Do you approve of the U.S. Military plans to retake Mosul from ISIS?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

On edit- It will be executed by the Iraqi military:


Looking to take back a city that has high strategic and symbolic value, the Iraqi military will launch an offensive against fighters from the self-proclaimed Islamic State in the coming months, a senior U.S. military official says.

NPR's Tom Bowman reports:

"A U.S. Central Command official told reporters at the Pentagon that the military operation to retake Mosul, Iraq's second-largest city, will be in the April-May timeframe, and this operation will involve an estimated 20,000-25,000 Iraqi soldiers.
"And they say that in the city of Mosul, they estimate there are anywhere between 1,000 and 2,000 fighters for the Islamic State.
"They did say Mosul won't be easy — because Islamic State fighters have been dug in in that city since last June, when they took it over."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/02/20/387694614/u-s-major-offensive-planned-against-isis-in-mosul-this-spring

2 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes
	1 (50%)
	No
	1 (50%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Agschmid]

1. Do you have a link to an article with those plans...?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. Voila

Looking to take back a city that has high strategic and symbolic value, the Iraqi military will launch an offensive against fighters from the self-proclaimed Islamic State in the coming months, a senior U.S. military official says.

NPR's Tom Bowman reports:

"A U.S. Central Command official told reporters at the Pentagon that the military operation to retake Mosul, Iraq's second-largest city, will be in the April-May timeframe, and this operation will involve an estimated 20,000-25,000 Iraqi soldiers.
"And they say that in the city of Mosul, they estimate there are anywhere between 1,000 and 2,000 fighters for the Islamic State.
"They did say Mosul won't be easy — because Islamic State fighters have been dug in in that city since last June, when they took it over.


http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/02/20/387694614/u-s-major-offensive-planned-against-isis-in-mosul-this-spring

[Agschmid]

6. Thanks!

[TheKentuckian]

2. Super doubtful but what is the plan?

[MohRokTah]

10. The plan is for 20,000-25,000 Iraqi soldiers to take back Mosul in the April-May timeframe.

What's not to approve about that?

[TheKentuckian]

13. How are Iraqis doing anything our plan? If the Iraqis want to take an action in their territory

they don't need my approval and I am in no position to give any either if the "plan" doesn't involve US assets.

I continue to oppose all involvement, the only US action I approve of is getting out of Dodge.

[Oktober]

3. Link?

[TheBlackAdder]

5. That would be a meat grinder. Nothing would spell 'morass' like entering into that area. nt

[pampango]

7. "..this operation will involve an estimated 20,000-25,000 Iraqi soldiers". And no American soldiers?

[MohRokTah]

8. Why would anybody not approve of Iraqi soldiers taking back an Iraqi city?

What's not to approve about this?

I can only assume anybody who does not approve of this fully supports ISIS.

[ieoeja]

11. Judging by the first reply, I assume OP did not originally include details about the plan.

A few people voting "No" likely assumed it would be US forces re-taking Mosul for the Iraqis. Even with the added details, I imagine a lot of people will vote "No" after only reading the headline.

And then there are, of course, many true pacifists on DU who do not believe in using military force under any circumstances whatsoever. Sadly, the Vietnam experience confused a lot of pacifists into thinking that pacifism is "Liberal".

Supporting the right of pacifists to be heard *is* Liberal. And Liberals do just that. Pacifists are just as quick as anyone else to make the "you're either with me or against me" mistake. "Since Liberals support our rights to be heard, Liberals must be on our side," they mistakenly assume.

They call us hypocrites for opposing the Iraq War while supporting this effort against IS. It has been pointed out to them over and over again that DU overwhelmingly supported the war in Afghanistan under Bush. Somehow that fact fails to resonate with them.

Heck, every Republican that I personally know opposed the Iraq War. I know the polls across America showed otherwise, so my anecdote has little meaning. But it was a stupid war that we predicted would create something like IS. The prediction that it would create IS pretty much comes with the implication that we expected we would have to fight IS which we did not want to have to do.

It sucks being lambasted for being correct.

[bklyncowgirl]

9. Yes, as long as it really is the Iraqis in the lead. This has to be their fight, not ours.

That could change if the Iraqi army turns out to be Shiite militias out for vengeance against Sunnis.

[One_Life_To_Give]

12. Havn't heard why this wont be a problem again 24 months later?

Maintaining Mosul free of ISIL is going to be the job of the Iraqi military. Havn't seen any reason to believe that once we back away, that they won't fold as happened this last time. What is the point of risking lives and all the collateral damage if the situation will revert to the same as today in only 24-36 months?

[bigwillq]

14. No

Too much US involvement

~~snip~~ (from the link posted in the OP)

He adds that the Iraqis would be backed by U.S. air power.

While the U.S. military also expects to provide logistical, tactical and surveillance support, it hasn't yet been decided whether American military advisers might join the ground force to coordinate air strikes.

~~snip~~

Plus, it doesn't say what the US cost in dollars is.

So, for now, NO, I don't approve of the US plan.