Normally, I'd Think This Was The Dumbest Move Possible

[Minimalist]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015...his-spring

U.S.: Major Offensive Planned Against ISIS In Mosul This Spring

Telling the enemy where and when you are coming is usually frowned on.

“The backbone of surprise is fusing speed with secrecy.”

Carl Von Clausewitz

But, here, I wonder if it is not a ploy to draw ISIS into a battle of attrition that they cannot hope to win?

If they bugger out of Mosul, they will lose their shining rep among the more violent camel-fuckers and, if they mass to fight, they will be slaughtered in droves.

[abaris]

But, here, I wonder if it is not a ploy to draw ISIS into a battle of attrition that they cannot hope to win?

I say the same thing I said before the Bush loony toons invaded Iraq. It's easy to go in, but there's no easy out. Especially when your opponent is begging for a holy war to draw more followers to their side. The US is playing the terrorist's game since 2001.

Jeb Bush aside, who's as informed as a donkey's ass when it comes to foreign policy, ISIS has right now about 30.000 active followers. And that's taking the highest estimates. If the US wants to run their PR campaigns, they just have to continue as they do, or escalate.

[Crossless2.0]

If the US wants to run their PR campaigns, they just have to continue as they do, or escalate.

With ISIS alienating and outraging Sunnis throughout the region, this seems like a good time for the U.S. to 'lead from behind' and let Jordan, Egypt, etc. do the ass-kicking for a change (as always, we can supply arms, money, intelligence, and "advisors"). There's no reason to legitimize ISIS in the eyes of young men who are itching to fight the U.S. If they wish to join up, let them do so with the knowledge that their fight is against their own people. As ISIS is degraded, the prospect of joining up to fight other Arabs will seem less and less attractive.

This is a Sunni cancer. Let the Arabs wield the scalpel.

[Rev. Rye]

Bear in mind that, as far as I understand, ISIS is a guerrilla force, and from what I've seen throughout history, Western-style armies tend to have a nigh-on impossible time trying to defeat a guerrilla movement with popular support. Guerilla groups are like the hydra: If you cut off the head, two will grow back. That's why the French lost Algeria, that's why the Castro regime has stayed in Cuba for so damn long, and that's why America lost in Vietnam and Iraq.

I wouldn't have much of a hope for the forces of good if they do go through with it.

[Minimalist]

I'm talking military strategy, Abaris, not political strategy. We've had time to evaluate the effectiveness of air strikes in Kobane. Kobane, which was strategically pointless, was made to seem like some important symbolic target and the end result was that the Kurds kicked their asses with significant aerial support.

Mosul could be the same on a much larger scale. It is strategically important and having taken it ISIS cannot afford to lose it without looking like losers. Looking like losers is bad for recruitment. However, when they had their successes it was by showing up and quickly overrunning their opposition. Being tied to a static war in defense of a position does not seem to be their thing. They are not equipped for it.

Think of the 6th Army at Stalingrad. I'm sure we have officers who have read Clausewitz and Sun Tsu for that matter:

“Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Somebody has an idea, here.

[abaris]

Somebody has an idea, here.

Really, after having witnessed the unfolding events after 9/11? Yeah, everybody can have an idea. Even village idiots have them off and on. Question is, if it's the right idea, given the impressive display of global ignorance and Gung Ho by the Bush administration and their advisors.

And you can't detach war strategy from politics. At least according to Clausewitz, who said, war is just politics using different means. Sounds silly, but he may have had a real idea there. You can't wage war without knowing and understanding your enemies and their goals. And that's where I'm really doubtful when it comes to American foreign policy.

[Minimalist]

The exact quote is:

“War is nothing but a continuation of politics with the admixture of other means.”
― Carl von Clausewitz,

This is skipping over the talking stage and getting right to the "other means."

Mosul is the big prize they captured. We're telling them "we are coming."
They can either stand and fight or withdraw. Withdrawal would, by far, be the smarter move but can they do that and maintain their credibility among the firebrands?

If they fight and lose the brand gets tarnished too. The big problem with conquering a place is that you have to defend it or abandon it.

The more I think about it this is not telling them anything they did not already know. They had to figure the Iraqis would be coming after them and Mosul is the best target to go after. What else is there? Fallujah?

[Chas]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015...his-spring

U.S.: Major Offensive Planned Against ISIS In Mosul This Spring

Telling the enemy where and when you are coming is usually frowned on.

“The backbone of surprise is fusing speed with secrecy.”

Carl Von Clausewitz

But, here, I wonder if it is not a ploy to draw ISIS into a battle of attrition that they cannot hope to win?

If they bugger out of Mosul, they will lose their shining rep among the more violent camel-fuckers and, if they mass to fight, they will be slaughtered in droves.

So, no downside.

[abaris]

The more I think about it this is not telling them anything they did not already know. They had to figure the Iraqis would be coming after them and Mosul is the best target to go after. What else is there? Fallujah?

The major mistake being constantly made for the last 14 years is to take fanaticism for stupidity. It starts with Massud being killed two days before 9/11. They fully expected an assault on Afghanistan and removed one of the most prominent figures of the opposition. And what is the goal behind these televised executions of Westerners? Compared to the carnage they leave behind on a daily basis among fellow muslims and minorities living in the region, these beheadings are a drop in the ocean. But they are a bait, since Westerners are all the West ultimately gives a shit about. It evokes the desired outrage and they're hoping for retaliation of some kind.

The West would be well adivised to consider that the other side has a plan too. Their goals may be otherworldly but their strategy isn't. Also, just like some christians we meet on this board on occasion, they're working towards their version of Armageddon. They want that big clash of what they consider good versus evil. They want a big surge in their favor and the best way to achieve that is for the West overreacting with another invasion and by inflicting large numbers of civilian casualties.

[Minimalist]

I have no doubt they want to draw the US into a protracted ground war (and idiots like McCain and Graham want to help them) and Mosul would be a great spot, see earlier allusion to Stalingrad. But it did not work for them in Kobane because while air power alone can not win a war the lack of air power can cost you one. And I don't think Obama is stupid enough to play that game with them.

This is not a question of fanaticism or stupidity. Their greatest victory was capturing Mosul. Now that they have it they can either try to keep it or run away. Running away might be smarter but they would pay a heavy political price. But they will pay the same price if they fight and lose.

Were I commanding ISIS, I would order a phased withdrawal after filling the town with booby-traps and leave a small force of dedicated fanatics to die in defense of the town. What would you do?