Started By
Message

Pentagon's New Strategy for Defeating ISIS. LONG

Posted on 1/16/16 at 6:34 am
Posted by TigerFanInSouthland
Louisiana
Member since Aug 2012
28065 posts
Posted on 1/16/16 at 6:34 am
Via militarytimes.com

quote:

IRBIL, Iraq — The U.S. military headquarters here is outfitted with maps showing a "forward line of troops" — a FLOT, in military-speak — that divides northern Iraq's Kurdish region from territory held by the Islamic State group. The line is precisely drawn, following the contours of specific roads and berms. A mere 40 miles west, the terrain is pocked with trenches, fighting positions, razor wire and armed checkpoints. It's like a scene from Europe during World War I, one American official says.


quote:

It's a jarring change for the personnel who've spent much of their careers fighting on far more ambiguous battlefields. Steadily, though, they are coming to grips with it as, during the past several months, the Pentagon and the White House have fundamentally shifted their strategy for defeating ISIS. The way forward will mean potentially more key U.S. support troops on the ground to back friendly local forces who will wage the fight to retake ISIS-held territory.


quote:

The new plan calls for fighting the terror group like a conventional enemy, relying on traditional military tactics such as maneuver-style warfare and attrition. This has replaced last year’s approach, dubbed the “Iraq First Strategy," which was widely criticized as ineffective, especially after ISIS fighters seized the city of Ramadi in May. Instead, the U.S. and its allies now intend to confront the extremist group and its force of about 30,000 fighters, targeting their strongholds and resources across Iraq and Syria simultaneously.


quote:

Political considerations in Washington and Baghdad will limit the size of the U.S. force on the ground, so the campaign relies heavily on a dizzying patchwork of local ground forces — often with competing agendas — moving in large formations to isolate and ultimately invade the two major ISIS strongholds: Mosul in Iraq and Raqqa in Syria. In Mosul, the plan calls for the Iraqi army to attack from the south, while the Iraqi Kurdish peshmerga squeeze Islamic State forces from the north and east. In Syria, U.S. forces will support friendly militias in the northeast as they push south toward the Islamic State's defacto capital.


^^What could go wrong with this plan?

quote:

"Our campaign plan's map," Defense Secretary Ash Carter told soldiers at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, on Wednesday, "has got big arrows pointing to both Mosul and Raqqa."


quote:

In a secondary front, the Iraqi army will move west from Ramadi, the recently reclaimed capital of Anbar province, up the Euphrates Valley and toward the Syrian border. Another key pillar of this strategy requires cutting off the Islamic State's primary supply line to the outside world by pressuring Turkey to seal its border with Syria.


quote:

does signal that this is going to be a much more conventional fight than the [Obama] administration had first calculated."


quote:

Meanwhile, Iraqi leaders have begun imposing restrictions on the size and scope of the U.S. military force in their country.


Glad to see they're taking responsibility for their own country nowadays.

quote:

The new battle plan has many potential pitfalls, of course. And there are no clear plans for ousting ISIS militants from their strongholds in Syria west of the Euphrates River, where several rebel factions are fighting to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who has been buoyed by Russian military forces that have established an air base along the Mediterranean coast. For the U.S. and its allies, Russia's presence and activity in the region only further complicates an already convoluted pocket of Syria’s five-year-old civil war.


quote:

This campaign will take years to execute, officials say. But it is underway, both operationally and politically. Carter's recent trip to the region, which included stops here in Irbil, Baghdad and Turkey, set things in motion.


There's more in the article about how we're gonna attack the cities but this is the general plan.

Guess we're gonna crank up the heat over there.

What's the OT think?

This post was edited on 1/16/16 at 6:35 am
Posted by gar90
Member since Sep 2009
6037 posts
Posted on 1/16/16 at 6:48 am to
Poli Board

TLDR
Posted by TigerFanInSouthland
Louisiana
Member since Aug 2012
28065 posts
Posted on 1/16/16 at 7:10 am to
quote:

Poli Board


I'd rather have a civil discussion with actual points being made.

quote:

TLDR


Well that's why I put "LONG" in the title. Also, assuming the 90 in your name means you were born in 1990 which would put you at 25-26 years old, I would hope you could read more than picture books.
Posted by Statestreet
Gueydan
Member since Sep 2008
12951 posts
Posted on 1/16/16 at 7:14 am to
Send in the drones
Posted by Stingray
Shreveport
Member since Sep 2007
12420 posts
Posted on 1/16/16 at 7:18 am to
This is all dependent on having a large ground force that takes direction. I don't know if they actually have.
Posted by windshieldman
Member since Nov 2012
12818 posts
Posted on 1/16/16 at 7:18 am to
Pretty cool article. A relative of mine actually took part in some training of Iraq and Kurds a few years back. According to him Abadi? is a lot better than Maliki at leading the army and reducing sectarian violence. They now have Sunni tribes in their side better than say a year ago. Taking Ramadi was a big step forward. Peshmerga are also decent fighters in the area. Even though Iraq and Kurds don't get along they really do need each other right now. The issue is what happens after ISIS is defeated. Hopefully they can take Mosul soon.
Posted by TigerFanInSouthland
Louisiana
Member since Aug 2012
28065 posts
Posted on 1/16/16 at 7:21 am to
quote:

This is all dependent on having a large ground force that takes direction. I don't know if they actually have.


That's my biggest concern too. ME country militaries have a history of being poorly trained and undisciplined.

Also, the bit about many different local militias getting involved is a red flag. Like they said in the article...too many different agendas.
This post was edited on 1/16/16 at 7:24 am
Posted by windshieldman
Member since Nov 2012
12818 posts
Posted on 1/16/16 at 7:22 am to
I'll add that some of Iraqis military is actually a prett good fighting force. Their main army has plenty of problems but some of their elite forces are pretty damn legit.
Posted by kilo1234
Member since May 2014
1431 posts
Posted on 1/16/16 at 7:25 am to
quote:

Their main army has plenty of problems but some of their elite forces are pretty damn legit.


Ha! Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...*breath*...haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Posted by Mo Jeaux
Member since Aug 2008
58797 posts
Posted on 1/16/16 at 7:31 am to
Why would we want to defeat our IS allies? They haven't defeated Assad yet.
Posted by windshieldman
Member since Nov 2012
12818 posts
Posted on 1/16/16 at 7:31 am to
quote:

Ha! Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...*breath*...haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!


I knew I'd get that but according to someone who took part in training over there, and many recent articles they are one's who truly went through the full training by Americans. Not these BS month long how to shoot a gun like we have done in the past. They were the last one's to leave Ramadi and only left after conventional army retreated. They also had way more kills than regular army and their counter terrorism units overall are pretty small. Many accounts of them being good fighters. Now the regular army on the other hand is a joke.
Posted by dagrippa
Saigon
Member since Nov 2004
11296 posts
Posted on 1/16/16 at 7:32 am to
I don't like the idea of giving zealots what they want but it seems like a conventional war could wipe Isis out.
Posted by kilo1234
Member since May 2014
1431 posts
Posted on 1/16/16 at 7:34 am to
Sure, they are legit...when compared to the regular Iraqi Army.

That's like thinking someone is NBA material because they beat a handicapped opponent in 1-on-1.
Posted by TigerFanInSouthland
Louisiana
Member since Aug 2012
28065 posts
Posted on 1/16/16 at 7:38 am to
quote:

counter terrorism units overall are pretty small.


This is what fighting insurgency needs imo. Small units typically work better in this environment than a huge army. Now Fallujah and Ramadi when we were in Iraq we had huge division, battalion, etc. attacks but the USMC was able to work wonders over there because they're taught small unit tactics, hell majority of ops takes place on company sized elements and below in the USMC. Whereas the army really isn't taught them that much.
This post was edited on 1/16/16 at 7:40 am
Posted by windshieldman
Member since Nov 2012
12818 posts
Posted on 1/16/16 at 7:42 am to
quote:

Sure, they are legit...when compared to the regular Iraqi Army.

That's like thinking someone is NBA material because they beat a handicapped opponent in 1-on-1.


There has been quite a few people who fought along side them say they are as top notch as they come. Iraqi military when under Maliki was never put in a position to succeed. Mosul didn't just fall in a day like so many people think it did. In Mosul, it was a shiite dominated army in a Sunni city that dealt with suicide bombers and snipers for months on end. They had no support from Baghdad and most had little training. A machine gun will only go so far against an armored vehicle with a suicide bomber driving it.

Even as of now there are only a few thousand well trained Iraqi soldiers and many are staying in Baghdad for obvious reasons. The taking back of Ramadi obviously was helped by air strikes but according to reports the Iraqi army, many of whom finally had the first units of well trained soldiers used pretty good strategy and overall did a nice campaign to take it back. Airstrikes, especially with the way we are doing it doesn't mean squat without a ground force.
Posted by windshieldman
Member since Nov 2012
12818 posts
Posted on 1/16/16 at 7:43 am to
quote:

This is what fighting insurgency needs imo. Small units typically work better in this environment than a huge army. Now Fallujah and Ramadi when we were in Iraq we had huge division, battalion, etc. attacks but the USMC was able to work wonders over there because they're taught small unit tactics, hell majority of ops takes place on company sized elements and below in the USMC. Whereas the army really isn't taught them that much.


I agree, but small tactical units can only do so much with armored vehicles being driven by suicide bombers coming at you, especially when regular army has retreated.
Posted by windshieldman
Member since Nov 2012
12818 posts
Posted on 1/16/16 at 7:48 am to
I should add that I'm not military, only a fireman I do love keeping up with the ME and have many friends who fought over there. It kills me to read about Iraq losing Ramadi and other cities after so many American soldiers were killed over there. I'm glad the Iraqi army was at least as of now able to take back Ramadi. I hope we never send another soldier over there other than training and logistics.
Posted by TigerFanInSouthland
Louisiana
Member since Aug 2012
28065 posts
Posted on 1/16/16 at 7:55 am to
quote:

agree, but small tactical units can only do so much with armored vehicles being driven by suicide bombers coming at you, especially when regular army has retreated.


Not much will do against those cause a lot of times they just drive up as if nothing is going to go down.

But SMAWs and AT-4's will do the trick against em. Assuming they aren't right on top of you. And you gotta remember, the gunners on the machine guns are specifically trained to have "accuracy by volume" they're putting a shitload of rounds on that target. A lot of the time they do stop the driver.
Posted by windshieldman
Member since Nov 2012
12818 posts
Posted on 1/16/16 at 8:07 am to
quote:

But SMAWs and AT-4's will do the trick against em. Assuming they aren't right on top of you. And you gotta remember, the gunners on the machine guns are specifically trained to have "accuracy by volume" they're putting a shitload of rounds on that target. A lot of the time they do stop the driver.


We sent about 5,000 of those recently which was one of the reasons they were able to take back Ramadi. They didn't have them in first fall of Ramadi and Mosul. I would imagine machine gunners many times do stop them. I think its just having to deal with armored suicide bombers coming at you from all angles, many different vehicles at a time all throughout the day that gave the army issues. Plus poor command, from several accounts though, many Iraqi soldiers wanted to stay and fight, the head guys were the one's that called for retreat.

Also, my in-law that helped train over there said in many cases, their regular foot soldiers were better trained then some of their commanders, who were only commanders b/c they had been in the army longer but never had any real training.

Saying all that, I understand the U.S. army was able to defeat them dealing with suicide bombers and IED's and such. Obviously, big difference between our military and Iraq. We are the best, and they are, well, nowhere close.
Posted by Oyster
North Shore
Member since Feb 2009
10224 posts
Posted on 1/16/16 at 8:20 am to
So what are they going to do with the void created when Isis falls? There will just be another group of crazies to take their place.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 2Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram