Iraqi leaders say Tikrit will fall within a week from ISIS/DAESH; Iraq claims it doesn't need nor wa - Polidicks

[quote]Joint Iraqi forces have started what they believe will be the conclusive push to retake the Iraqi city of Tikrit from ISIS, a paramilitary force participating in the offensive said Tuesday. The forces have started "the decisive operation" to liberate Tikrit just over a week after the overall operation began, advancing toward the city from several directions, according to a statement from the predominantly Shiite paramilitary force Hashd Al-Shaab. ISIS wasn't making it easy, however. The Sunni extremist group blew up a key bridge near Tikrit, preventing the joint Iraqi forces from using it to cross the Tigris River to approach the city from the east. Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi ordered Iraqi forces on March 1 to retake Tikrit and Salahuddin province. Tikrit, best known to Westerners as the birthplace of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, fell in June to ISIS, which has captured parts of Iraq and Syria for what it says is its Islamic caliphate. In the past few days, forces progressed roughly 50 miles (80 kilometers) down one road toward the city and, by Monday, were about a mile from its center.[/quote] [url]http://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/10/world/iraq-isis-tikrit/index.html[/url]

The Iraqi army has come a long way

[QUOTE=KnightSolaire;47298006]The Iraqi army has come a long way[/QUOTE] Paramilitaries are doing most of the fighting though

ISIS is full of incompetent people who don't know how to fight a war or run a country. As soon as they peaked in August it's been nothing but downhill for them now.

[QUOTE=Deng;47298063]ISIS is full of incompetent people who don't know how to fight a war or run a country. As soon as they peaked in August it's been nothing but downhill for them now.[/QUOTE] They'll be forced to continue a campaign of fear to try and garner legitimacy, since their stability is crumbling

This could be a very big deal. The Iraqi army hasn't done much but play defense until now. Hopefully they can keep their shit together.

Yes, just like they didn't need help when they abandoned their posts, laid down their weapons and practically gave Isis military grade weapons and vehicles.

[QUOTE=Deng;47298063]ISIS is full of incompetent people who don't know how to fight a war or run a country. As soon as they peaked in August it's been nothing but downhill for them now.[/QUOTE] ISIS is so well organized that they have annual military reports they publish to the world. The fall of one small city doesn't mean they're incompetent. On top of that, most of them have military experience stretching all the way back to 2004. [editline]10th March 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=MR-X;47298167]Yes, just like they didn't need help when they abandoned their posts, laid down their weapons and practically gave Isis military grade weapons and vehicles.[/QUOTE] Those were Sunni soldiers in a vastly anti-Sunni Shia-run government. These are mostly Shia soldiers now, with Shia Iranian support.

[QUOTE=Deng;47298063]ISIS is full of incompetent people who don't know how to fight a war or run a country. As soon as they peaked in August it's been nothing but downhill for them now.[/QUOTE] ISIS is so incompetent at war that they took over large parts of 2 entire countries, and even had Iraqi officials so scared that they burned their military uniforms and fled in fear of being captured. Like emperor scorpious said, a good number of them are probably veterans of the American occupation and have decent military skills.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;47298363]ISIS is so well organized that they have annual military reports they publish to the world. The fall of one small city doesn't mean they're incompetent. On top of that, most of them have military experience stretching all the way back to 2004.[/QUOTE] Most of the areas under their control lack basic features of administration or governance. Most of their military gains have also been shortlived. When they attacked the kurds, it was for little strategic value and at a high cost. Additionally, most of the towns and villages they have taken in the past few months have given little benefit. The Islamic state is weaker than it looks. It won all those battles months ago because the Iraqi forces were unprepared, and demoralized. ISIS had the advantage of surprise and shock. They've won so far only because their enemies have been more inept than they are. Most places under ISIS administration are not being actually governed. Infrastructure is collapsing, they've lost thousands of men, and they have generated widespread hostility towards their activities. They lost their most important weapon, which is momentum.

[QUOTE=Blazyd;47298496]ISIS is so incompetent at war that they took over large parts of 2 entire countries, and even had Iraqi officials so scared that they burned their military uniforms and fled in fear of being captured. Like emperor scorpious said, a good number of them are probably veterans of the American occupation and have decent military skills.[/QUOTE] Considering the following: ISIS has lost countless veteran militia men in battles such as Siege of Kobani Siege of Sinjar Battle for Deir Ezzor Battle of Baji Kirkuk Ramadi Very early stages of liberation of Mosul. They've wasted enough resources at Kobani that the ISIS fighters for the last 2 months were mostly teenagers. While they aren't complete idiots they waste lives by throwing as many of their own into meat grinders hoping they'll overcome the defending or attacking force, which in recent weeks and months has NOT boded well for them. Average battle statics from YPG,SAA, , Peshmerga and ISF tend to place ISIS death tolls at 10+ when they're attacking and 15+ when defending against ISF/SAA/Peshmerga(YPG,PKK,YPJ). So far in the areas they've been holding there is wide spread civilian unrest, killings of ISIS police officers,militants and other subversive activies clearly showing they've outstayed their welcomes in the lands they hold. Also repost from another thread. For good measure it's good to know that the assault started on March 1st. [img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B_wJ9SwXEAEMVZ6.jpg:large[/img]

[QUOTE=Deng;47299020]Most of the areas under their control lack basic features of administration or governance. Most of their military gains have also been shortlived. When they attacked the kurds, it was for little strategic value and at a high cost. Additionally, most of the towns and villages they have taken in the past few months have given little benefit. The Islamic state is weaker than it looks. It won all those battles months ago because the Iraqi forces were unprepared, and demoralized. ISIS had the advantage of surprise and shock. They've won so far only because their enemies have been more inept than they are. Most places under ISIS administration are not being actually governed. Infrastructure is collapsing, they've lost thousands of men, and they have generated widespread hostility towards their activities. They lost their most important weapon, which is momentum.[/QUOTE] [url=http://edition.cnn.com/2014/09/18/world/meast/isis-syria-iraq-hierarchy/]ISIS is building a formal government for what it has gained, even dividing conquered territories into their own provinces and designating governors to it.[/url] [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/28/world/middleeast/army-know-how-seen-as-factor-in-isis-successes.html]Some of their leaders are formal high ranking Iraqi military and political leaders from Saddam's regime. US intelligence even said, quoted from this article, "They didn’t survive by being incompetent," speaking on ISIS's survival from 2004 to today[/url] [url=http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/25/world/isis-western-recruits/index.html]ISIS has been recruiting tens of thousands of foreigners to their land to help fight and continue to draw people.[/url] [url=http://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/ISWBackgrounder_ISIS_Annual_Reports_0.pdfOn top of that, ISIS likes to use suicide bombing as a legitimate military tactic in conventional warfare, often using foreign recruits. Unlike the Iraqi army, who would never send men in to die on purpose just to thwart the enemy, ISIS has men and women willing to kill themselves if it means taking out their opposition[/url] Also, keep in mind with this map here: Note the difference between "ISIS controlled" and "support zones" which means that formal ISIS presence may not even exist in those areas but they have the local sympathies. So that means towns in these areas are more likely to easily be retaken by coalition forces while not actually combating ISIS. Besides that, the region of Iraq not occupied by ISIS is either Kurdistan or Shia populated regions. How did ISIS easily take control over the majority of Iraq's Sunni populated lands? [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sons_of_Iraq]Because the Shia government openly shunned them from the new Iraqi government.[/url] Not only do these areas sympathize with ISIS, they live in fear of the "Shia invasion". [img]http://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/posts/2015/02/isismapweb2/307796482.jpg[/img] So yeah, don't underestimate ISIS like it's some rag-tag group of guys shooting AK's into the air. [editline]10th March 2015[/editline] I can't edit this to fix that url, dammit.

The Iraqi military will have a very hard time being able to take all ISIS territories back without a coalition behind them. This could be a fatal mistake depending on the state of the Iraqi Army.

I swear me and Emperor are experts on ISIS.

[QUOTE=puppy156;47299612]The Iraqi military will have a very hard time being able to take all ISIS territories back without a coalition behind them. This could be a fatal mistake depending on the state of the Iraqi Army.[/QUOTE] Well, it was a paramilitary leader who said that they don't need a coalition The fact that tribal/sect militias are more powerful than the military is very telling of the national identity problems plaguing Iraq

So what IS the actual status on ISIS? I've been hearing multiple things, I'd love to hear from the experts! :P

[QUOTE=puppy156;47300032]So what IS the actual status on ISIS? I've been hearing multiple things, I'd love to hear from the experts! :P[/QUOTE] They're on the defensive, but by no means "losing" the war just yet. They continue to inch on ground in Syria because the FSA is sandwiched between Assad and ISIS and are getting demolished, where as in Iraq they're still securing their presence in many places, most of which literally welcomed them in with open arms to "save" them from the Baghdad Shia government. On top of that, more foreign fighters are coming in every day and Al Nursa, an extremist contender in Syria against ISIS for the longest time due to loyalties to Al Qaeda have finally given in and sworn allegiance to them which essentially hands over a good chunk of north west Syria to them.

It's a falsehood to claim that the forces of the Islamic State are incompetent. Undoubtedly none but the fiercest forces Baghdad has to offer could hold them back before the coalition airstrikes started. In a similar light, Assad's forces in Damascus represent an insurmountable cost in order to capture the city, much less and even maintain a fight within it. IS is likely the most capable terrorist force in recent history. They're supported by a skilled social media backbone and a sizeable corps of fighters trained by hardline baathist officers of the Saddam era. IS is not al Qaeda and IS is not the Taliban. They are much more capable. Every force has its limits given the circumstances, but they are by no means incompetent and it'd be dangerous to assume victory so early.

The only thing stopping them from total domination is a working air force and navy

[QUOTE=Milkdairy;47300275]It's a falsehood to claim that the forces of the Islamic State are incompetent. Undoubtedly none but the fiercest forces Baghdad has to offer could hold them back before the coalition airstrikes started. In a similar light, Assad's forces in Damascus represent an insurmountable cost in order to capture the city, much less and even maintain a fight within it. IS is likely the most capable terrorist force in recent history. They're supported by a skilled social media backbone and a sizeable corps of fighters trained by hardline baathist officers of the Saddam era. IS is not al Qaeda and IS is not the Taliban. They are much more capable. Every force has its limits given the circumstances, but they are by no means incompetent and it'd be dangerous to assume victory so early.[/QUOTE] While they're certainly capable of the feats they've accomplished they've shown themselves very incompetent when dealing with internal problems that face them. what little news we get out of Mosul tends to be rather grim that citizens are paying excessively for food items,constant brown outs and literally one of the worst things period is water becoming polluted enough for many citizens that they need to filter it daily to drink. While ISIS has a fairly capable and experience fighting force they really haven't seen much competition other than going against. [B]Various rebel groups Under equiped Kurdish groups (Peshmerga,YPG/YPJ,PKK,MLKP,etc,etc.) A over stretched regime of Syria. (Hell recent battles with ISIS that the SAA have almost always has SAA winning.) Iraqi Army with leadership issues on various levels along with poor soldiers. [/B] In short ISIS is a very good MILITANT group, they're good at fighting against these entities that are weakened,under equipped, or have poor morale. Believe it or not the first time ISIS engaged US troopers last year the US troopers not only repelled the attack w/o anyone of them getting injured but also pushed them back 10km from where they initially started the attack. When facing a military that isn't lacking those three things/aren't fighting a multifront war they'd easily be steamrolled by them.

Not to mention, their antagonization of pretty much every single nation on the planet hasn't helped any. They might have gotten some funding, or at the least some quiet support from some nations, but instead they've struck out at almost everyone.