Pentagon Reveals Details Of Iraq Military Offensive Involving Up To 25,000 Troops

Time for round 3.

Pentagon Reveals Details Of Iraq Military Offensive Involving Up To 25,000 Troops

First, the US openly allows potential Jihadist elements (don't worry, the answered "moderate" on the questionnaire) to call in B-1B strikes, and now in all its Sun Tzu-esque brilliance, the Pentagon is handing out not only issuing press releases on its military invasion calendar, but its troops deployment numbers as well.

According to Reuters, the United States sees an Iraqi military offensive involving 20,000-25,000 troops to retake Mosul from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria in April-May, a U.N. military official said on Thursday.

It was unclear just how many of these tens of thousands of preannounced troops will be CIA "agents on the ground", how many will be US "army trainers" and how many will be plain old General Issue. We expect the number to be substantially higher than what is publicly revealed.

According to Reuters "no decision has been made on whether small numbers of U.S. military advisers might need to be on the ground close to Mosul to direct close air support, the official said."

Source

With Ukraine not being violently enough anymore it`s time to light up the next place.

Let`s being the speculations about what the False Flag is going to be to go after Assad and what Russia`s response will be ?

Well with that sniper movie doing so well at the box office America will have no shortage of volunteer cannon fodder anyway.

No matter how well trained and equipped they are, as soon as the 'weekend warrior' Iraqi militia encounters its first heavy resistance they will drop their guns and run, just like they did last time.

Then NATO can bomb their own war materiel. Hey, this is turning out to be pretty lucrative…

Google search results

So is this an actual war plan?

Or is it a theoretical exercise? As in "okay so the balloon goes up and we get told to retake Mosul, what do we need?" Because the military has this fascination with writing plans for possibilities that may or may not ever occur.

And I do love how you manage to turn a DoD plan to retake Mosul into something about russia lol. Really, no length is too great to bring it back, is it?

With so many domestic services neglected and so much cash being pumped into the military is it any wonder why people would think that these ''terrorist'' groups are manufactured?

War is very good business

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

U.S. sees Iraqi offensive to retake Mosul in April-May time frame

www.reuters.com...

The main attack force being assembled for the Mosul campaign would include five Iraqi army brigades, the official said. Three smaller brigades would act as a reserve force, and three brigades of Kurdish peshmerga troops would contain the city from the north and isolate it from Islamic State forces further west.

A so-called Mosul fighting force consisting mainly of former Mosul police officers and tribal fighters also is being assembled for the assault, the official said. About a brigade of counterterrorism troops also would be employed in the fight, he said. The total number of troops would be 20,000 to 25,000.

The aim of Iraqi and U.S. military leaders is to have all five Iraqi army brigades that comprise the main attack force participate in U.S.-led training currently going on in Iraq. That will begin once the present batch of 3,200 trainees rotate out of the five training sites, the official said.

Hmmm, that is strange that they tell everything about it.
Guess it is for Iraqi bragging and scare tactics.

It is highly unusual for the U.S. military to openly telegraph the timing of an upcoming offensive, especially to a large group of reporters.

Asked why the exception was being made for the Mosul offensive, which the Pentagon has described as a pivotal battle in the overall campaign in Iraq, the official said it was a reflection of the confidence of Iraq, which had devised the battle plan.

They are going to put the fear into ISIS and make them mass in that area to repel the retaking, and then carpet bomb the crap out of them....

This is to probably watch how ISIS reacts to the news.
Do they prepare and bolster their own forces in the area?
Or do they burn everything to the ground and let them have it back?

I can see the psychology at work with this report.
Just wonder what it will do...

a reply to: Shamrock6

And I do love how you manage to turn a DoD plan to retake Mosul into something about russia lol. Really, no length is too great to bring it back, is it?

And I love how you respond and not even read the link.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Oh I tried. But then I realized that 98% of your OP was just the quote from the blog and then some poor Russia comment, so I gave up on the "source".

Blogs are opinions. So essentially your OP was a copy/paste of the blogger's opinion, with a few words of your own added in. About russia.

How stimulating

originally posted by: Dabrazzo
Well with that sniper movie doing so well at the box office America will have no shortage of volunteer cannon fodder anyway.

Well the UK Iraqi War 3 plans is coming out soon so don't toot your horn too loud!!!

a reply to: Shamrock6

So you were just too lazy to even read the few remaining lines ?

It wasn`t the bloggers opinion alone, because I have come to the same conclusion a long time ago and vented it on the forum...

But don`t waste any opportunity to bash someone who doesn`t writes what you want to read.

I will make it up to you this time...

America is great and Putin is evil, I hope you`re happy now ?

a reply to: Dabrazzo

I haven't seen the movie but what I hear is that it doesn't glorify war so I doubt people will be lining up to join the fight. American Sniper is not Top Gun.

originally posted by: intrptr
No matter how well trained and equipped they are, as soon as the 'weekend warrior' Iraqi militia encounters its first heavy resistance they will drop their guns and run, just like they did last time.

Then NATO can bomb their own war materiel. Hey, this is turning out to be pretty lucrative…

Google search results

Yes they did drop their weapons and ran.
There is more to the story though.

It has been reported that in the initial days of ISIS dash into Iraq, Iraqi commanders loyal to local tribes and/or former ties to Saddam regime days, were the ones who stood down and disappeared in the night long before the grunts guarding the gates, because they were in on it. When Isis were at the gates of these places the troops were leaderless, commandless, lacked any communication since there waqs nobody at the other end of command to contact so naturally they were no longer a fighting force and flight happened.
It was well planned treachery possibly years in the making and our Commander in Chief enabled it by broadcasting troop withdrawal dates.
Since that initial sweep in their Toyotas, it hasn't gone that way so much.

I wonder why this suprises anyone. Iraq has launched several offensives over the last year all made public first because the Iraqis have no OPSEC. They have all had success to a certain dergrees. They are meant to take back small bits of territory and bleed ISIL as much as possible while forcing ISIL forces in the open either to reinforce or retreat and open themselves up to air strikes. These are very sound tactics tailored to the forces available.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Its from zerohedge...

I would not waste your time on it.

Ugh what's with all these articles being posted lately:/

I read somewhere that 4,000 U.S. were deploying to Kuwait immediately with tanks and such. Maybe they're going to advise Iraqi forces.

Found it...

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Complete speculation on my part but I would have to believe that:

a) the actual offensive will happen much sooner than "announced", so as to take ISIS off guard with their defensive preparations incomplete, or;
b) the attack, by the large force being assembled, will not be centred on Mosul at all...but rather on smaller ISIS-controlled communities farther West, designed to further isolate the ISIS forces inside of Mosul (to solidify the current siege of Mosul).

It makes far more sense to retake large swaths of territory between Mosul and the Syrian border, thereby cutting off the Eastern reaches of the ISIS forces in Iraq (including Mosul), than to launch some kind of "pre-announced" frontal attack on well-supplied entrenched fighters within a large metropolitan area.

Cut them off from weapons, ammunition, reinforcements and leadership support...then start picking them off steadily with special forces actions, drones strikes, snipers, etc. They will eventually run out of resources, manpower and energy...and the city can re retaken without the need for wholesale infrastructure destruction, or presenting large numbers of visible military targets for the enemy.

In short, I don't buy this "plan" at all.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

I'll go you one better. I think the Iraqi troops were delivering the weapons to the front and leaving them behind… how about that?

Instant ISIS.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
I read somewhere that 4,000 U.S. were deploying to Kuwait immediately with tanks and such. Maybe they're going to advise Iraqi forces.

Found it…

Theres your sign. Politicians "debate" the issue, the media asks "Boots on ground?" and meanwhile, the troops are already on their way…

From your link…

The brigade, which will be equipped with tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles, will be the largest U.S. ground troop force currently stationed in the Middle East. It appears the armed service men and women are being sent overseas to engage in combat missions against ISIS.

"Tanks" aren't 'advisors'…

I wonder, sometimes. When the U.S. sits back and does essentially nothing about the ISIS threat in the middle east, they are accused of supplying and aiding the terrorists.

When the U.S. suggests going in and taking the threat head on, they are labelled warmongers/child killers/usurpers/etc.

So, which is it? It can't be both.