Originally, the Pentagon planned to retake Mosul from the Islamic State by the summer of 2015. Then it was by the fall. Now it will be 2017 at the earliest. But remember: the Islamic State is losing! “This caution reflects in part an acknowledgment that Islamic State’s control over Mosul may not be as fragile as the U.S. military initially believed.” Apparently the Pentagon has stopped believing its own falsified reports.
“U.S. Official Ratchets Down Expectations On Retaking Mosul,” by Damian Paletta, Wall Street Journal, February 9, 2016:
…Lt. Gen. Vincent Stewart, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told the Senate Armed Services Committee the situation in parts of Iraq is too unstable for the U.S. and Iraqi forces to conduct such a mission….
In January 2015, Gen. Lloyd Austin, head of the military’s Central Command, told The Wall Street Journal the U.S. and Iraq had begun preparations to retake Mosul, one of Iraq’s largest cities and one that is pivotal to controlling the country’s north, by that summer.
By the following month, The Wall Street Journal reported that the Pentagon had begun to temper expectations, aiming to retake the city perhaps by the fall of 2015, because of concerns that the Iraqi army needed more training. The Pentagon wanted to weaken Islamic State’s grip on Mosul, perhaps by bombarding the area with airstrikes, before Iraqi ground forces went in….
Overall, he added, “Mosul will be a complex operation, and so I’m not as optimistic…It’s a large city. I’m not as optimistic that we’ll be able to turn that in the near term. In my view, certainly not this year.”This caution reflects in part an acknowledgment that Islamic State’s control over Mosul may not be as fragile as the U.S. military initially believed. In deferring a campaign to retake it, the Pentagon could be handing the military strategy off to the next White House.

Angemon says
Let me guess: the locals are in league with the “JV team”…
doug brown says
Well, it really don’t matter anyway, because the jig is up once Putin gets there.
Matthieu Baudin says
Will there be anyone left to save by the time Mosul is taken back, whenever that comes to pass?
I hope it’s not just a fight for rubble and a kilometre of dry dirt.
Georg says
Just look at what a slog it was for Marines to retake Fallujah, which has c 300,000 residents. Mosul may have three or four times as many residents currently, and is occupied by a group much more capable, devoted and vicious than the insurgency overrun in Fallujah. Couple this with a comparison of Iraq’s army to the US Marine Corps and the picture is bleak.
Also, there are enormous complications to the operation. For one, mass civilian casualties would be a PR boon for IS and terrible for the coalition. What better for IS than a botched operation against the throne of their caliphate where scores of Sunnis are slaughtered? The confrontation at their capital will be symbolic of the direction of the wider war and the fate of IS; it’s the same with Raqqa. These are mega high-stakes. It seems like victory would have to be certain, and as pointed out above, the ingredients for an inevitable success are not noticeably absent; they aren’t just unassembled, or yet to be found, but are probably not even conceived of.
And IS defeat benefits Iran.
Westman says
It may be Russia and Iran that defeat ISIS.
Russia seems far more willing, after the experience with Chechen separatists, to be as brutal as necessary. The US hasn’t been willing to go to that level since WWII and Hiroshima. Limits on the use of force against civilians is exactly why North Vietnam was not defeated and why the Russians previously left Afghanistan.
I totally dislike the notion of wholesale destruction, but nothing less will stop movements based on ideology held by the majority of citizens. They will be your friend during the day, come around in black pajamas at night or plant roadside bombs. These ideology-based conflicts should never be started if the intention is controlled hostilities.
Georg says
Great analysis. It seems there are mixed reports as to the level of reverence by the average person in Mosul for IS. Initially they were welcomed to a large degree, but there is an at least significant, if not widespread, number of people working to subvert IS from within the city. IS picked up on this as bombings were so accurate that only inside, ground-level information could have provided sufficient direction. This is why IS began taking measures to dismantle communications and went into a mania of publicly executing “spies” in order to scare anyone straight who might think of informing on them.
The only problem I see with the notion that wholesale destruction of the tumor, as with Nazis, would work is that adherence to Islamic barbarity is metastasized geographically in a way which Naziism or the Japanese during WWII had not. Although Nazis were all over Europe, they needed their production lines which were essentially in Germany, and hence the Allies deciding enough was enough and flattening anywhere tanks, etc. were being produced. The Japanese were of course literally confined on an island and could be presented with the choice of surrender or annihilation. Even if Russia and Iran, or whoever else, flattened Mosul and Raqqa it seems eerily possible IS could do a bit like they did with Kobane and let it be flattened only to reemerge elsewhere. They’re a bit more like marauders than a military in the classic sense, so it seems they need to become immensely unpopular on the ground among people who can do something about their presence.
Now, their unpopularity on the ground is something that scares most of us to death. Are they or aren’t they among Sunnis? How much do Sunnis dislike them, especially as compared with their feeling toward the Shia government? Of course Shia despise IS, but it was Sunnis who helped push out Al Qaida in Anbar during the Awakening. But it seems Sunnis will never get the kind of aid from the now Iran-dominated Baghdad they did when Americans were there throwing their weight around and making executive decisions. What a mess. I just wish we could become energy independent and effectively seal ourselves off from the entire place and people.
Gerryww says
Here is a reply I left about what you spoke about. The awakening…………..I think the Iranian Russian comment that they will take care of Syria is correct. American policy of believing Assad is the problem is the extremist view of Assad. Remember when McCain also believed it and wanted to arm those supporting an overthrow. Many were also Al Qaeda. Islamic extremists. This administration also bought into it. Currently the US propaganda says Assad and the Russians are killing civilians.They are not. The refugees coming across the border into Turkey for example are the muslims fleeing the fighting in Aleppo. Turkey allows this because they wanted to see Assad overthrown and supported those doing that, just like the US. Among the muslims refugees are the extremists who go elsewhere, their views intact. Ask yourself why very few Christians and other non Muslims are fleeing. Because Assad is not abusing the people who originally lived there because they were non violent. They were secular Syrians. The administration has learned this painfully and their previous policy against Assad has lead to all the suffering in Syria. While they have not admitted it, will not admit their past mistakes, they are realizing this. They are letting this strange coalition between the Kurds, the Syrians and Iranians fight in Syria. And America’s role in defeating the problem they actually created, is now freeing Iraq. Someone mentioned Kobane being flattened. American air power helped do that. That is the reason for the caution in Mosul. America could defeat ISIS in Mosul in a heartbeat. But the new commander of the war, General MacFarland, who took Ramadi back from Al Qaeda in 2006/7, an Al Qaeda that then proclaimed Ramadi the capital of the Islamic Caliohate, and now retook it last month, did it both times with the purpose of leaving some infrastructure intact and people alive. The first time the moderate Sunni tribal leaders became the Awakening and resulted in the surge that gave relative peace across Iraq. Mosul will be taken by the Iraq military, with help from the Kurds and American special ops and air power. And doing it right, not carpet bombing, will leave those against Islamic extremism alive, a group who like the Kurds will reject it, if it ever raises its ugly head again. A painful lesson learned because American leadership believed the extremists in Syria who said Assad was the problem. They fooled the American leadership from both parties. Hopefully America under MacFarland will repair the damage the right way. He realized you had to leave something behind, or you were just part of the problem and that the support of those you take the care to protect, is just as, if not more, important, as taking strategic territory. One last point. When the surge defeated Al Qaeda the first time, where did they flee to? Syria. This is the big ridiculous circle, the do over, caused by poor American leadership eager to belive everything without confirmation. Cautious is not a word in its vocabulary when it comes to believing their own spin. They sucked in those who told them want they wanted to hear. Another lesson learned …..hopefully…….
And I will add for you, MacFarland has cut off the supply Isis supply lines to Mosul, one if the reasons they retook Sinjar.
Westman says
You are on the mark, Georg. The only way we can disengage from the mess is a national effort and goal, similar to going to the Moon, to develop complete independence from oil.
If the West did stop using oil, there would be little money for terrorists like ISIS and the ME would devolve to a clear choice of Muslims, themselves, getting rid of fundamentalists in order to survive. Careful determination of who is a fundamentalist can only be done by natives who are fluent in language and customs.
I think your idea is not only brilliant but also the only solution open to the West. Get off oil and many intractable problems will resolve without our intervention.
quotha raven says
To Georg – who says ” Couple this with a comparison of Iraq’s army to the US Marine Corps and the picture is bleak.”
Could you please explain what you mean here? Do you mean to say the US Marine Corps compares badly w/ the Iraqi army?
Cheers!
quotha raven
Georg says
Quite the opposite, I think US Marines are the most formidable ground force on Earth. And as we have seen, the Iraqi Army ran from IS on multiple occasions and seems to be comparatively ragtag. Billions and billions of dollars worth of equipment, including something like 2,000 Humvees, as well as Abrams tanks, were abandoned by them when confronted by a couple of hundred IS.
My point was this is what it took to clear out insurgents in a city 1/5 or so the size of Mosul:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7jiiUFvfO0
How much faith can we have in the Iraqi army to have similar success in a city vastly larger, much farther from Baghdad (also closer to Raqqa/Syria), and occupied by a group drastically more formidable?
Georg says
*are noticeably absent
POTUS will not have this on his legacy.
Well Done says
Obama essentially gave Mosul – and all of Iraq – to ISIS, treating Iraqi and American lives that were lost there as meaningless. The man is a maggot. There is no way he is American or Christian of any sort. He’s not even moderate moslem – those lost Iraqis were and are moslem. . He’s a non-American Jihadi. He has nothing but contempt for Americans. He belongs in Gitmo, telling us ALL he knows about ISIS.
billybob says
Could somebody explain to me why there isn’t an embargo on that city? Like – nothing enters, nobody, or any goods. How long do you suppose ISIS will enjoy being Mayor of Mosul when there is no electricity, gas, food, water, even firewood… I give them a month. Meanwhile, you have lots of drones flying over the city night and day shooting at the jihadi to give cover for people to leave. You have armed groups on the inside killing jihadis and making a breakout. I guarantee you you will have more survivors that way then there will be in the case of an invasion, with house to house fighting, in which case the citizens that survive all the shelling will just die of their wounds and hunger anyway.
Westman says
Billibob,
Apparently that strategy is expected to work, shortly, for Russia’s, Iran’s, and Assad’s forces in Aleppo, Syria. They have cut off supplies to Aleppo and encircled the Nusra Front and other rebel fighters.
http://www.npr.org/2016/02/09/466108370/with-russia-help-syrian-government-forces-about-to-take-control-of-aleppo
Georg says
They won’t simply cut off the city as it’s thought to be morally unacceptable. In short, we care more about the innocent people of Mosul than we fear IS. A miserable choice, but collateral damage is something which is increasingly a consideration in use of force. A while back they bombed Mosul banks thought to hold large sums of cash acknowledging they’d be willing to accept up to 50 civilian casualties. To leave over a million people to starve to death is unlikely to be the optimal choice. The governments are probably trying to make the least-bad choice, which is probably a ground invasion within the next x years.
“War is hell.”
-William Tecumseh Sherman
mortimer says
The ideology of Islam give ISIS is strength. Western commanders are not taught this doctrine, however, they learn it on their own, because they are curious to understand the enemy.
Georg says
Yep. Saying IS isn’t Islamic is… What did Forest Gump say about stupid?
Marcieann says
I’ve never seen FOREST GUMP. What did he say about stupid?
Georg says
“Stupid is as stupid does.”
-Forrest Gump
GuntherL says
Why would anyone trust a nation that allies itself with Turkey, Qatar and Saudi-Arabia?
The US doesn’t want to retake anything from ISIS.
Remember when they said last year that the fight against ISIS would take years?
Well, the Russians and Iranians have crushed them in Syria.
Get out of Syria and Iraq. Leave it up to the Russians, Iranians and Kurds and things will be solved soon.
Try to solve Detroit, that’s already bad enough.
Jeremiah says
Is that a military assessment or an Obama prompt? The Kurds will take it before then with their bare hands it they have to. It fell in a few days and it will be taken in a few days.
abbas says
The US government claims it has launched several air strikes against ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) militants in Iraq. These are the same ISIS militants that the US and its client states are supporting in Syria; the same breed and stock of militants they let loose like wild dogs to lynch Gaddafi and wreak havoc in Libya.
It is traditional US diplomacy to play a double game — on the one hand training, arming and financing terrorists to overthrow or destabilize non-compliant governments, while at the same time condemning those same malcontents when it is convenient to do so. It is common knowledge that “al-Qaeda” got its start as CIA mercenaries against the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s. That fact didn’t stop President Bush from declaring his delusional and totally fraudulent “war on terror,” vowing to eliminate the CIA’s very own Frankenstein creation…..
Reports are circulating which suggest that ISIS’s leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, was trained by the Israeli Mossad in psychological warfare; that he is essentially an actor playing the role of “Islamic radical.”
Gerryww says
I think the Iranian Russian comment that they will take care of Syria is correct. American policy of believing Assad is the problem is the extremist view of Assad. Remember when McCain also believed it and wanted to arm those supporting an overthrow? Many were also Al Qaeda. Islamic extremists. This administration also bought into it. Currently the US propaganda says Assad and the Russians are killing civilians.They are not. The refugees coming across the border into Turkey for example are the Muslims fleeing the fighting in Aleppo. Turkey allows this because they wanted to see Assad overthrown and supported those doing that, just like the US. Among the Muslims refugees are the extremists who go elsewhere, their views intact. Ask yourself why very few Christians and other non Muslims are fleeing. Because Assad is not abusing the people who originally lived there because they were non violent. They were secular Syrians. The administration has learned this painfully and their previous policy against Assad has lead to all the suffering in Syria. While they have not admitted it, will not admit their past mistakes, they are realizing this. They are letting this strange coalition between the Kurds, the Syrians and Iranians fight in Syria. And America’s role in defeating the problem they actually created, is now freeing Iraq. Someone mentioned Kobane being flattened. American air power helped do that. That is the reason for the caution in Mosul. America could defeat ISIS in Mosul in a heartbeat. But the new commander of the war, General MacFarland, who took Ramadi back from Al Qaeda in 2006/7, an Al Qaeda that then proclaimed Ramadi the capital of the Islamic Caliphate, and now retook it last month, did it both times with the purpose of leaving some infrastructure intact and people alive. The first time the moderate Sunni tribal leaders became the Awakening and resulted in the surge that gave relative peace across Iraq. Mosul will be taken by the Iraq military, with help from the Kurds and American special ops and air power. And doing it right, not carpet bombing, will leave those against Islamic extremism alive, a group who like the Kurds will reject it, if it ever raises its ugly head again. A painful lesson learned because American leadership believed the extremists in Syria who said Assad was the problem. They fooled the American leadership from both parties. Hopefully America under MacFarland will repair the damage the right way. He realized you had to leave something behind, or you were just part of the problem and that the support of those you take the care to protect, is just as, if not more, important, as taking strategic territory. One last point. When the surge defeated Al Qaeda the first time, where did they flee to? Syria. This is the big ridiculous circle, the do over, caused by poor American leadership eager to belive everything without confirmation. Cautious is not a word in its vocabulary when it comes to believing their own spin. They sucked in those who told them want they wanted to hear. Another lesson learned …..hopefully.
Charli Main says
The defeat of the Islamic State must be dragged out for as long as possible—-all those mega oil and weapons deals still to be made. Got to keep big business and the shareholders sweet.
dwight hogg says
The US could be energy independent along with Canada – whether this would be economically possible I do not know – but to cut off all our oil imports from the Middle East would give me a great deal of satisfaction and would create thousands of jobs in Canada and the US.
Lioness says
The US cannot win a war against a herd of charging sheep, and the so-called war on ISIS is a war in words only. When you have a president that supports islamic supremacy, where is the will to fight jihad going to come from?
Georg says
Here is a stark portrayal of what can be expected, on steroids, in Mosul: