Posted on 06/06/2017 12:36:44 PM PDT by BeauBo
The U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) said on Tuesday it had launched an operation to capture Raqqa, Islamic State's de facto Syrian capital.
..."They have had three years to establish their defences there. We expect a fight very similar to what we've seen in Mosul," he said, while adding that Raqqa is a much smaller city.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
Raqqa is expected to be like Mosul, in that ISIS is expected to use the same tactics in an urban environment - lots of IEDs, and very well prepared fighting positions connected by tunnels.
Raqqa is much smaller than Mosul though, and the Kurdish elements of the SDF have been proven to be very effective against ISIS (US soldiers won’t be going door to door - locals will do the close fighting).
All indications are that the US is promptly responding to any calls for fire (US Forward Observers are on hand). A dedicated Marine artillery unit (155mm) has been established within easy range - they were running about four dozen fire missions per day as the SDF was bringing the cordon in around the city.
Raqqa was getting about four air sorties per day. I think that the plan was to finish up Mosul first, and then shift additional air assets to Raqqa - but Mosul has dragged on a bit beyond schedule. If ISIS collapses, fine, but if they put up stiff resistance, additional air assets will be coming, like loitering gunships, and a lot of drones.
Lots of official statements, including from the SecDef and the CENTCOM Commanding General, have unabashedly announced a strategy of “annihilation” against ISIS - very uncharacteristic for Americans who usually use weasel words like “Defeat in Detail”. To me, it sounds like that term is intended to translate clearly into Russian, where annihilation has long been one of their theoretical principles of war.
There are no civilians, no innocents in muslim societies. They are either indirect combatants, by virtue of acting as shields for the thugs with fingers on the trigger, or as breeders for reinforcements. Flatten their cockroach cities and it won’t be long before they’re levelling their own mosques and minarets to save their own sorry asses.
“May I ask why 10 MOABs aren’t being used? Why shed one American life?”
The MOABs would inflict mass civilian casualties in an urban area.
ISIS has made a point of keeping civilian populations as human shields, specifically to deter such attacks. ISIS-friendly media assets have been beating the meme of civilian casualties from American bombing all along. After one big incident in Mosul (about a hundred civilians) the whole operation slowed down for about a month, until things blew over.
Although we have sent more US troops into Syria to support this operation, the locals are doing all the door-kicking close quarters combat. Infantry typically take 85% of the casualties. Not only are the locals doing the really dangerous work, they are also guarding the Americans there with their lives.
The other reason not to use MOABs (or other saturation bombing) is the difficulty it produces in governing after the victory. The goal is a favorable end state. The folks we are installing to rule there are not going to have a lot of resources for rebuilding.
Even given that consideration though, it does seem that we are going in kind of heavy on the high explosives - you need it to deal with the concrete and masonry buildings that ISIS is fighting from.
Intense artillery bombardment? Like 8000 tubes for a couple hours?
“Intense artillery bombardment? Like 8000 tubes for a couple hours?”
Not nearly that intense, but intense relative to what they were used to. Also, it was what the professionals estimated to reliably break open the prepared defenses.
It was effective in getting ISIS to fall back to their next line of defenses. They probably had a plan for this fall back, but it is hard to know if they were forced by the strength of the attack, or if it was just their plan. It is not like ISIS to just give up an urban area without leaving a bunch of suicide fighters to delay and bleed the enemy, so it looks like they were forced by the artillery.
This first neighborhood captured was a tough to defend finger of the city stretched along the road out of town. After this, it opens up into a broader urban front.
“The MOABs would inflict mass civilian casualties in an urban area.”
Define “civilian”.
L
You call that truck bomb in Kabul last week a sign of quietness?
“is the difficulty it produces in governing after the victory.”
Dead people aren’t hard to rule.
“The folks we are installing to rule there are not going to have a lot of resources for rebuilding.”
Not our problem. Just tell them if they let the savages take over again we kill every last living thing there right down to their pet goats.
More rubble equals less trouble.
L
I hear you. Tongue and cheekly I respond, again, yes why aren’t the MOABs being used. We need to be extra double secret vigilant that no Americans are killed in support positions. An irrational request.
“Define “civilian”.”
Non Combatants, as specified under the legally binding Geneva and Hague Conventions.
Most of the people in town when ISIS took over were not supporters - they were victims. Although majority were Sunni Arabs, other s were minorities like Kurds, Shia, and Christians.
“More rubble equals less trouble.”
If you look at areas of Mosul, Fallujah and Tikrik; that is significantly how things turn out, using the methods being used here.
It really depends on how hard ISIS fights - there is no limit on the artillery shell budget.
The United States is not a signatory to The Hague Convention.
And the Geneva Conventions specifically deal with terrorism and those who support it.
L
“the Geneva Conventions specifically deal with terrorism and those who support it.”
...Without exempting the protections that it affords to non-combatants.
Randomly dropping MOABs in an populated city would most likely be ruled a “grave breach” by “extensive destruction... of property, not justified by military necessity”
Allies would not go for it, and whoever would authorize it would probably be pursued for war crimes for the rest of their life. It could also be used as grounds for impeachment.
“Allies would not go for it,”
They went for it just fine in 1944. Winners make the rules.
L
Our biggest ally in Syria (from outside of Syria) is currently France.
The Aircraft Carrier Charles DeGaulle has been committed there since shortly after the Paris attacks. They fly a lot of sorties.
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.