Iraqi Army May or May Not Have Retaken Central Ramadhi

Discussion in 'World Events' started by Yazata, Dec 27, 2015.

  1. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,694
    Over the last couple of weeks the Iraqi army has moved into a number of outlying districts of Ramadhi, trying to more or less encircle the Islamic State fighters holding the city.

    Yesterday, they launched an attack into the center of town, where the Anbar province government building and the police headquarters are. Resistance was fierce yesterday. Today the BBC is reporting that (according to the Iraqis) they have retaken the government compound. Other news sources report that they are close to doing so.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35186105

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...t-forces-set-retake-vital-strategic-town.html

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/islamic...di-stronghold-amid-iraqi-offensive-1451232693

    Apparently gunfire coming from the government buildings tapered off today. So the Iraqis say they ordered their troops to advance and found the buildings empty (but infested with improvised explosive devices).

    Everybody seems to agree that the Islamic State defenders are retreating into an adjoining northeastern residential area of Ramadhi along with hostages they've taken and may try to escape from there to rejoin their fellow fighters. The Iraqis seem to have them surrounded, but not in a continuous line, so it might be possible for them to sneak past the Iraqis.
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2015
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,626
    "A hollow victory" perhaps?

    It will be interesting to see what Daesh has been up to whilst in control of this city for such an extended amount of time.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    At least , so far, the Iraqi military hasn't run away from this fight. I just wonder if they will eventually when they encounter a much fiercer enemy as the days go by. We will see. I just do not think sending in American ground forces is the way to go for the Iraqi forces must learn how to protect themselves or else American troops will need to hold their hands for decades just like they do with South Korea.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,694
    The Iraqi forces (mostly Sunnis, I believe) actually seem to have fought well, in a tough urban street fighting environment too.

    Their success in Ramadi has to be heartening for the Iraqi army as they contemplate eventually trying to retake Mosul (Iraq's second largest city).

    ISIS' problem is that they are surrounded by enemies and are fighting on all fronts. I guess that their Jihadist ideology kind of requires that they do that, since in their view they are surrounded by infidels and apostates that they believe they are ordered by God to conquer. So they have limitations on how many resources and how many men they can devote to any single battle. So they are often going to be outnumbered. Reportedly they only had about 1,000 to 1,500 men in Ramadi, about 1/3 of whom have been killed/wounded/captured in the battle and the rest are probably trying to escape as we speak.

    I also read where all the foreign ISIS fighters in Ramadi were pulled out on Christmas day, leaving local Iraqi defenders behind. That might have demoralized those remaining, leading to their seeming collapse on the 26th. Or maybe ISIS is trying to conserve its forces and hence is less eager to have them fight to the death.
     
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2015
  8. pjdude1219 screw watergate i want to know about zaragate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,693
    while i agree the iraqi forces needed to be blooded and gain confidence, thats a rather uninformed denigration of the south korean military. while the US does back up the ROK the south korean military is no slouch and most of the armies equipment is home grown.
     
  9. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    If the South Korean government can stand on its own then why don't they tell the American military to leave? Because they don't have the confidence in their own military is one reason so they need the crutch of American forces.
     
  10. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,878
    Well, I think the major reason US forces are still present in South Korea is deterrence. North Korea knows an invasion of the South puts the US squarely in the game because of the American troop presence in South Korea. While North Korea may be willing to risk an attack on the South, it would never risk an attack on the US. That's the reason most countries who want US military bases on their soils. They want the deterrence an American troop presence provides their countries. That's why Eastern European countries like Estonia, Poland, Ukraine, and Latvia want an American troop presence and why Australia has requested and received an American troop presence.

    The last time North Korea invaded the South, it almost succeeded in taking over the South. The North Korean Army outnumbers the South Korean Army by a factor of 2. The North has a huge army.
     
  11. pjdude1219 screw watergate i want to know about zaragate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,693
    um you really need this one spelled out for you? i mean really the answer is pretty fucking obvious. because you don't throw away an advantage for shits and giggles.
    so than i guess the US doesn't have confidence in its military because were part of NATO. Seriously this argument so monumental ignorance in geopolitical happenings not to mention the slightly racist overtones.
     
  12. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    Slow down there. I'm only pointing out to you that American military isn't in many NATO countries but is ready to help them if need be. So why is it that only a few countries have American troops in them and they are as much at risk as South Korea from the Russian advances? America is again going to have to hold Iraq's hand for many years to come as well as Afghanistan's. I just don't see why American lives must be lost to countries who should be able to protect themselves.
     
  13. pjdude1219 screw watergate i want to know about zaragate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,693
    Do you have any questions that the answers to aren't glaringly obvious
     
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2015
  14. mathman Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,457
    Iraq supplied the ground troops to take Ramadi. U.S. helped with air power.
     
  15. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    Since you have not addressed my query I will just say that America shouldn't be the policeman of the world.
     
  16. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,878
    Who else would want to police the world besides Russia or China? And the last thing the world needs are fascist policemen. Who else has the economic, political, and military power needed to be the world's policemen? No one.

    And the world needs a policeman.
     
  17. pjdude1219 screw watergate i want to know about zaragate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,693
    i see no point in answering. that you can't not grasp the answer yourself means you lack the ability to understand well enough to be a meaningful participant in such a discussion. and i repeat do you have any questions that the answers to aren't glaringly obvious? look if you can't even understand the very basics of military strategic thinking you probably shouldn't be commenting on it.


    Your a rightwinger aren't you? you don't seem to understand the concepts of obligations and promises, not accountability.
     
  18. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    Actually I think differently about many things. As an example I think that women should have the right to have an abortion. I also think that people have the right to choose their own lifestyle no matter what it may be as long as it does not interfere with others. People should have the right to own weapons but not ASSAULT RIFLES though. Those are not conservative views for the most part. Putting American military in harms way all over the world isn't very smart for that requires trillions of dollars and that seems ridiculous to me.

    Americas military should be for the defense of America for the most part and not to prop up so called democratic politicians who don't really have democracy in mind but only to shove their views down the throats of their citizens. Look at Iraq now. The leaders there won't allow any other religious beliefs into their Parliament and America is supporting that line of thinking. Just like Saddam and his way of governing, he wouldn't allow other religious factions to become part of his regime. So America kicks out one dictator and props up another one, where is the sense in that?
     

Share This Page