Kurdish officials are continuing to trumpet the territorial shifts in northern Iraq as a major shift in the war, having retaken a number of sparsely guarded villages in the frontier between Kurdistan and the ISIS-held city of Mosul.
These smaller towns and villages tend to change hands with comparatively little effort, while major cities of import, like Tikrit, involve much more elaborate operations, as the one being carried out by Iraqi and Iranian troops.
That battle’s not going so well, with ISIS snipers and an elaborate collection of explosive devices keeping the Iraqi forces more or less stalled on the outskirts of the city, with no measurable progress in days.
Iraqi officials are spinning this as “waiting for reinforcements,” but considering they brought tens of thousands of fighters, the need for reinforcement at all is a sign of a setback.
Kurdish forces are also reporting ISIS is increasingly aggressive in the north, despite not trying to retake those villages, accusing them of using makeshift chlorine bombs as a sort of crude chemical warfare.
The chlorine bombs have not proven to be particularly deadly so far, being used in the open air, but do seem to be damaging to morale, with fighters being much more scared by the chemical nature of the weapons.
The RSAC in Mosul https://rinj.org/rsac
If and when Tikrit is "liberated" much of it will look like Berlin in 1945. Refugees will return to the ruins of their homes. I guess that former Secretary Albright will volunteer on MSNBC or FOX or both that it "was worth it".
Not surprising at all. ISIS, whatever we think of it, its methods, its goals, and so forth, is composed of people who believe in what they are fighting for, ie a Sunni homeland, run by Sunnis, according to their vision of Sunni practice. No one forces them to fight for ISIS, and fighting for ISIS is not a ticket to wealth. Whereas the Iraqi forces are either hapless conscripts lacking in the wealth and/or influence necessary to stay out of the corrupt-as-the-day-is-long Iraqi "National" Army, or Sh'ite militiamen fighting, not for their freedom, autonomy or independence (which they already have), but to impose the will of the national government upon an unwilling population. In other words, imperialist forces, some unwilling, others semi willing, at best.
No doubt, the US and Iranian backed foes of ISIS have a large material advantage. But Napoleon said that, in war, the morale factor was three times more important than the material. And he was not far wrong!
With the ISIS forces consolidated on the battlefield, it is time for mass air strikes against their positions. A nice B-52 Arc Light attack would do wonders as would about fifty napalm strikes against their positions. That would clear the town nicely. Of course however, we have an administration that is not committed to the fight, just to keeping up appearances.
Your disgusting American mercenary "liberators: have killed enough people in Iraq, USA go away and get prosecuted is the cry of the vast majority of the world.
Air strikes might well weaken ISIS, but are not likely to destroy it.
But, even if it did, the collateral damage from what you are calling for would be immense, and would only harden anti US and anti Baghdad government attitudes in Sunni Iraq all the more. Which would mean that, even if ISIS is defeated, inevitably, a new movement would take its place calling for Sunni liberation from the Sh'ite and the American and Iranian backers.
You do realize, right, that is already the third time that Sunni Iraq has been attacked by the US and/or its proxies, right? In the 2003 campaign, the area was taken from the forces of Saddam's government. Then, in the ensuing guerilla war, the area had to be taken first from local guerillas and then from AQ in M and other irregular forces. Now ISIS has arisen in the same places.
The Sunni areas of Iraq are never going to bow down to Baghdad, America and Iran. Guerilla war will be endemic there unless and until a genuine political settlement is made or someone in Iraq arises who is strong enough, as Saddam was, to keep all factions in line. The US smashed the regime that was able to do so, and now, if it follows your advise, will spend decades fighting a pointless civil war. Towns will be "cleared nicely," savage air strikes will work "wonders," but all the tactical "victories" will be in vain, because there is no strategy, only endless belligerence, such as you demonstrate.