CENTCOM: Battle of Mosul could begin in April

Army Times — Fri, 20 Feb 2015 09:37:45 -0500

From: Army Times

U.S. and Iraqi military planners are gearing up for the long-awaited battle of Mosul, which will likely begin in April or May and mount a fighting force of up to 25,000 Iraqi and Kurdish troops to force out the Islamic extremists who have controlled the city for nine months.

In a rare public disclosure of future battle plans, a U.S. Central Command official outlined the operational planning for reporters in a briefing Thursday.

Current planning envisions that five Iraqi army brigades of "fighting forces," backed by three Kurdish peshmerga brigades, will "contain from the north," the CENTCOM official said.

Plans also call for a "Mosul fighting force" that will include many former Mosul police officers and Sunni tribesmen, which will push into the densely populated neighborhoods of the predominantly Sunni city, the official said.

For months, U.S. military officials have pointed to Mosul, Iraq's second-largest city, as a major milestone in the campaign against the Islamic State group, which has about 1,000 to 2,000 fighters in Mosul, the CENTCOM official said.

Mosul is the largest city controlled by the Islamic State across its territory in Iraq and Syria and is central to the group's stated intention to recreate an Islamic caliphate. Islamic State forces seized the city in June as several Iraqi army brigades offered no resistance, fleeing the advancing militants and abandoning arsenals of U.S.-made weaponry.

Preparations now underway include "shaping and isolating" the future battlefield of Mosul and providing U.S.-led training for the Iraqi troops who will be fighting. The CENTCOM official said U.S. and Iraqi military planners want to launch the invasion in April or May, in part to avoid the worst of Iraq's summer heat and this year's Ramadan holiday that begins in June.

But that timeframe will be slipped if the Iraqis are not considered ready, the official said.

"If they are not ready, if the conditions are not set ... we have not closed the door on sliding that to the right," the CENTCOM official said of the operation's timing.

About 2,600 U.S. troops are in Iraq, many of them advising, assisting and training Iraqi troops.

It's unclear whether the invasion of Mosul will include a small number of American forces on the ground with Iraqi combat troops to serve as joint terminal attack controllers, or JTACs, to help provide accurate targeting information for U.S. air support.

Pentagon officials say no American JTACs have been on the ground to this point. During the final planning phases for the invasion of Mosul, the potential need for JTACs will be evaluated and options presented up the chain of command for President Obama to consider, the CENTCOM official said.

It is highly unusual for military officials to offer planning details about future operations. When a reporter asked the CENTCOM official, who spoke during an official briefing on condition of anonymity, why he was providing the details, he said it was to show "the level of commitment [the Iraqis] have to this. ... This is their plan, they have bought into it."

The official said the overall effort to defeat the Islamic State, also referred to as ISIL, is going well.

"Militarily, ISIL is in decline," he said. "The military component, the military part of the campaign remains on track" and is "generally unfolding as planned."

He downplayed the suggestion that the Islamic State's influence was expanding beyond Iraq, saying that the group provides "leadership and inspiration" to militant forces that have been operating for years in countries like Afghanistan and Libya.

And he downplayed the attack on Feb. 13 when about 25 Islamic State militants dressed in Iraqi army uniforms attacked the perimeter of al-Asad Air Base in Anbar province. About 320 U.S. troops are helping to train Iraqi troops and Sunni tribal militias were on the sprawling base but were not involved in the fighting or injured.

The CENTCOM official referred to that as "micro-offensive capability" that exists to a limited degree despite a defensive posture overall and a broader erosion of ISIL power.

http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2015/02/19/centcom-battle-of-mosul-could-begin-in-april/23697219/

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 20 at 2015 9:45 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 20 Feb 2015 09:45:57 -0500

Why don't we try to line up corporate sponsors and sell advertising while we're at it? This is ridiculous!

Response by SFC Boots Attaway made Feb 20 at 2015 9:49 AM

SFC Boots Attaway — Fri, 20 Feb 2015 09:49:28 -0500

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member, I totally agree Sir. This is THE DUMBEST thing that I have ever seen concerning the military. What if Ike had done the same thing with D-Day?

Response by CPT Aaron Kletzing made Feb 20 at 2015 9:57 AM

CPT Aaron Kletzing — Fri, 20 Feb 2015 09:57:57 -0500

Isn't this like telling the opposing team the play you're about to run? Or maybe there is some deeper strategy at play and I missed it...?

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 20 at 2015 10:04 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 20 Feb 2015 10:04:40 -0500

I fought in Mosul in 2003. It is one hell of a city to take. If I were ISIL I would be sending a thank you letter to the US for leaking this info. They can now posture their forces to take advantage of them. If I were ISIL. I would move unit even farther north and deny the enemy the ability to contain the north end of the city. Then I would try to move around the city to attack their rear. I think this is more of a political ploy than anything else. I doubt Iraq even has that many soldiers that can conduct an attack. They had 3 brigades in Mosul and they all run away. Now they have 5 that are going to go back and fight. I am pretty sure some of the quitters are in those 5 brigades. I am sure they are going to do great if they do attack.

Response by SGT Jim Z. made Feb 20 at 2015 10:07 AM

SGT Jim Z. — Fri, 20 Feb 2015 10:07:00 -0500

OPSEC or are we trying to pull another D-Day deception plan and hit them elsewhere. I am tired of reading this from open sources and whoever posted this should be investigated for OPSEC violations.

Response by MSgt Keith Hebert made Feb 20 at 2015 10:11 AM

MSgt Keith Hebert — Fri, 20 Feb 2015 10:11:28 -0500

Hooray for opsec

Response by CPT Craig Church, ASLA, LEED GA made Feb 20 at 2015 10:25 AM

CPT Craig Church, ASLA, LEED GA — Fri, 20 Feb 2015 10:25:18 -0500

I am sure the "Extremists" are well aware of this operation and will do the same things the Vietnamese did during that war. Wait for the armies to overun their positions and then come out of holes, tunnels and caves to destroy their logistics, command and control. David and Goliath.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Feb 20 at 2015 10:52 AM

SFC Mark Merino — Fri, 20 Feb 2015 10:52:35 -0500

"Hello Sitting Bull, this is Custer. I'll be leaving my gatlling guns behind." "Hey Adolph, Does June work for you, v/r....Ike."

Response by SFC William Swartz Jr made Feb 20 at 2015 11:33 AM

SFC William Swartz Jr — Fri, 20 Feb 2015 11:33:07 -0500

Amazing that once again "we" telegraph our intentions to the people we are committing ourselves to going after...smfh......

Response by SPC Joshua H. made Feb 20 at 2015 2:22 PM

SPC Joshua H. — Fri, 20 Feb 2015 14:22:46 -0500

Have we faxed, emailed, and built a webpage in arabic so they can read the full plans yet?

There is only one way this makes any sense at all, and that is if this is a ploy to move them into an area, to clear out another area to strike at. Do I feel this is what happened? Nope, this is an epic mistake, and is going to cost A LOT of lives.

Response by SrA Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 20 at 2015 3:08 PM

SrA Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 20 Feb 2015 15:08:41 -0500

So who are the unlucky souls that this administration has sent into the fire this time? Is it the Marines that are already over there or is it the Army soldiers that are on their way over there? This is just like when they broadcast that they are sending an Infantry Brigade combat team over to Kuwait a few months ago

Response by PO2 Seth Carron made Feb 20 at 2015 10:02 PM

PO2 Seth Carron — Fri, 20 Feb 2015 22:02:46 -0500

Considering i lost count of the number of OPSEC violations they just pulled, I'm gonna chalk this up to political maneuvering/sabre rattling. Or it might be a decoy and they're planning something else. Either way it smells really fishy.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 20 at 2015 10:22 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 20 Feb 2015 22:22:49 -0500

Or maybe this is a way to fly predators, identify target packages, shape the battlefield, and get civilians out of the way prior to commencing to a large scale battle that could be very fluid and extremely dangerous in a large city. Then maybe this way we can get more insight to possible variables on the field and let the Kurds vet the squirters that leave now since they have already been in place choking at the bit to move forward but having been waiting on approval of Iraqi forces for the last 2 months.

Response by SGM Mikel Dawson made Feb 21 at 2015 12:12 AM

SGM Mikel Dawson — Sat, 21 Feb 2015 00:12:22 -0500

Why are we even seeing this? Why isn't the officials being slapped on the back of the head? Unless?

Response by SPC Johnny Velazquez, PhD made Feb 21 at 2015 12:59 AM

SPC Johnny Velazquez, PhD — Sat, 21 Feb 2015 00:59:45 -0500

I think it's a political ploy. Who in his right mind would telegraph such an offensive move? I hope I'm wrong but if not, ISIS will have the advantage. What a moronic move!

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 21 at 2015 3:05 AM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 21 Feb 2015 03:05:51 -0500

Here we go again...

Response by SPC Charles Griffith made Feb 21 at 2015 3:25 AM

SPC Charles Griffith — Sat, 21 Feb 2015 03:25:51 -0500

Proof that the CIC (as if) is totally out of his gourd when it comes to Military operations.

Response by COL Ted Mc made Feb 21 at 2015 4:09 AM

COL Ted Mc — Sat, 21 Feb 2015 04:09:42 -0500

"It is highly unusual for military officials to offer planning details about future operations. When a reporter asked the CENTCOM official, who spoke during an official briefing on condition of anonymity, why he was providing the details, he said it was to show "the level of commitment [the Iraqis] have to this. ... This is their plan, they have bought into it.""

Interesting paragraph:

[1] The planning had nothing to do with President Obama.

[2] The "Pentagon official" breached his oath of office.

[3] The "Pentagon offical" obviously doesn't give a damn about the lives of the soldiers (and cares even less about allied soldiers).

[4] Absolutely nothing whatsoever is going to happen to the "Pentagon official" who breached OpSec.

[5] No one is ever going to find out who the "Pentagon official" was.

[6] Everyone is going to blame President Obama when the plan, which the "Pentagon official" released to Da'esh, fails.

Response by GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad made Feb 21 at 2015 5:27 AM

GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad — Sat, 21 Feb 2015 05:27:29 -0500

Hhhmmm . . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/02/20/why-the-pentagon-wants-you-to-know-its-mosul-war-plan/?tid=HP_politics?tid=HP_politics

Why the Pentagon wants you to know its Mosul war plan

The Pentagon and Iraqi military commanders are hoping to avoid a massive, bloody battle in Iraq's second largest city.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Feb 22 at 2015 7:06 PM

COL Charles Williams — Sun, 22 Feb 2015 19:06:33 -0500

I think that would be 3rd battle for Mosul... I think this violates the principle of war - Surprise.

Response by CMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 2 at 2015 3:13 PM

CMSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 02 Mar 2015 15:13:32 -0500

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 2 at 2015 3:14 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 02 Mar 2015 15:14:56 -0500

From the Army Times (1944 Version)

From: Army Times

U.S. and Allied military planners are gearing up for the long-awaited battle of Normandy, which will likely begin in May or June and mount a fighting force of up to 250,000 American and Allied troops to force out the Nazis who have controlled the continent for 5 years.

In a rare public disclosure of future battle plans, a Supreme Allied Command official outlined the operational planning for reporters in a briefing Thursday.

Current planning envisions that five allied brigades of "fighting forces," backed by multiple follow on brigades, will "cross across the channel," and land at various points the official said.

Response by SGT Jim Z. made Mar 4 at 2015 12:30 PM

SGT Jim Z. — Wed, 04 Mar 2015 12:30:41 -0500

According to this article the Pentagon is calling CENTCOM's action a mistake.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/03/04/pentagon-calls-mosul-briefing-a-mistake-by-centcom.html?comp= [login to see] 70&rank=1

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 4 at 2015 2:55 PM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 04 Mar 2015 14:55:35 -0500

You gotta love how the Army talks about how important OPSEC is, yet violates it by allowing this article to come out. You'd think someone would put a stop to it before it went online and everyone started sharing it. It seems like it's only important when it involves is down range, but when it comes to this, they say "screw it" and lets everyone in the world know.

Response by SGT Joseph W. made Mar 4 at 2015 3:02 PM

SGT Joseph W. — Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:02:02 -0500

I wrote a paper in English class years ago on how "TV ready" Desert Storm was with the imbedded reporters/maps of troops movements/et al. I had and still have a problem with the 'immediate gratification' mentality. The willingness to trade our military's safety for the sake of ratings is a stick in my side. Thank you all for your service!!!

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 4 at 2015 7:40 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 04 Mar 2015 19:40:15 -0500

We preach OPSEC all the time, we punish Soldiers for violating OPSEC, but I bet no one will be held accountable for this OPSEC violation that could cost Soldiers lives.

Response by CPT Craig Church, ASLA, LEED GA made Mar 4 at 2015 7:44 PM

CPT Craig Church, ASLA, LEED GA — Wed, 04 Mar 2015 19:44:29 -0500

Some people say that these big dummies in ISIS are like what happened when Hitler and his Storm Troopers were harassing Jews and claiming territory in the 1930"s, give me a break, are you kidding? In no way do these people match the horror of the Nazi Regime. No way. Nor are they claiming 1/100th of the lives that were lost under Hitler. Some people just don't know history and the deaths that occurred by 1915 exactly a century ago. World War I was already under way. The the 20th Century with Hitler, Stalin, the Khmer Rouge, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, Rowanda, and all the other "dirty wars" had claimed millions of lives. Read this article;

http://cnsnews.com/commentary/patrick-j-buchanan/best-times-or-worst-times

If we think that this is the end times because of these morons then our perception of the threat is over exaggerated. Yeah, yeah we should stop Iran from getting nukes, I agree. But I suggest we think more about why ISIS came into being rather that simply think about their destruction. Their sons and daughters are little now and some day they will fill their dead fathers and mothers shoes to shoot at my grandchildren maybe, who knows. Let solve this issue with real world solutions and not just big guns and bombs.

Best of Times or Worst of Times?

Despite our outrage over the barbarity of ISIS — beheadings of journalists and aid workers by "Jihadi John," and of Christians on a beach — this century does not remotely rival in evil the bloodiest century of them all, the 20th.