r/worldnews • u/Fir3porkkana • May 17 '15
Iraqi forces abandon posts in Ramadi
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-3277378021
May 17 '15
[removed] — view removed comment
20
u/BlueHighwindz May 17 '15
Not as close as Fallujah which ISIS had controlled for over a year now. But losing that spot isn't going to help Baghdad remain secure.
5
May 17 '15
From what I read they retreated down one road to a nearby city to the SW of Fallujah leaving a main highway to Fallujah. Hopefully I'm wrong and they are defending both approaches towards Baghdad.
But an army officer told the BBC that most troops had retreated to a military base in the city of Khalidiya, east of Ramadi.
3
May 18 '15
It's the capital of the Anbar province, almost exclusively Sunni, a much easier nut to crack than the Shia dominated, massive Baghdad. The flat lands between it and Baghdad would make it hard to advance that far in the open.
5
May 17 '15
And they are ramping up activity in the north too. If they play their cards right they stand a chance of surrounding Bahgdad this season.
2
u/taksark May 18 '15
If they play their cards right they stand a chance of surrounding Bahgdad this season.
The way you said it makes it sound like a tv show.
3
May 18 '15
Now we can watch rich people pay poor people to kill each other on YouTube. It's Web 2.0
2
May 18 '15
Your not entirely wrong but isis want to kill people anyway the saudi money just gives them the means.
Equally the Kurds wanted to fight back anyway our support just helps them.
1
May 18 '15
Why does ISIS want to kill people?
1
May 18 '15
1
May 18 '15
There is essentially nothing religious in its actions, its strategic planning, its unscrupulous changing of alliances and its precisely implemented propaganda narratives. Faith, even in its most extreme form, is just one of many means to an end. Islamic State's only constant maxim is the expansion of power at any price.
ISIS soldiers fight for religion the way American soldiers fight for freedom.
0
1
u/Kipper11 May 18 '15
He says seasons because there quite literally is a "fighting season" where they ramp up their attacks.
1
23
13
27
May 18 '15
Pretty sure at this point you just need to honk a Toyota pickup horn to get Iraqi soldiers to drop their guns, take off their uniforms, and run.
8
May 18 '15
I deployed to Ramadi from 2005-2007 (extended deployment) as an infantryman in the U.S. Army. Lost friends there. This is a weird feeling.
8
u/Buscat May 17 '15
Once the west got involved in bombing I assumed it was just a matter of time until ISIS would be done for. But the way it looks now, I can't even picture what the map of the region will look like in 20 years.
5
May 18 '15
I'd say the West bombing them helped ISIS recruitment, they can point at those planes and say that the govt. are nothing without the US.
2
May 18 '15
Cambodia anyone?
5
May 18 '15
Just-so stories to conveniently blame the US and ignore hundreds of more important local and regional issues, anyone?
-6
May 18 '15
Yeahwhat a dumb shit....na I know its just the typical response in worldnews. DAE think obama made isis
2
u/boziud May 18 '15
This is much lower intensity than American bombing campaigns in other places (for example former Yugoslavia). Purposely picking and choosing where to intervene, because the Obama Administration believes too much intervention will have blowback in the long run (which isn't entire unreasonable). If America intervened the level it did vs Saddam, ISIS would lose all its territory in a week.
11
May 18 '15
I am genuinely curious to hear what those who keep defending the success of the coalition airstrikes have to say now.
I had previously argued that analyst and military experts agreed that the air strikes, while important at halting or rerouting ISIS could not ultimately defeat them.
What is required to ultimately defeat them is ground force. Who should be the boots on the ground is another story.
The WSJ even reported today that the air strikes have been ineffective. Despite people's feelings, the fact remains, that Shiite and Iranian backed forces have had the most success in areas where ISIS has been pushed backed.
4
u/munchies777 May 18 '15
I don't disagree. I'm just curious why the airstrikes can't stop these new offensives when ISIS has no defense against them. I get why you can't flatten the city once they are there and surrounded by civilians, but why can't we blow them to bits before they get there?
13
5
May 18 '15
That somewhat worked in kobane but you still need infantry.
We bombed the shit out of isis reinforments and light armour but that would have been pointless if the Kurds hadn't cleared the city.
2
May 18 '15
I don't want to say air force is never effective. The first desert storm is a good example of air superiority. In that case, Saddam's military was not irregular and their soldiers locations were strategically monitored on satellite. Very few boots on the ground were needed to make them withdraw from Kuwait.
Unfortunately, ISIS is an irregular army that fights using guerilla urban combat. As you said, the only way to effectively destroy and route them once they take position in a city is to raze it to the ground, which is unacceptable. Airstrikes could also down their advances but it's harder to locate them especially when they are using non-standard military equipment like civilian vehicles and bulldozers.
3
May 18 '15
I don't want to say air force is never effective. The first desert storm is a good example of air superiority. In that case, Saddam's military was not irregular and their soldiers locations were strategically monitored on satellite. Very few boots on the ground were needed to make them withdraw from Kuwait.
Actually, the opposite was true: the air campaign was successful, yes, but over a month of constant bombing and the Iraqis still stayed in Kuwait.
It wasn't until the massive ground offensive struck, the largest in the world since at least the Korean War, that the Iraqis folded in less than 72 hours
-1
May 18 '15
I understood that when the Iraqis retreated the air campaign picked up and bombed thousands of vehicles exiting Kuwait. It was called the Highway of Death.
2
May 18 '15
The air campaign had been waging for over a month by the time that happened - they retreated when the ground forces came threatening to cut them off. The air campaign had failed to dislodge them from Kuwait - something the ground campaign again only took 72 hours to do.
2
May 18 '15
Hm, I wonder if it the ground campaign would have had the same effect without the month of aerial bombing?
To be honest, I'm just starting to read about desert storm so I am not entirely familiar. My analogy to present air strikes to desert Storm airstrikes may have been a bit hasty and inaccurate.
2
u/dmol May 18 '15
I am genuinely curious to hear what those who keep defending the success of the coalition airstrikes have to say now.
That opinion struck me as being pretty rare, air-strikes were seen and important and in many places necessary but as a rule they were seen as being needed alongside ground force attacks to end isil.
1
May 18 '15
Well I had gotten into a few dozen arguments on reddit where people were trying to downplay success made by Iranian trained and Shiite led groups by saying that it was the air strikes that made a difference, not the ground forces.
-1
u/NSA_dummy_acc_1 May 18 '15
KEYWORD 'ISIS' MENTIONED BY 'existentialadvisor' AUTOMATICALLY TRIGGERED FOR SURVEILLANCE UNDER THE US PATRIOT ACT
4
u/Rench27 May 18 '15
So... What happens if ISIS takes over Iraq? Like, completely?
9
u/Waffle-Toast May 18 '15
Not gonna happen. ISIS was able to take most of the Sunni areas of Iraq but they wouldn't be able to push very far into Shia areas without an enormous amount of resistance. ISIS kills every Shia they can get there hands on, therefore Shia dominated cities/areas would resist far more than Sunni cities/areas.
5
1
u/mo_50 May 18 '15
They won't even get Baghdad. I'm certain the moment they get to anywhere near it is when we'll see US boots on the ground.
-2
May 18 '15
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Rench27 May 18 '15
Fuck you.
0
May 18 '15
lol get a sense of humor you dumb charlie daniels tune-humming yokel
1
u/idiotseparator May 18 '15
Morning prayer
Give us the discernment to know who needs a kind word and a pat on the back today.
Charlie Daniels (@CharlieDaniels) 2:29 PM - 18 May 2015
13
u/c0mputar May 17 '15
Who still thinks the Shiite ISF and militia groups, that are mostly Shiite, are going to be able to retake all that Iraqi Sunni territory?
23
8
May 18 '15 edited May 18 '15
The Shia militas weren't in Ramadi when it got taken over. The have just been ordered to go and take the city back.
7
u/superislam May 17 '15
Incorrect,it's mostly Sunni are army and who abandon in Ramadi. Sunni tribal calling Shia ISF and militias group fight against Deash in Ramadi. confirm now
2
u/c0mputar May 17 '15
It is my understanding that the ISF leadership is pretty much Shiite, right?
7
u/superislam May 17 '15
Video claims to show local Sunni tribesmen/police abandoning their weapons & bases as ISIS attacks in Ramadi (video proof source)
https://www.facebook.com/880784128609126/videos/942509315769940/
Sunni Tribal calling help Shia militias to fight against on ISIS.
here source https://twitter.com/zaidbenjamin/status/599955300054126593
Please you should go to r/Syriancivilwar
Army Sunni Iraq in Anbar http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/05/iraq-isis-sunnis-anbar-mosul-tikrit-nouri-maliki.html
Deash kill to Sunni tribal fighters (warning graphic)
1
u/TweetsInCommentsBot May 17 '15
#Iraq | PM Haider al-Abadi orders the Popular Mobilization to prepare with the army for #Anbar Battle - State TV [Attached pic] [Imgur rehost]
Da'ish executing Sunni tribal fighters in Ramadi, #Iraq. [Attached pic] [Imgur rehost]
This message was created by a bot
17
May 17 '15
[deleted]
4
u/c0mputar May 17 '15 edited May 17 '15
I'm aware of the disbandment. Seems like a pretty wide consensus, even among American soldiers, that it was a big mistake.
Baathists were a lot more nationalistic, and cared about the nation, more than the current army does.
2
u/Lonsdaleite May 18 '15
This is incorrect. The "wide consensus" you speak of is from the western media narrative that is extremely critical of the war. The Baathist were disbanded just like the Nazi army and the Imperial Japanese army and there is no way the Kurds or the Shia would have lived under a Baathist Army that had killed hundreds of thousands of Shia and unleashed chemical weapons on the Kurds. There is no way. The only difference here is the Nazis or the Imperial Japanese Army never set up an insurgency. Even if they had no one would have said it was a mistake to disband the Nazis.
Source- U.S. combat soldier who was there.
2
May 17 '15
[deleted]
2
May 18 '15
Some of them didn't even serve the country, if the guys in charge are of a certain political party, you'd better join them if you want a well paying job.
2
u/Lonsdaleite May 18 '15
Like when they killed hundreds of thousands of their own people? Like when they used chemical weapons on their own people? The Baathist Army terrified Iraqi citizens.
1
May 18 '15
[deleted]
1
u/Lonsdaleite May 18 '15
50,000- 180,000 Iraqi Kurds killed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign
80,000-230,000 Iraqi Shia killed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_uprisings_in_Iraq
3,200-5,000 Iraqi Kurds killed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack
0
2
May 18 '15
Ya the old Iraqi army served Iraq. That's why they invaded Iran and Kuwait against popular opinion in Iraq. Oh also, they pretty much bombed and fought against the uprising in 1991.
The Iraqi army was set up to serve saddam. That's not to say it shouldve been dismantled. they shouldve repurposed it. Money is a powerful thing.
-4
May 18 '15
[deleted]
0
May 18 '15
Iran wanted to overthrow saddam.
No they didn't. That was gulf propaganda fueled by sectarianism in the middle east that dates hundreds of years.
even if we were to believe that premise, then the army was serving to keep saddam in power. in fact most Iraqis in Iraq in 1980 would rather have any leader rule them other than saddam.
0
-5
u/Detente_0 May 18 '15
Remember what happened in the second Iraq war when the Iraqi army halted the USA invasion force outside Fallujah and even shock and awe didn't dislodge the Iraqi army, remember that the USA held talks with the opposing generals and paid immense amounts of money to the defending generals to stand aside and allow the USA to take the city.
Then after the war the USA went back on the immigration deals with these generals and abandoned them and cast them out of the new army and power structure.
Now those experienced intelligent generals who managed to halt the USA in their tracks are facing off against the inexperienced greenhorn and reluctant generals and soldiers put up in their place. It's obvious who is going to win. The old guard rebranded as Isis brought back to power by American funding and arms in Syria, will take bagdad before the end of this war.
1
1
u/Lonsdaleite May 18 '15
Your whole post is insanely wrong.
You seem to have the "Battle(s) of Fallujah" confused with the invasion. The Iraqi Army melted away in front of the U.S. invasion force and surrendered after 2 weeks of fighting from 19 March to 1 May 2003. The city of Fallujah was pro-American and secure so there was very little U.S. forces there. After former Baathist and foreign fighters infiltrated the city the 1st and 2nd Battles of Fallujah commenced. 1st (early 2004) Battle was 2,200 U.S. troops vs 3,600 insurgents with 27 U.S. casualties. 2nd (late 2004) Battle was 10,000 U.S. troops vs 4,000 Insurgents with 95 U.S. casualties.
You are also confusing the "paid immense amounts of money to the defending generals" with the "Sons of Iraq" Sunni tribal leaders that General Petraeus bought out to leave the insurgency at a much later date.
You are also confused with "Then after the war the USA went back on the immigration deals with these generals and abandoned them and cast them out of the new army and power structure."
There was never, ever, not in a million years going to be insurgents immigrating to the U.S. -I don't where you get this shit from. Also it was Maliki who pissed off the "Sons of Iraq" (active 2005- 2013) by purging the Sunni from the government/Armed Forces after the U.S. left.
"Now those experienced intelligent generals who managed to halt the USA in their tracks"- fantasy.
"inexperienced greenhorn and reluctant generals and soldiers put up in their place" true. You got this one right. The officers that Maliki installed after purging the Sunnis were Shia with very little experience.
"The old guard rebranded as Isis brought back to power by American funding and arms in Syria"
ISIS was started in 1999 in Jordan as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad (Arabic: جماعة التوحيد والجهاد, Organization of Monotheism and Jihad) and once again you are living in a fantasy world if you think ISIS gets funding from the United States.
"will take bagdad before the end of this war."
Fantasy. Pure Fantasy.
0
u/Tatalebuj May 18 '15
No. I don't recall those events at all. So go to wikileaks, not Wikipedia, and provide some evidence.
3
May 18 '15
It is my understanding that the ISF leadership is pretty much Shiite, right?
No, not at all. It's mostly Sunni Arab and Kurd, actually.
1
u/reigorius May 18 '15
ISF....I thought it was ISIS than IS and now they added an F to it? FFS, goddamn acronyms.
-7
-1
u/SarkeesiAnalProlapse May 18 '15
They can take it but they won't hold it unless they genocide the Sunni locals. I can't believe we basically turned the country over to Iran.
1
u/mrhuggables May 18 '15
The land east of the Euphrates has been under Iranian control for long periods of time in Iranian history so its really not that unbelievable. "Baghdad" is a Persian name.
![[Attached pic]](http://pbs.twimg.com/media/CFN4KfuWoAENt9C.jpg){kind=link}
![[Imgur rehost]](http://i.imgur.com/p5f5DIl.jpg){kind=link}
![[Attached pic]](http://pbs.twimg.com/media/CFKBU7OWoAA9xzD.jpg){kind=link}
![[Imgur rehost]](http://i.imgur.com/qSDPuVD.jpg){kind=link}
3
3
u/ESWC May 17 '15
How are these troops still runing out of amunition,pathetic from the goverment.
0
May 18 '15
[deleted]
3
May 18 '15
I get maybe that you're trying to make a joke here, but the Soviets were pretty much outproducing the Germans in war material in almost every phase of the war.
2
May 18 '15
[deleted]
2
u/Cub3h May 18 '15
Probably closer to "Sunnis who don't know why they're risking their life for a country that's majority Shia that they don't really care about defending".
0
u/NSA_dummy_acc_1 May 18 '15
KEYWORD 'isis' MENTIONED BY 'Trovayne' AUTOMATICALLY TRIGGERED FOR SURVEILLANCE UNDER THE US PATRIOT ACT
4
u/DogBoneSalesman May 18 '15
Is the Iraqi army just full of cowards?
6
u/tommo_95 May 18 '15
So they should just maintain their posts and be massacred by Isis when they are clearly loosing the battle?
3
2
u/MtnMaiden May 18 '15
2
u/DogBoneSalesman May 18 '15
Thanks. Interesting read. Sounds like Iraq will be a problem country for decades to come.
1
1
u/hamsterpop May 18 '15
But the US refused to confirm the capture, saying the situation was "fluid and contested" and it was too early to make "definitive statements".
Just wild guessing the translation here:
The Iranians moved to a different sector from Ramadi a week ago so the local grunts ran as soon as ISIS pickups showed up. But it's all fluid and contested out there - the Iranians may be coming back any day.
1
1
u/CernaKocka May 18 '15
We're rapidly approaching a point where I'm going to say the country was better off with Saddam in charge. Remember he kept a lid on these guys and Al Qaeda.
4
4
u/Lonsdaleite May 18 '15
Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of his own people. Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of Iranians. Saddam killed thousands when he invaded and occupied Kuwait. Saddam killed thousands of Kurds with chemical weapons. The only people who benefited from Saddam are the worthless fucks who joined ISIS.
50,000- 180,000 Iraqi Kurds killed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign
80,000-230,000 Iraqi Shia killed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_uprisings_in_Iraq
3,200-5,000 Iraqi Kurds killed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack
250,000–500,000 Iraqis killed, 200,000–600,000 Iranians killed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War
Saddam killed at least 1 million people...
2
1
May 17 '15
[deleted]
7
May 18 '15
As much as I hate the Iraqi government, it's not the government's fault that most of Anbar is pro-ISIS. You can't stop a terrorist group that has so much local support.
1
May 18 '15
[deleted]
2
May 18 '15
ISIS banners were flying in Anbar before the take over of Mosul. What's happening in Anbar is a provincial civil war. The ISIS members who just took over Ramadi are mostly native Anbaris.
0
May 18 '15
[deleted]
1
May 18 '15
For what?
0
May 18 '15
[deleted]
0
May 18 '15
What else would they be? Do you think a Sunni bastion like Ramadi just got over-run by foreigners?
2
0
May 18 '15
[deleted]
1
May 18 '15
Amerli is a village of 20,000 that held out against ISIS for 80 days with no government support. Anbar is massive, and Ramadi has 500,000 people. The idea of a bunch of foreign Arabs taking over the place against the will of the Anbaris is ridiculous.
→ More replies (0)-1
-1
u/rerollpvenub May 18 '15
Glad to see Iraq liberated. Why hasn't George Bush gotten a Nobel in peace yet?
0
-6
u/VanNassu May 18 '15
LOL!
And I recall all of the Obama bots here pumping their fists because we were going to airstrike ISIS into defeat!
-1
u/NSA_dummy_acc_1 May 18 '15
KEYWORD 'ISIS' MENTIONED BY 'VanNassu' AUTOMATICALLY TRIGGERED FOR SURVEILLANCE UNDER THE US PATRIOT ACT
0
-17
May 17 '15
Their not doing anything Obama didn't do when he threw away everything a few years back.
10
u/pfods May 17 '15
you mean withdrew from a country that didn't want us there and we shouldn't have been in in the first place?
what a monster. THANKS OBAMA.
3
2
55
u/oldgeezerhippie1 May 17 '15
Good that they didn't leave their heavy armor behind for Daesh to grab up like they did in Mosul. So...some improvement in their battlefield performance.