That's what I called it managing. USA sometimes fights against Taliban only when her own benefits goes under threat. USA waited until fall of Baghdad but we didn't. We were there when Iraqis needed our help. The same thing that USA did to Kabul and Tripoli. With their own created terror groups armed and charged by Ale Saud, they go to fighting them, isn't it the biggest irony dude? They first destroy them and then by making terror groups the excuse, they start to advancing in muslim countries.
Yeah the much Americans are helping Palestinians to lose their lands to israelis, they have helped Iraqis to overcome ISIS. You cannot make any sense, cut the crap
USA is trying to have presence In Iraq and their support any kinds of support I mean, is due to higher hand of iraqi army on the battlefield. USA has never helped middle eastern people to overcome their own terrorism but managed terror groups to hold its geopolitical gains. Israel is one and main of those geopolitical gains. Why you cannot understand this simple fact that USA wants its domination in middle east? Denying all the sacrifices of Iranians and giving all the credit to Americans is unfair and angering thing.
Having followed this campaign since 2014 closely, daily I can say that there's been times the US was idle and let US advance whilst they could have stopped them. A very clear example of this is the fall of Ramadi in 2015, where a week before its fall previous US chief of staff Martin Dempsey stated in a television interview that 'Ramadi is not an interview, they can reclaim it later'. What followed was a massive IS convoy entering Ramadi as seen in the image below, the USAF could have leveled this.
IS entering Ramadi
Until a point all serious USAF support was only for Kurds, that only changed once Russia began air operations in Syria. US-led coalition air support become more intense for the ISF which increased gradually, Mosul air support was maximum. IS could have been defeated quicker if not for all the political obstacles and strings that slowed down the process and costed many life's as well.
Without US involvement Arbil would have fallen to IS and the ISF would not have reclaimed Mosul yet, Baghdad would not have fallen but the situation would not be good. Another option was that we'd have seen Iranian troops in Iraq which would cause problems within Iraq. Initially (2014 and 2015) it was the PMU and ISOF which took the upper hand in operations, 2016 and onwards it was ISOF, the army and police units that took the upper hand which is due to US-led coalition restructuring and retraining of these forces. It has been a very effective effort obviously so importance of US contribution cannot be denied here.
ISOF has always been a very effective force, this once again is due to its proper formation, governance and maintenance of the force which is a US effort initially. Iraq has been too disorganized to do this alone without foreign help and that help better comes from the US rather than any neighboring country as that would meet strong disapproval from locals and neighbors have plans that undermine Iraq whereas the US has different interests.
USA help for Kurds was also a part of American plan. Weakened Baghdad and an strong government in Erbil could be the outcome hence partitioning of iraq. Some folks likes to believe that ISIS fighters came from sky and had nothing to do with Sauds, not in my concern, but important fact is that ISIS mentality exists until Sauds are ruling in peninsula. So Iraq is always close to threat, white flags, ISIS, Nusra are potential threats to iraqi safety. Iranian supported groups are all guardians of iraqi lands, like the hezbollah of Lebanon, they try for iraqi safety, however they are ethnics of Iraq, raised by iraqi mothers and they have the credit of destroying ISIS, others came second to them.Having followed this campaign since 2014 closely, daily I can say that there's been times the US was idle and let US advance whilst they could have stopped them. A very clear example of this is the fall of Ramadi in 2015, where a week before its fall previous US chief of staff Martin Dempsey stated in a television interview that 'Ramadi is not an interview, they can reclaim it later'. What followed was a massive IS convoy entering Ramadi as seen in the image below, the USAF could have leveled this.
IS entering Ramadi
Until a point all serious USAF support was only for Kurds, that only changed once Russia began air operations in Syria. US-led coalition air support become more intense for the ISF which increased gradually, Mosul air support was maximum. IS could have been defeated quicker if not for all the political obstacles and strings that slowed down the process and costed many life's as well.
Without US involvement Arbil would have fallen to IS and the ISF would not have reclaimed Mosul yet, Baghdad would not have fallen but the situation would not be good. Another option was that we'd have seen Iranian troops in Iraq which would cause problems within Iraq. Initially (2014 and 2015) it was the PMU and ISOF which took the upper hand in operations, 2016 and onwards it was ISOF, the army and police units that took the upper hand which is due to US-led coalition restructuring and retraining of these forces. It has been a very effective effort obviously so importance of US contribution cannot be denied here.
ISOF has always been a very effective force, this once again is due to its proper formation, governance and maintenance of the force which is a US effort initially. Iraq has been too disorganized to do this alone without foreign help and that help better comes from the US rather than any neighboring country as that would meet strong disapproval from locals and neighbors have plans that undermine Iraq whereas the US has different interests.
@Falcon29
Thanks for bringing some sanity into this forum. Scores of armchair mujahids here who are oblivious to the ground realities of various conflicts and act as propaganda-bots of their respective regimes. It wouldn't surprise me if some members are actually propaganda-bots.
ISIS movement grew to such proportions that it demoralized/routed Iraqi security forces from many regions and completely altered the course of conflict in Syria. No country had the necessary amount of firepower, precision munitions and logistics-capability to take on ISIS movement across Iraq and Syria; only US fit the bill and it struck hard to this end (i.e. Operation Inherent Resolve).
American contribution to the war-effort against ISIS across the Middle East is absolutely invaluable. However, propaganda-bots here assume that ISIS evaporated into thin air just like that.
There is so much data on the web:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Inherent_Resolve
https://www.defense.gov/OIR/
http://www.centcom.mil/OPERATIONS-AND-EXERCISES/OPERATION-INHERENT-RESOLVE/
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgv7fFrpktGrcJtanYifRYw/videos
The assets US brought to bear against ISIS since 2014:
Glimpses of US-led forces assaulting positions of ISIS in (and around) the city of MOSUL:
Glimpses of US-led forces assaulting positions of ISIS across Syria:
Somebody should ask these propaganda-bots that who was on the receiving end of such firepower? Zombies? Vampires? Russian troops?
