So, How’s the Fight Against Daesh Going?
Remember those little conflicts with Daesh that have been ongoing in Iraq and Syria for a while? (I say “conflicts” because from my perspective they are indeed multiple separate, apparently uncoordinated efforts.) You know, the ones the POTUS pledged to “accelerate”? The ones that the POTUS said would require no US “combat troops” or “boots on the ground”?
Well, we have some recent updates from the Pentagon and the IC regarding the “big picture” status of operations against Daesh. And it turns out things are apparently going . . . a bit slowly.
Yes, we’ve supposedly beaten up their financial infrastructure somewhat via air strikes. But on the ground things don’t exactly seem to be going well.
Per Pentagon sources, since December US allies have retaken a 5% of the territory Daesh held in Iraq at maximum extent. That’s an average of a whopping 1% per month.
At that rate, it will only take 55 more months (40% had been recovered prior to December) – or until December 2021 – to eradicate the Daesh regime in Iraq. Behold the Swift Success, doubters!
Oh, and regarding retaking Mosul: don’t hold your breath. Last week the US Director of National Intelligence said that it’s “unlikely (Daesh) would be pushed out of Mosul, Iraq’s second-largest city, during the Obama administration”. Gee, that’s . . . wonderful. Just freaking wonderful.
Even so, things seem to be going substantially better for US allies opposing Daesh in Iraq than in Syria. Per Pentagon officials Daesh controls about the same amount of territory in Syria today that it did in January.
Oh, and did I mention that it appears we now have a “small number” of us troops on the ground in Libya opposing Daesh elements there as well? I guess US involvement in two simultaneous and poorly thought-out and unsuccessfully executed interventions based on fatally flawed strategy less than perfectly successful interventions against radical Islamic forces just isn’t enough for the current Administration.
Fox News has an article giving more details about the above. IMO it’s worth a read.
National Security and Foreign Policy competence: that’s not what this Administration “serves for dinner”.
Category: Foreign Policy, Military issues, Terror War
But, but, but, Dear Leader says:
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/13/politics/obama-cia-isis/index.html
Sounds like the former Secretary of State did a bang up job in Iraq and Libya over the past few years.
Say it with me; “At this point, what difference does it make?”
A – bodaprez doesn’t want to get blamed for not really ending that mess, so he’s leaving it to whoever gets the seat in the White House this next time around.
B – What we’ve all seen for the past 7.5 years is the Peter Principle at work, in spades.
C – We all have differing opinions on how to stop this, e.g., all-out war in the Sands, carpet bombing, etc., so what are you going to do?
You want Mosul back? Then drop a bomb on it so big, the entire area caves in and sinks into the ground. Nukes are a waste of time and money and do nothing but contaminate the area. Their only real value lies in scaring the shit out of people.
Since there is no real organization to ISIS/Daesh beyond ‘yes, go shoot at them, go plant IEDs’, old-fashioned set piece warfare doesn’t work all that well. All you get is cars exploding when someone in a JERVV drives by them. That isn’t warfare.
This mess is being left to the next in line for the Oval Office. It might be that the real answer is to send ALL the male refugees over the age of 13 back where they came from and tell them to fight for their own country. ALL of them, no exceptions. And take the women who ARE there out of the mix. They can fuck each other instead.
Aahh yas, Daesh, who according to B. Hussein 0bama & Company is “the JV Team”, still up and running while they escalate our presence there with less Mission Capable equipment than we’ve had in the past…
I wonder just what ROE’s have been issued to those deployed, GOD be with them because the current administration sure isn’t.
You know, it used to be that when our guys were fighting in some foreign land we would hear about it on the news every night complete with numbers of how many servicemen had been killed to date.
Wonder why we don’t get that info anymore? Wonder what changed that the press is no longer interested in how badly the effort is going?
To play Devil’s Advocate, if they are imploding (albeit slowly) financially and through infighting, as some reports have shown,… I’m quite okay with the US sitting back and letting that happen.
Going in and kicking their ass via direct action sets a tone and shows we’re capable, but it also helps drive recruitment for them. Having their own members desert them, disgruntled, doesn’t put US forces in danger and probably is an even greater threat to the Daesh ‘idea’ than getting their asses kicked.
The flip-side will be if those disgruntled ex-Daesh go home and try their own version of it, but still, without experienced leadership they would likely be less problematic.
So, really, it comes down to ideological momentum to me – if they’re gaining ground and followers and, over time, expect to pose an increased risk, then putting lives on the line is arguably necessary. If they’re falling apart, regardless of the speed, … why not let them? At some point when it’s only the hard-core idealists who remain, they’ll be an easier target.
If these decisions are being made for political reasons, then that’s madness. If they’re being made for strategic reasons, I have no problem with it.
if they are imploding, it seems to be slow enough to credit Ray Harryhausen for the effects.
There are also reports that people who were in Mosul when it was captured have never been allowed to leave. They are trapped there. I’m sure that they’d have left by now if they could. The infrastructure – plumbing, sewers, water, electricity – the things that we take for granted in ISIS-held places is nearly gone, which means they’ve reverted to whatever hellholes they lived in before the modern world intervened. If disease and shortages are spreading, don’t offer any help. But if not, then what?
I don’t think we should spend one more cent on this ‘project’, but I see no harm in cutting them off completely from the modern world. That means blowing up both of those dams.
Unfortunately, Bagdad – which is NOT controlled by Daesh – is downstream of both dams. I seem to remember that it’s on the Tigris. And having been there, I can assure you there’s not a helluva lot of high ground in the area.
Okay, one dam is north of Mosul. Blow it up. It will hit Mosul first. That cuts off Mosul and floods it, too.
There are two big lakes near Baghdad. I’m sure that the city can get plenty of water.
Unless you’ve got a better idea, you know as well as I do that negotiation means weakness with them. They can’t be trusted, period.
Didn’t the Russians go into Syria with their troops and planes? I know they black out the casualty numbers but even with the Russians there in force … there is no progress… ?
Did I miss a Russian withdraw? Haven’t those clown-shoes been threatening Europe and they can’t even affect daesh?
I though Russia was supposed to be this big badass resurgent power, we were all supposed to fear.
Well, early this year the Assad regime looked to be on the ropes. It’s no longer on the ropes – and Daesh is no longer expanding in Syria.
If I recall correctly, earlier this year is when Russia began to send substantial numbers of combat troops to Syria.
I don’t think these two events are unrelated.