The Briefing Room
General Category => Military/Defense News => Topic started by: mystery-ak on February 28, 2015, 03:08:30 pm
-
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/27/pentagon-scrubs-major-attack-on-isis.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/27/pentagon-scrubs-major-attack-on-isis.html)
Nancy A. Youssef
Uh… Never Mind
02.27.15
Pentagon Scrubs Major Attack on ISIS
Just days ago, the generals were trumpeting plans to knock ISIS out of its most important stronghold in Iraq. Now, those plans are on indefinite hold.
The U.S. military’s goal to retake Iraq’s second largest city from the self-proclaimed Islamic State has been pushed back several months at least, defense officials told The Daily Beast. That’s a major shift for the Pentagon, which recently announced that the first major ground offensive in the war against ISIS could come in the next few weeks.
Defense officials once hoped that Iraqi troops could move into Mosul by the Spring and reclaim the city from ISIS. Now, those officials say, Fall is more realistic. And even that date was tenuous.
“It is an Iraqi decision but we don’t want to do anything until they are ready and can win decisively,” a military official explained to the Daily Beast. “They cannot now.”
It’s another sign that the U.S.-led campaign against ISIS isn’t going nearly as smoothly as the American government had hoped. At the Pentagon Friday, Defense Department spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby shied away from any kind of timeline, saying: “I can’t put a date certain…nor say April is out.”
Rather, he suggested that the Iraqi forces were not imminently ready for such an offensive.
“I don’t think we are there yet,” Kirby said. “There are gaps and seams that need to be closed.”
A group within U.S. government pushed for a Spring offensive out of concern that the next opportunity to launch such a campaign would not be until the Fall. But these policymakers appeared to have been trumped by those fearing that Iraqi forces are nowhere near ready.
The shift away from the Spring began in the last few days, in part because officials could not agree publicly about whether the Iraqi forces would be ready for the fight. Defense Intelligence Agency Director Lt. Gen. Vincent Stewart told the Senate Armed Services Committee Thursday that it would be “six to nine months, best estimate,” before Iraqi forces could be able to launch a major counteroffensive against ISIS.
“When we talk about the six to nine months additional training, it is to deal with an urban fight, which is very, very different, very complex, requires a great deal of skill, great deal of precision to be successful,” Stewart said.
The timeline is expected to come up publicly again Tuesday when Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Army Gen. Martin Dempsey testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Dempsey isn’t expected to address the timeline for such an offensive directly. Rather, he’ll argue against the potential “rush to failure,” as one defense official explained.
Earlier this month, a U.S. Central Command official gave a briefing to reporters saying that Iraqi forces could be ready by April or May to launch an offensive to take back the northern Iraqi city of Mosul from ISIS, where the group is entrenched. ISIS has controlled Mosul since June, when Iraqi troops fled their posts as ISIS forces stormed the city.
The proposed offensive would take as many as 25,000 troops assigned to at least eight Iraqi brigades, the CENTCOM official said on the condition of anonymity. The forces would seek to root out 2,000 ISIS fighters, he added.
U.S. forces would support that campaign by the air, but the CENTCOM official did not offer any specifics.
Even before it was delivered, the CENTCOM briefing set off a flurry of criticism in both Iraq and the United States. In the weeks leading up to the announcement, Iraqi leaders said their troops would not be prepared to striker until the fall, at the earliest. Iraq’s two best divisions now protect the capital and there did not appear to be a sufficient force to move in and replace them there during a potential offensive.
There were sectarian considerations, as well. The Iraqi divisions who would likely lead such a campaign are majority Shiite forces; Mosul is a Sunni-dominated town and such sectarian delineations are important to all involved. Many worried that Sunnis in both Iraq and the broader Arab world would not accept a Shiite-dominated military force leading the campaign.
Still others were angry that the U.S. military decided to telegraph the mission and the details of it. Republican Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham blasted the announcement in a letter to President Obama, calling the disclosure a risk to “the success of our mission, but could also cost the lives of U.S., Iraqi, and coalition forces.”
Since December, when U.S. officials first suggested a spring timeline, the Iraqi government repeatedly pushed back publicly, saying its forces were not ready. And yet U.S. officials kept suggesting such a campaign was possible. The CENTCOM briefing outraged many in Baghdad who felt pressured. In a televised address last week, Iraqi Defense Minister Khaled Obeidi would not confirm the proposed timeline, but rather rejected the U.S. decision to name specific months for an operation.
“This is urban warfare and we have civilian populations. It is very important to take time and accuracy in setting the plan for this battle,” Obeidi said.
All the while, there were inside the Pentagon that launching a plan too soon could have long term adverse affects on their seven-month air campaign against ISIS.
CENTCOM officials appeared eager to launch the campaign in anticipation of the summer and holy month of Ramadan, when troops would be fasting from sunrise and sunset, making such an offensive all but impossible.
But as criticism of that plan mounted, defense officials increasingly began stressing readiness and not timelines. Rather than an American-pushed spring offensive, officials stressed, it was an Iraqi-led operation that would be decided by the government there.
“we’ve said that the Mosul offensive could occur as early as spring, but—and we offered this caveat a number of times during the briefing—the Mosul op will be conducted by the Iraqis with our support and it won’t happen until they’re ready and we’re certain that they will be successful,” said Air Force Col. Patrick Ryder, a CENTCOM spokesman, in response to a Daily Beast query.
U.S. politicians also spoke more about the military force and less about the timeline.
“I’d be very surprised if they would be ready,” California Rep. Adam Schiff (D) told CNN Thursday. “I wouldn’t want to see the Iraqis go before they are ready.”
The battle for Mosul would be the most intense of the fight against ISIS. At its peak, the city was home to 1.5 million people and ISIS has spent months building barriers and digging trenches to protect the city. Indeed, ISIS has said it considers Mosul a key part of its proposed Islamic caliphate, one that it is prepared to defend.
That said should it lose control of the city, it would be all but impossible for the group to retain its grip on nearly a quarter of Iraq as it would lose thousands of fighters and millions of dollars in procured military equipment, as well much needed momentum.
-
Good grief.
-
I think Egypt, Jordan and several other groups of people that take issue with ISIS are more than capable of dealing with the problem themselves. Maybe we should spend that money rebuilding our dilapidated roads and bridges instead. You know, stuff that actually helps the United States.
-
I think Egypt, Jordan and several other groups of people that take issue with ISIS are more than capable of dealing with the problem themselves. Maybe we should spend that money rebuilding our dilapidated roads and bridges instead. You know, stuff that actually helps the United States.
Ron Paul, is that you?
^-^
That does sound like something Ron Paul would suggest.
-
The Iraqis have had 12 years of training, and with 25,000 Iraqi troops, they are not yet ready to take on 2,000 terrorists, in familiar territory?
Now, as to these news articles: Please realize that a lot of what goes out is misinformation, to deceive and mislead.
-
What happened? Did ISIL phone the Pentagon and say the dates were inconvenient for some reason?
Amazing how the Worm does keep that promise he made - as far as military action goes, he does indeed run the most transparent administration in history. :chairbang:
-
Ron Paul, is that you?
^-^
That does sound like something Ron Paul would suggest.
You honor me friend. ^-^
-
Pentagon Scrubs Major Attack on ISIS
Are the Twitter servers down?
-
I think Egypt, Jordan and several other groups of people that take issue with ISIS are more than capable of dealing with the problem themselves. Maybe we should spend that money rebuilding our dilapidated roads and bridges instead. You know, stuff that actually helps the United States.
Why would one be exclusive of the other?
-
Why would one be exclusive of the other?
They don't have to be, but I can come up with a never ending list of things the funds we waste fighting endless wars could be better spent on.
-
They don't have to be, but I can come up with a never ending list of things the funds we waste fighting endless wars could be better spent on.
I can come up with an even longer list of things we fund that are both unnecessary and wasteful, and certainly less urgent than stopping the re-incarnation of the Third Reich in our time.
-
They don't have to be, but I can come up with a never ending list of things the funds we waste fighting endless wars could be better spent on.
You mean like the stuff the Stimulus Package was supposed to fund, but didn't?
I won't say it, but you know what I think of someone who would rather build "roads and bridges" than fund our national security against a vile and evil enemy..... **nononono*
-
I can come up with an even longer list of things we fund that are both unnecessary and wasteful
You're absolutely right; those things should stop being funded as well. That still doesn't mean we need to fight an unwinnable war in the Middle East. If change is going to happen over there it will happen from within their own culture. Lots of people in that region have demonstrated that they are willing to stand up to ISIS. Let them fight their own battles.
-
Ron Paul, is that you?
^-^
That does sound like something Ron Paul would suggest.
Yeah, but if it came down to protecting America from evil, Ron Paul would make the right choice, I think.
Barack Hussein Obama will not.
-
You mean like the stuff the Stimulus Package was supposed to fund, but didn't?
I won't say it, but you know what I think of someone who would rather build "roads and bridges" than fund our national security against a vile and evil enemy..... **nononono*
"I won't say it, but I'll insinuate it so I am basically saying it anyway."
-
You're absolutely right; those things should stop being funded as well. That still doesn't mean we need to fight an unwinnable war in the Middle East. If change is going to happen over there it will happen from within their own culture. Lots of people in that region have demonstrated that they are willing to stand up to ISIS. Let them fight their own battles.
We're going to fight this war. Anyone who doesn't think that we are is not paying attention.
We are their ultimate enemy and goal.
Knowing that, and I know that because that's what they're telling us, and it is stupid to ignore someone who tells you, over and over again that their purpose and their goal is to kill you, then I prefer fighting that war on their soil over ours.
So, we should bomb them there until they figure out that it is in their best interest to change from within.
I can't put a dollar figure on how much I think we'd be willing to pay as a nation to NOT have another 9/11 type attack, or films of beheadings on the shores of Lake Michigan.
-
We're going to fight this war. Anyone who doesn't think that we are is not paying attention.
We are their ultimate enemy and goal.
Knowing that, and I know that because that's what they're telling us, and it is stupid to ignore someone who tells you, over and over again that their purpose and their goal is to kill you, then I prefer fighting that war on their soil over ours.
So, we should bomb them there until they figure out that it is in their best interest to change from within.
I can't put a dollar figure on how much I think we'd be willing to pay as a nation to NOT have another 9/11 type attack, or films of beheadings on the shores of Lake Michigan.
How will waging war in the Middle East stop a small group of Islamist extremists from committing an act of terror against the United States? Killing more of them makes them hate us more and it makes them more desperate. If anything we'd be increasing our chances of being attacked. ISIS will never have the military capability to actually wage war against the United States; they could only ever sneak attack us, and that is something we don't have the ability to prevent.
-
How will waging war in the Middle East stop a small group of Islamist extremists from committing an act of terror against the United States?
Kill them before they develop here.
-
Kill them before they develop here.
Are you seriously naive enough to believe if we kill enough people there won't be enough extremists left to organize a terrorist attack? The more homes and families that are destroyed in the crossfire the more people join the ranks of the extremists. What have our efforts accomplished so far? The problem is worse than it has ever been. Killing people over there does not reduce our chances of being sneak attacked here.
-
"I won't say it, but I'll insinuate it so I am basically saying it anyway."
Precisely.
We have an enemy who wants to kill all of us and take over our country, kill the President and fly its flag over our White House.
And rather than fight them and defeat them, you want to build roads and bridges.....
That position is shared by the faux CinC who currently 'occupies' the WH.
-
Are you seriously naive enough to believe if we kill enough people there won't be enough extremists left to organize a terrorist attack? The more homes and families that are destroyed in the crossfire the more people join the ranks of the extremists. What have our efforts accomplished so far? The problem is worse than it has ever been. Killing people over there does not reduce our chances of being sneak attacked here.
What efforts?
Lobbing a bomb here and there, pretending the problem doesn't really exist, and being too PC to say who the enemy really is?
-
Precisely.
We have an enemy who wants to kill all of us and take over our country, kill the President and fly its flag over our White House.
Too bad for them they have no means of achieving that goal.
-
Are you seriously naive enough to believe if we kill enough people there won't be enough extremists left to organize a terrorist attack? The more homes and families that are destroyed in the crossfire the more people join the ranks of the extremists. What have our efforts accomplished so far? The problem is worse than it has ever been. Killing people over there does not reduce our chances of being sneak attacked here.
I can't kill all the ants in my house, but if I don't kill as many as I can all the time, soon my house will be overrun with ants.
Same thing.
If you allow an enemy to grow because you think you can't defeat them, all you end up with is an enemy too big to defeat.
-
Too bad for them they have no means of achieving that goal.
I'm humored by the fact that you accused Luis of being 'naïve.'
-
What efforts?
Lobbing a bomb here and there, pretending the problem doesn't really exist, and being too PC to say who the enemy really is?
We weren't able to kill enough of them to stop extremism during the 8 years Bush was in office. Surely just a few more years, right? Sooner or later, surely.
-
I can't kill all the ants in my house, but if I don't kill as many as I can all the time, soon my house will be overrun with ants.
Same thing.
If you allow an enemy to grow because you think you can't defeat them, all you end up with is an enemy too big to defeat.
Our efforts are not shrinking their numbers.
-
I'm humored by the fact that you accused Luis of being 'naïve.'
How is ISIS going to defeat the U.S military and overpower the 75 million gun owners in the United States?
-
We weren't able to kill enough of them to stop extremism during the 8 years Bush was in office. Surely just a few more years, right? Sooner or later, surely.
How many Christians were openly beheaded or crucified during the Bush years? Who was in control of Iraq during those years? ISIS?
Our military was THERE, killing THEM by the thousands. Al-Qaeda would NOT have flourished if a strong Republican, or even a patriotic Democrat (there used to be such a thing..... before you were born), were in the White House.
I have to ask this question, though........... what, in heavens name do you think will be the result of putting your head in the sand?
Will the problem go away, if we pretend it doesn't exist? Do you actually agree with the State Department and Obama that all these poor people need is a good jobs fair?
Get real, Dex. This IS the rise of a Caliphate, and they aren't going to stop just because you pretend they're no big deal.
-
How is ISIS going to defeat the U.S military and overpower the 75 million gun owners in the United States?
Ask Obama, who is starting to unilaterally disarm Americans by making bullets illegal.....
-
Our efforts are not shrinking their numbers.
I repeat............... WHAT "efforts??"
-
Our military was THERE, killing THEM by the thousands. Al-Qaeda would NOT have flourished if a strong Republican, or even a patriotic Democrat (there used to be such a thing..... before you were born), were in the White House.
We killed all those people and yet it did nothing to slow them down. We weren't moments away from the death blow before Obama took over and ruined everything. We were never going to defeat extremism with all of our military might.
I have to ask this question, though........... what, in heavens name do you think will be the result of putting your head in the sand?
Will the problem go away, if we pretend it doesn't exist? Do you actually agree with the State Department and Obama that all these poor people need is a good jobs fair?
Get real, Dex. This IS the rise of a Caliphate, and they aren't going to stop just because you pretend they're no big deal.
I'm not exactly sure how to fix the problem, but one thing I do know for sure is that it won't happen through us dropping bombs and shooting people. A cultural change cannot be forced; it has to happen from within. I also don't think ending all military operations in the Middle East will increase our chances of being attacked in the United States.
-
I repeat............... WHAT "efforts??"
Our combined efforts since 2001 and even before that. Your belief that Obama somehow magically erased all of the made up progress Bush had accomplished over there is not consistent with reality. Withdrawing our troops did not create ISIS; these people were there already. We cannot permanently occupy the Middle East. We don't have the money nor is it worth the lives we would lose.
-
I'm not getting into another 20 page debate over this. You know how I feel about it and I know how you feel about it. It's enough for me to know that history will show that I was right.
-
We killed all those people and yet it did nothing to slow them down. We weren't moments away from the death blow before Obama took over and ruined everything. We were never going to defeat extremism with all of our military might.
I'm not exactly sure how to fix the problem, but one thing I do know for sure is that it won't happen through us dropping bombs and shooting people. A cultural change cannot be forced; it has to happen from within. I also don't think ending all military operations in the Middle East will increase our chances of being attacked in the United States.
So, you DO agree with Ms Harf that we can't win the war on terror by killing people, and that Americans are too dumb to understand that, since we can't kill every terrorist, we shouldn't even try. Oy.
Also, I think you should refresh your memory on how much terrorism has grown in the last 6 years. Radical Islam is emboldened by weakness. Bush didn't do everything right, but he KNEW we were at war, and he KNEW who the enemy was. And they knew who the American military was under his leadership as well.
Obama is weak, and he has made them stronger, bolder, and more evil.
Refresh your memory on what the world was like in 2009 when Obama took office, compared to the horror going on now.
-
I'm not getting into another 20 page debate over this. You know how I feel about it and I know how you feel about it. It's enough for me to know that history will show that I was right.
Right.
Just like history showed that Neville Chamberlain was right and Winston Churchill was wrong. :seeya:
-
Pentagon scrubs or Obama scrubs? I'll bet its the latter.
-
Just to give a little perspective.
There were more American casualties on 9/11 than on the attack on Pearl Harbor.
That so many today think that responding to the threat of global Islamic terrorism in the same manner that we responded to the attack on Pearl Harbor is unwarranted and futile says a lot about who we have become as a people.
-
Pentagon scrubs or Obama scrubs? I'll bet its the latter.
Exactly. The headline is misleading.
Furthermore, there is nothing new here. Obama has been telling ISIS and all of us for years that he will not attack ISIS or even give support to those who are actively engaging them.
I am trying to understand the 'news' in this or why it was even published. We already knew this? Is this some kind of double duty reassurance to ISIS to help their moral? It seems like it.
I would love it if Obama would be half as clear that he will never attack America and Israel, as he is at consistently reassuring ISIS that he will never attack them.
We have never been given that assurance, at all. In fact, it has been quite the opposite.
-
That so many today think that responding to the threat of global Islamic terrorism in the same manner that we responded to the attack on Pearl Harbor is unwarranted and futile says a lot about who we have become as a people.
Don't you think ISIS with it's roving bands of murderers and destroying the arts and culture of victims is slightly reminiscent of Krystalnacht? There was a whole muslim division which fought for Hitler and the muslim brotherhood got it's start as a result. In other words, is history repeating itself?
-
Our efforts are not shrinking their numbers.
Hmmm...
There are ten extremists.
We kill three.
Five join their ranks.
Now there are 12 extremists.
However, had we not killed those three, there would now be 15 extremists instead on 12.
If you think that killing them is not the solution our problem, and THEY think that killing us is the solution to theirs, what you're basically saying is that we should simply committ suicide and save ourselves the money we'd spend fighting them.
-
Don't you think ISIS with it's roving bands of murderers and destroying the arts and culture of victims is slightly reminiscent of Krystalnacht? There was a whole muslim division which fought for Hitler and the muslim brotherhood got it's start as a result. In other words, is history repeating itself?
I'm afraid it is, ranger. There are so many parallels between ISIS and the Third Reich it's unnerving.
What's going on now is like Kristallnacht on steroids.
And in spite of the genocide we are witnessing, Obama, like FDR in the 30's, says its none of our business.
Only the significant difference is that we have already had our "Pearl Harbor" and many on the left STILL don't understand that we are at war against evil.