Iraqi forces seize Islamic State stronghold in Ramadi: spokesman

[MowCowWhoHow III]

Source: Reuters

Iraqi forces on Sunday took control of the government complex in central Ramadi, the last Islamic State stronghold in the western city, a military spokesman said.

"By controlling the complex this means that they have been defeated in Ramadi," said Sabah al-Numani, a spokesman for the force leading the fight on the government side. "The next step is to clear pockets that could exist here or there in the city."

"The complex is under our complete control, there is no presence whatsoever of Daesh fighters in the complex," he told Reuters, using a derogatory Arabic acronym of Islamic State.

Recapturing Ramadi, which fell to the militants in May, would be one of the most significant victories for Iraq's armed forces since Islamic State swept across a third of the country in 2014.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-iraq-ramadi-idUSKBN0UA06P20151227

[tabasco]

1. Good work!

Now keep up the pressure on the depraved ISIS barbarians and wipe out the rest of them.

[FrodosPet]

2. BBC - Iraqi forces 'retake Islamic State Ramadi stronghold'

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35186105

Iraqi forces have retaken a former government compound in Ramadi from where Islamic State (IS) group militants have been resisting an army offensive, the military has said.

The complex was "under complete control" and there was no sign of IS fighters, a spokesman said.

~ snip ~

In recent days, troops have been picking their way through booby-trapped streets and buildings as they pushed towards the city centre, seizing several districts on the way.

After sniper fire from the compound stopped and aerial surveillance detected no human activity, Iraqi soldiers moved in.

~ snip ~

[Duckhunter935]

3. good for them

[Jesus Malverde]

4. Fuck ISIS

And all their down low supporters.

[daleo]

5. But how long will they hold it?

And, really, capturing one set of buildings in a city is not equivalent to capturing the city.

[BeyondGeography]

6. ISIS is done in Ramadi

The government complex was their last outpost; ISIS only had 3-400 fighters in the city to begin with. The Iraqi army had secured the surrounding area and cleared the city of IED's and snipers before occupying the complex. Plus, Abadi is doing this the right way, keeping Shia militia on the outskirts and using a combination of Sunni militia and the Iraqi Army to seal the victory.

The only way back in is another death spiral of anti-Sunni sectarian violence, which is really only plausible in the near-term if Maliki returns to power.

[Hortensis]

9. From IBT: "As the soldiers advanced on the city centre,

they encountered more and more booby-trapped streets and buildings – clear signs that IS were on the back foot and did not plan to return to the area any time soon."

For some months now as Daesh has faced the reality of losing its gains in Syria and Iraq, it has been relocating leaders to about 8 areas where it intends to retreat and carry on the fight on a smaller scale. Such as the fairly well established one on the Libyan coast.

Daesh's insane 5-year pre-Armageddon goal, of course, remains the same.


My heart goes out to all those who have fallen today and to those who love them.

[BeyondGeography]

12. Next summer in Andalus!

And we have a genius in this thread who says sovereign states shouldn't waste their time re-capturing ISIS-held territory.

[Hortensis]

16. I haven't been following. Just make them

constantly defend it?

[daleo]

15. The U.S. forces took Ramadi once

Now they are gone. Iraqi forces might take it, but what does that really mean, in a civil war situation. Cities change hands, opposition forces change their names, people move their support from one side to the other and back, depending on circumstances. A few years ago, it was Al Qada. Now it's ISIS (or Daesh if you like). Next year it could be called something new.

It's like renaming a variable in an equation, and thinking you thereby solved it.

[BeyondGeography]

17. That's nonsensical

Al Qaeda never held any territory anywhere.

The Iraqi government has slightly more credibility as an occupier of Iraqi territory than the US Army.

If there is a civil war in Iraq, then why were Sunnis working with a predominantly Shi'a Army to dislodge ISIS?

Etc.

[daleo]

20. That all depends on who constitutes the "Iraqi army", and who they represent

If you don't see ISIS and all the other sectarian militias (including the Kurds, who have carved out a de facto state) as evidence of civil war, then I can't say much to convince you.

[BeyondGeography]

22. ISIS wants a supra-national Ummah of Islam

Evidence of civil war and actual civil war are different things. ISIS clearly does not see itself as fighting a civil war in Iraq; if it did, its ambitions would be confined to Iraq, it would not have alienated natural Sunni allies and the Iraqi government would have had a much tougher fight on its hands in Ramadi. As such, its loss today is not insubstantial. It puts a bright light on the utter goofiness of Baghdadi's pie-in-the-sky vision of the caliphate.

[daleo]

23. After the Russian Revolution there was a civil war, Reds and Whites

Both saw themselves as standard bearers of much bigger causes, yet what they had was certainly a civil war.

When a status quo breaks down, many actors contend for power, with shifting alliances and mutual backstabbing. That's what I see going on in much of the middle east. I call that civil war. It often takes a long time for things to settle down, to the point where any side can declare victory. But there are many hopeful claims of victory along the way.

[winstars]

7. But, but Jim Miklaszewski said the other day that Obama sucks and this would take weeks if ever...

I am totally not saying I have ANY confidence in the Iraqi forces but this seems like a step in the right direction....

[bvar22]

8. Haven't Western and Wstern Trained Forces learned yet that this is NOT about "taking land".

ISIS will melt away, and pop up elsewhere. That is what they do.
Trying to kill all the Muslims who now HATE the USA is a fool's task.

[Erda]

10. I would think it has to be about both . . .

recapturing territory and defeating ISIS globally by changing minds.

These are Iraqi forces reclaiming Iraqi land which will be held and lived in by Iraqis. Eliminating ISIS strongholds is an important part of defeating ISIS.

A parallel to me is the war on drugs, where drug lords have taken over a neighborhood or town. Arresting them or forcing them to flee represents a significant victory for the average person who lives there and who only wants to live in peace in a safe environment. These drug lords may go elsewhere or get arrested but shrinking their territory is extremely important because it keeps them on the run, and frees the people left behind.

[bvar22]

11. Like I said above, ISIS will melt away, and pop up somewhere else.

The OLD paradigm of capturing the opponents Capital City is obsolete.
The OLD paradigm of destroying the enemies Industrial Base is obsolete.
The OLD paradigm of capturing the "leaders" is obsolete.

There are plenty of places in the Middle East that will welcome and hide ISIS, ISIL, Al-Qaeda,...or any of the other Black Flag militant splinter groups.

Where do you think they come from?
The Middle East is a BIG place. Do you believe we have the resources to Lock Down the entire region?

[Schema Thing]

14. I'm guessing Iraq didn't and doesn't want to relinquish Ramadi

or any other land to ISIS.

Duh.

[tabasco]

18. LOL

Another War College dropout.

[bvar22]

24. No....waaaaaay off.

Just someone who has paid attention to our colonial Wars in the Middle East.

*What happened to Saddam's Republican Guard?
They didn't stay and fight for the capital city.
They melted away and joined Black Flag Groups.

We" held" Baghdad for YEARS and ethnically cleansed the Sunni and Christians...what good did it do?

We flattened Fallujah and killed everybody in it....What good did it do?

What happened in Afghanistan?...Same exact thing.

What happened in Viet Nam?... melted away.

That is the problem.
The USA always wants to fight WW2 (the last war we "won&quot , and will spend thousands of lives and Billions of Dollars for worthless desert land that the radicals do not want...THEN we have to build a Billion Dollar Base to protect the sand (or jungle), while the militants melt away to fight somewhere else.

[BeyondGeography]

26. Which is why Obama isn't fighting the last war

None of your responses reflect the current reality.

[bvar22]

27. Nonsense.

I provided concrete, historical FACTS that support my assertions concerning the "taking & holding of land"
in the Middle east.
WRONG WAR.
We held Baghdad for years....and the WAR rolls on.

One day, you will wake up and the little light will go on in your head, and you will say,
"Why are we fighting for desert with an enemy that has no country, can cross borders at will, has the civilian people on their side, and have the patience spawned by hundreds of years.

Oh, Yes. They WILL have it all back (minus the Trillions we spent and the people we murdered).
All they have to do is wait....and they are very good at that.

Can you name a WAR in the Middle East in the last 60 years where YOUR strategy has "won"?
LOL

Well, there WAS Grenada.

[BeyondGeography]

28. So, to sum up, your counsel to the Iraqi government is

"Regain control of your own territory with help of local militia! What are you thinking?"

Or maybe you don't even know what happened here.

[bvar22]

29. It sure looks like I have a better idea of what happened in Iraq,

...and the entire Middle east for the last 100 years than you do.

If only we could fight WW2 again, then your strategy would work....though it would require bombing the country to ashes and a 50 year occupation by American troops.
Are you ready to do that in the Middle East?

Sounds like it.

[tabasco]

32. LOL. I didn't realize we were fighting WWII again.

I must have missed the massive industrial mobilization, draft inductions and millions-strong invasion force. I'm also curious why all of our combat divisions are currently stationed at their home bases and not fighting ISIS ala WWII. I guess I better start paying attention like you.

Last time I checked, the Iraqi army, with US/allied air support, reclaimed a major Iraqi city from the ISIS barbarians. The ISIS group has made it clear through their widespread propaganda that the territory they control is a new "caliphate" which they intend to expand. The best way to destroy their fighting capability, credibility, and recruiting ability is to eliminate their territorial gains and base of operations. The territory they control consists of cities, not vast desert wastelands. Nobody wants the deserts, not even ISIS. So, capturing cities is really what it's all about, General Rommel. I'm glad the Iraqis are doing it with our support, not the other way around. Terrorism will continue to exist after ISIS is driven from their so-called caliphate, but it will not be rampant in northern Iraq and Syria as it is now.

Let's hear your plan!

[hack89]

13. You can't establish a caliphate without holding land.

so taking territory from Isis is a big deal.

[Yupster]

21. My guess is the Iraqi Army is similar to ARVN

A few competent and even strong formations with most of the army and militia much less competent.

So a unit can be overrun or flee without battle, then the government brings in some of its better units and it can retake the ground.

[daleo]

25. ARVN seems like a very apt historical comparison.

[bvar22]

30. ...Except that we didn't go back and take the land.

We left there in a panic as fast as we could get out.
So much for spending American lives "holding useless ground", while the "enemy" melts away to fight another day, wouldn't you say?

[Yupster]

31. We bugged out in 1975

From 1972-1974 though the war was the NVA attacking some provincial town or firebase, taking it from the local ARVN forces, and then the South Vietnamese government moving their best troops to retake it.

The ARVN paratroopers, marines, even the ARVN 1st and 18th Divisions were quality fighting forces that could fight and defeat the NVA. But, the NVA kept them moving from one crisis to another. This eventually came to ruin, especially when their fuel supplies evaporated with US congressional cuts and increased oil prices.

I think ARVN's situation and Iraq's are similar with some important differences favorable to Iraq.

The NVA benefited from its neighboring countries where they could retreat to after battles and rest. ISIS doesn't have that safe refuge.

The NVA benefited from supplies from North Vietnam, Russia and sometimes even China. ISIS doesn't have such a steady supply line other than the US Army gifting them stuff via the Iraqis.

To me it's a similar difference between why Washington won and Lee lost. The big difference was Washington had a steady supply from France and Lee didn't. That meant Washington could let England take any territory because it didn't matter. Lee had to defend certain areas, like Richmond which had the only large iron works in the whole Confederacy. That took away his ability to retreat and fight another day which Washington and the NVA used to good effect.

[moondust]

19. The rubble is relieved

to be back in the hands of the other guys.