Isis an hour away from Baghdad??

Stories are coming out that the ISIS forces are an hour away from Baghdad.

And yet the airstrikes are not accomplishing much.

And, the Iraqi army is useless for any practical purposes.

Article from the independent.co.uk

Is this for real or just more speculation?

Can anybody confirm anything at all about the Middle-East?

The Iraqi army, plagued by corruption, absenteeism and supply failures, has little chance against Islamist fanatics using suicide bombings and fluid tactics. And US air strikes are making little difference

US air strikes are failing to drive back Isis in Iraq where its forces are still within an hour’s drive of Baghdad.

Three and a half months since the Iraqi army was spectacularly routed in northern Iraq by a far inferior force of Isis fighters, it is still seeing bases overrun because it fails to supply them with ammunition, food and water. The selection of a new Prime Minister, Haider al-Abadi, to replace Nouri al-Maliki last month was supposed to introduce a more conciliatory government that would appeal to Iraq’s Sunni minority from which Isis draws its support.

The article is a few hours old. ISIS should be knocking on doors any minute now!!

Isis an hour away from Baghdad - with no sign of Iraq army being able to make a successful counter-attack

What

IS

Going ON ?

They're letting it grow out of control so there's more excuses to fight/waste money. I would get out of there if I could, and I'm sure many can't.

Well, ISIS was given warning about the aistrikes, so it is no surprise.

originally posted by: Gully
Well, ISIS was given warning about the aistrikes, so it is no surprise.

Makes ya wonder doesn't it.

Hmmm.

Something isn't adding up.

a reply to: xuenchen

They should bring him back out of retirement.

a reply to: SLAYER69

Jay Carney is available.

"This attack is very significant. It is the first infantry-like, complex, and penetrating attack in Baghdad city by ISIS since the fall of Mosul in June of this year," the Washington-based nonprofit Institute for the Study of War wrote on its website, referring to Iraq's second-largest city, which is in the Islamic State's hands. "ISIS likely carried out the attack to release some of the pressure it is facing as a result of the recent U.S. air campaign targeting its positions. The attack also signifies that, despite the heightened defenses of Baghdad in the aftermath of the fall of Mosul, ISIS is still able to carry out attacks in an area where it is unlikely to have active sleeper cells."

Link

The Iraqi army are worse than useless.

They have actually been that close for a few months now. Theyve reached Baghdads suburbs for at least 2 months ago.

These links give you an idea of the frontlines, the second one seems a bit more accurate, the first one is updated more often and is easier to keep track of:

commons.wikimedia.org...:Syria_and_Iraq_2014-onward_War_map.png

pietervanostaeyen.files.wordpress.com...

I have no idea how accurate they are though, but Ive read articles about ISIS reaching Baghdad in july.

originally posted by: whatsup86
They have actually been that close for a few months now. Theyve reached Baghdads suburbs for at least 2 months ago.

These links give you an idea of the frontlines, the second one seems a bit more accurate, the first one is updated more often and is easier to keep track of:

commons.wikimedia.org...:Syria_and_Iraq_2014-onward_War_map.png

pietervanostaeyen.files.wordpress.com...

I have no idea how accurate they are though, but Ive read articles about ISIS reaching Baghdad in july.

They just took an army base 50 km from Baghdad on Sunday. The soldiers ran away again and all the weapons were left behind.

a reply to: xuenchen

Apparently it is true - local people tweeting and using other social media have confirmed IS are about 2 miles outside the city limits and advancing, albeit slowly.

Thing is, if they get into Baghdad, Air Strikes will be next to useless unless we are prepared to inflict heavy civilian losses as well. The same applies for other cities IS are threatening or have already taken.

By all accounts, IS have adapted to the Air Strikes already, so unless we actually catch them in the open, they are not going to halt them very much.

originally posted by: whatsup86
They have actually been that close for a few months now. Theyve reached Baghdads suburbs for at least 2 months ago.

These links give you an idea of the frontlines, the second one seems a bit more accurate, the first one is updated more often and is easier to keep track of:

commons.wikimedia.org...:Syria_and_Iraq_2014-onward_War_map.png

pietervanostaeyen.files.wordpress.com...

I have no idea how accurate they are though, but Ive read articles about ISIS reaching Baghdad in july.

exacto mundo

ISIS was saving the takeover of Baghdad for a spectacular time...

and now after the mighty superpower USA an its allies in the air-war on ISIS have conducted some 2 weeks of 'No Shock or Awe' bombardment of the IS.............

the IS commanders see that it is time to 'Take' Baghdad...so as to show that IS is invincible even against the USA superpower unlimited airpower

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Anybody got a count on what was left at the base? Any air power?

ok how do you cross a desert with out being picked up by
1)satellite in geostationary orbit
2)us fighter jets
3)spy planes
4)drones
5)french planes
6)uk planes on detect and strike missions
im certainly a bit confused by this,yes maybe a small squad would make it through,but a force large enough to take this town wouldn't stand a chance,,but maybe some-one has cloaked there camels( missing plane and cloaking scientists twist ).

originally posted by: SLAYER69
a reply to: xuenchen

They should bring him back out of retirement.

Almost forgot about that guy !!!

a reply to: stuthealien

ISIS took Falluja back in January, report from Washington Post

source
So, they are almost 9 months very close to Baghdad. Recently they started pushing even closer, but they don't need much movement, they have presence there for a long time.

a reply to: stuthealien

It's not exactly a blank canvas, this "desert" - much of it is actually river plains with many villages, towns etc. Picking out the the IS vehicles from normal traffic, especially when these guys are wise to the air power above, is a hard task even with all the tech at our disposal.

It pretty much confirms the Iraqi Army has no will to fight they are afraid, morale is on its knees so any initiative is lost. I expect them to fold like a pack of cards imminently. Only the Shia Militias can perform any kind of reargaurd action now. A full blown sectarian war is on the cards until Western boots get on the ground then they will come together to cause mayhem amongst the Infidels. What a mess !









a reply to: xuenchen

While I do not put much faith in the average Iraqi soldier, I still have to shake my head in wonder at their resolve, or lack thereof. A supply issue is not the fault of the individual soldier, and I could understand breaking off the engagement due to supply issues. That is just common sense for those doing the fighting. If you have no more ammunition to fire or food to eat, it is difficult to put up much resistance for any length of time.

Now the first thing that came to mind when I read your title is that it would be nice to draw as many ISIS fighters into a single place as possible. If the US puts up only token resistance to ISIS while they're on their way to Baghdad, and then they put up only the minimal resistance necessary to keep ISIS on the outskirts of the city, ISIS fighters would taste the impending victory and would likely bring up any reserves they might have. There is no guarantee of that, but knowing that one defender is worth about three attackers, one will usually need more troops to assault an objective as they would need to defend it. Therefore if ISIS' goal is to capture Baghdad, they will have to concentrate a large amount of war materiel and personnel.

I will not consider their actions meaningful where their objectives are concerned until they at least capture Baghdad. If they can do that I would be quite surprised, and that would give them much greater control and influence in the surrounding region, since there are many towns around that city. One is better placed when they can reach multiple objectives from a central location. Kind of like in chess, where holding the center of the board allows your pieces the shortest route to any other part of the board, meaning greater force can be brought to bear without wasting any time or losing any tempo, thus meaning more momentum.

I think it would be an excellent tactical plan to draw ISIS in around Baghdad, and then really hit them from the air when they have mobilized for the actual assault or siege, reducing any momentum they might have, and then actually counter-attack from inside the city itself. I am willing to bet that most of Iraq's military effort has been towards the capital city, and as such they have more resources there than in any other location. So even if this is not part of the overall strategy for defeating ISIS around Baghdad, drawing them in I mean, at the very least the Iraqi soldiers should be able to hold ISIS at bay, if not defeat ISIS' advance on the city outright.

Like I said, a defender always has an advantage over an attacker. This is especially true when we are talking mostly about infantry, because to assault with infantry means putting soldiers in harms way. They have to literally cover ground, while the defenders are stationary for the most part. This means that a defender will have a prepared firing position, and they should have scouted out the areas around the city, gotten the range for their various ranged weapon systems, and should punish any attacker brutally. If by some miracle ISIS could surround Baghdad, I don't know if the Iraqi soldiers have enough resolve to not surrender, but they should know that no quarter will be given. A surrounded force will always fight more ferociously, especially if they know no quarter will be given upon surrender or capture.

If the Iraqis were highly disciplined, which they're not, they could, if surrounded, not be hoped to do what Paulus' 6th army did in Stalingrad. Granted they did surrender, but the fight they put up was monumental. But of course they could have easily broken out earlier in the siege had they been allowed to, but that is beside the point. I'm just saying that disciplined troops are very difficult to defeat when backed into a corner. I also was trying to imply that despite the Iraqi army's lack of military discipline, this may not matter if they realize that surrender means certain death, which would also make them fight to the end. And ISIS does not possess the military hardware to force the issue, thus they will have to attempt to force the issue with infantry. They have hardware, but not enough for it to be decisive. And the Iraqis should have much more military resources at their disposal compared with ISIS.

So with all of these things considered, it would surprise me greatly if ISIS could capture Baghdad. Of course if there really was some grand conspiracy and behind the scenes politics going on, this will influence what occurs militarily. For instance, the US could want Baghdad to be captured for some reason, in which case the Iraqis would be trickled out of the city or something would be done to ensure they didn't hold the city, without making it obvious. This could be the reason the Iraqi units have not been supplied in other parts of Iraq, because the goal is to let ISIS capture certain locations. It is difficult to swallow, and I do not think that is what is going on, I just want to point out that it would dictate what happens. Even if ISIS had a 3 to 1 advantage, which is hard to say at this point, I don't think they could actually take Baghdad if the Iraqi forces stationed there actually put up more than token resistance.

An hour away?

Is that by camel? Or, some other means of transportation?

Sorry... I had to!

Months ago they already stated in the news that ISIS is only 70km away from Bagdad... so why are you all surprised?