears few there really wants peace until their own conflicts are resolved, (if ever ?). Which may be until most of one side or faction is be eliminated. The West wants no part of that. And really can't stop it anyway …

The Kurdish Peshmerga general's rosy prediction is predicated on their participation in the actual battle itself. Political considerations thus far have kept them out of the battle inside the city itself, since Mosul has a sunni population and "should be captured by sunnis and not shias or kurds."

Given the disasters and general slaughter of non-combatants when Sunnis 'freed' Shia cities and vice versa, I think that's a rather GOOD thing.

Yes, it could be an act of genocide of "biblical" proportions. If/When the Shia and other factions get their hands on Daesh and other Sunnis, etc. However, I don't care what happens to Daesh or who does it … Just so they are no longer a threat … to anyone.

Daesh would absolutely love the Shia militias to slaughter the Sunni population of Mosul. If you want to guarantee a resurgence of ISIL everywhere in the Sunni world just as they are in decline, give them a 'Pearl Harbor/Holocaust/Cawnpore' moment.