The first and foremost benefit is giving civilians notice that they should evacuate the city if they are able. Whether the United States publicly discussed the assault or not, ISIL would be well aware that a major offensive was coming.įurther, there are strategic benefits to publicly announcing a planned offensive. These kind of massive movements do not go unnoticed by enemy scouts and intelligence. It required a major military buildup that involves moving thousands of troops, armored vehicles, combat air support, and encircling the city to ensure no one escapes. It is more like the assault on Berlin at the end of World War II, the Battle for Hue in Vietnam, and the Second Battle of Fallujah during the Iraq War. This is not a quick operation on a single high-value target like the Bin Laden raid. The logistics of a major offensive like the assault on Mosul meant that any military actions to prepare for an offensive, even when not publicly advertised, would be easily noticed by ISIL actors. History is instructive here: A review of the battles for Fallujah in 2004 reveals that taking the time to publicly announce and prepare for an assault of this nature can play a critical role in ensuring success on the battlefield.Ĭredible analysts agree that even if administration officials and military commanders had stayed silent about the buildup to the offensive in Mosul, ISIL would have been able to easily discover the intentions of U.S. With the high-profile assault underway against an estimated 5,000 jihadist fighters, it is worth examining in depth the reasons why advertising a major military offensive on an urban target would be in the interest of the assaulting forces. However, the idea that the United States could conduct a sneak attack against an entrenched ISIL in a city the size of Mosul does not take into account either the logistical realities of major battlefield offensives or the strategic benefits of advertising such an operation beforehand. With the recent slate of successful high-profile covert operations against terrorists and the widespread use of drone strikes to eliminate non-state actors around the globe, on the surface Trump’s critique seems a reasonable question. The attack on Mosul is turning out to be a total disaster. Does publicly announcing an impending military offensive expose assaulting troops to dangers that could be avoided if plans to invade were kept quiet? During all three presidential debates, Republican nominee Donald Trump has asserted that the Obama administration was “stupid” for publicly discussing the impeding joint U.S/Iraqi offensive against ISIL in Mosul, claiming that Hillary Clinton was “ telling the enemy everything want to do” and asking “ why not a sneak attack?” A week ago, he tweeted:
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |