Posted on 08/04/2016 7:42:52 AM PDT by TigerLikesRooster
Get Ready for Obama’s ‘October Surprise’ in Iraq
If Iraqi and Kurdish troops—with stepped-up U.S. support—retake Mosul as planned, it could be a big boost for Hillary.
By Mark Perry
August 01, 2016
The American public could be treated to a major U.S.-led military victory in Iraq this fall, just as voters are deciding who will be the nation’s next president—but U.S. military officials insist the timing of the operation has nothing to do with politics.
Iraqi and Kurdish military and paramilitary units are preparing for a push on Mosul, the Islamic State-held city that is now in the cross hairs of the U.S.-led coalition battling the terrorist group across the Middle East. “The idea is to isolate Mosul, cut it off, kill it,” a senior U.S. Central Command officer told me.
Senior military officers say the city in northern Iraq, which has been under Islamic State control since June 2014, will be enveloped in a complex pincer movement from Iraqi military forces battling their way into the city from the southeast and Kurdish units storming the city from the northwest. The military offensive, months in the planning, is now tentatively scheduled to begin sometime in early October, with a final battle for Mosul coming at the end of that month.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
“.....it could be a big boost for Hillary.”.
Lets hope not, odumbo and Hitlary will probably get them all killed due to their stupidity and distain for our military.
Could backfire. The anti war leftists would go ballistic and the general population would be revolted by more flag draped caskets coming home in a no win war
I am not sure that Obama showing up next to Hillary would actually help her. It will overshadow her at the least, and his overzealous actions could hurt her, tying her too close to Obama.
This is Politico’s Mark Perry thinking with the mind of a rational historian like a rational American politician. He needs to think Machiavelli or Nero.
Mosul? The risk vs benefit just isn’t there for Obama.
If he wants to influence this election, he has innumerable, unthinkable means to do so.
IF we attack “ISIS strongholds” in October, any ISIS leaders of significance will be long gone by then.
Probably all in sympathetic mosques in London, Paris, Bonn.... Minneapolis...Alexandria, VA...
Planning & executing their next “non-Islamic” atrocity.
I have very little faith in Obama’s capability as CIC.
He will surely try and micromanage this, screw it up, and get a bunch of our guys killed.
To show up in your neighborhood as poor refugees from war-torn Mid-East countries.
Where’s all those “no more war” pussies now?
Ya think??
Alternatively, he won't get his hands dirty again and assign Uncle Joe the task of phoning in the GPS location, equipment, mission, and names of the guys --- sorta like his Seal Team 6 "slip up".
You mean those p*ssies who cheered "humanitarian bombings" in Balkans back in 90's? They will cheer this again. Geriatric hippies.
Why would taking Mosul be a boost for Hillary?
she had nothing to do with the retaking of it.
In fact, Trump could make hay that Hillary is the reason Mosul needed to retaken at all.
You kill them and more pop up. Problem is Democrats don’t see Islam as the root of the problem and have imported them.
*
Probably partying over at W's ranch and laughing over olde times.
Code BLM has taken their place.
There are going to be major attacks coming up as the new strategy is invasion of the West.
Starboard wrote:
U.S. military officials insist the timing of the operation has nothing to do with politics
Just like the State Department insists that the $400 million payment to Iran had nothing to do with ransom for prisoners. Just another coincidence. Move on now, nothing to see here.
Say, just for a logic exercise, that it was indeed a payment for a failed arms deal from the 1970’s. Why pay them? According to CNN:
“as the first installment of a $1.7 billion settlement resolving claims at an international tribunal at The Hague over a failed arms deal under the time of the Shah. “
Uhm, I ask again, why pay them? If I WERE to pay them, I’d deduct that money from the UN, NATO, and foreign aid to each and every other country (save Israel) to offset it.
Ridiculous, and even honestly going past that to ludicrous, possibly even plaid.
Dems are always war mongers 100 days from an election.
I trust you realized that my post was sarcasm.
There can be no question: it was ransom pure and simple.
Paying the Iranians has put a bounty on the head of every American abroad.
Most assuredly no sarcasm tag was needed.
I just tried to think it through, and if it wasn’t payment for the hostages, why payou PART of the 1.3 (1.7?) billion dollars? Why not pay it all, or pay none of it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.