Iraq PM: We Lost 2,300 American Humvees to ISIS in Mosul Alone

[galdur]

.....The Humvees were specifically created by the US to be able to carry heavy loads and to sustain small-arms fire — qualities ISIS has found make the vehicles perfect for suicide bombings.

"There's a simple reason the militants are using Humvees and other armored vehicles as rolling bombs," Sean D. Naylor reports for Foreign Policy. "Their protective armored plating prevents defenders from killing the trucks' drivers before the militants can detonate their loads, while the vehicles' capacity to carry enormous amounts of weight means the Islamic State can sometimes pack in a ton of explosives."

ISIS has used these bomb-laden Humvees in waves of suicide bombings across both Syria and Iraq, targeting strategic locations including Syrian military bases and the Iraqi provincial capital of Ramadi, which fell to the militants at the end of May. The Kurds are increasingly concerned that they will face a wave as well.

According to The Soufan Group, ISIS used more than 30 car bombs in its Ramadi offensive. Many of these involved armored US Humvees, and some of the bombs were large enough to level an entire city block.´´´´



Read more: http://uk.businessinsider.com/isis-turning-us-humvees-into-iraqs-nightmare-2015-6?r=US#ixzz3cG2unaet

[1714050753]

1714050753

[1714050753]

1714050753

[1714050753]

1714050753

[1714050753]

1714050753

[bryant.coleman]

Yes, like 1500 ISIS fighters advanced on Mosul for about a week under the watchful eyes of brain-dead U.S. satellite info watchers and other worthless intelligence before defeating a totally useless military force which outnumbered them 15-20 to one.

The excuse given by the Americans is that the attack happened all of a sudden, and the ISIS advanced at a pace which was not anticipated earlier. And most of the United States military satellites are being used to spy on "enemy" countries such as Russia and China. They don't have any spare capacity to do areal surveillance on Iraq.

[galdur]

Yes, like 1500 ISIS fighters advanced on Mosul for about a week under the watchful eyes of brain-dead U.S. satellite info watchers and other worthless intelligence before defeating a totally useless military force which outnumbered them 15-20 to one.

The excuse given by the Americans is that the attack happened all of a sudden, and the ISIS advanced at a pace which was not anticipated earlier. And most of the United States military satellites are being used to spy on "enemy" countries such as Russia and China. They don't have any spare capacity to do areal surveillance on Iraq.

Right, and when Ramadi fell they were all away attending the annual CIA feet-picking meet in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania or so I heard.

[galdur]

Wow, what´ll he figure out next....LOL

CIA DIRECTOR JOHN BRENNAN ADMITS U.S. FOREIGN POLICY COULD SPUR TERRORISM

BY JON SCHWARZ @tinyrevolution



John Brennan, director of the Central Intelligence Agency, went on “Face the Nation” last Sunday and did something weird: he acknowledged that U.S. foreign policy might sometimes cause terrorism. Of course, he didn’t word it exactly like that, but close enough:

BRENNAN: I think the president has tried to make sure that we’re able to push the envelope when we can to protect this country. But we have to recognize that sometimes our engagement and direct involvement will stimulate and spur additional threats to our national security interests.

This is notable because the people who run our foreign policy usually tell us that terrorists are like zombies, driven by some incomprehensible force to kill and kill and kill until we take them out with a head shot/drone strike. Brennan himself did this five years ago while “answering” questions from the late reporter Helen Thomas about Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the 23-year-old Nigerian man who tried to blow up a Northwest flight over Detroit:

THOMAS: And what is the motivation? We never hear what you find out on why.

BRENNAN: Al Qaeda is an organization that is dedicated to murder and wanton slaughter of innocents …

THOMAS: Why?

BRENDAN: I think this is a — this is a long issue, but al Qaeda is just determined to carry out attacks here against the homeland.

The next year Abdulmutallab explained at his sentencing what had motivated him:

I [attempted] to attack the United States in retaliation for U.S. support of Israel and in retaliation of the killing of innocent and civilian Muslim populations in Palestine, especially in the blockade of Gaza, and in retaliation for the killing of innocent and civilian Muslim populations in Yemen, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan and beyond, most of them women, children, and noncombatants.

In fact, the government’s own sentencing memorandum for Abdulmutallab cites this statement, and points out that trying “to retaliate against government conduct” is part of the legal definition of terrorism.

So Brennan well understands that our foreign policy causes attacks against Americans. And our legal code specifies that attempting to retaliate against U.S. actions is what makes you a terrorist. Nonetheless, this obvious reality is almost never said out loud by government officials.

On the other hand, comedians can say it (though not on TV). Immediately after 9/11, George W. Bush famously asked “Why do they hate us?” and answered: “They hate our freedoms.” On David Cross’s 2004 “It’s Not Funny” stand-up album, recorded at the DC Improv Club, Cross said:

CROSS: I don’t think Osama Bin Laden sent those planes in to attack us because he hated our freedom. I think he did it because our support for Israel and ties to the Saudi family and all our military bases in Saudi Arabia. You know why I think that? Because that’s what he fucking said.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/06/06/cia-director-john-brennan-admits-killing-people-countries-might-make-want-kill-us/

[bryant.coleman]

Right, and when Ramadi fell they were all away attending the annual CIA feet-picking meet in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania or so I heard.

After the pull out of the American troops from Iraq, Obama is not much bothered about that nation. He doesn't care if the ISIS is going to take Baghdad or if the pro-American central government is overthrown. Now it is no longer his headache. He believes that it is the responsibility of the Iraqis to take care of themselves.

[Chef Ramsay]

Dude, where’s my Humvee? Iraq losing equipment to Islamic State at staggering rate

Iraqi security forces lost 2,300 Humvee armored vehicles when Islamic State overran the northern city of Mosul in June 2014, Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi said on Sunday in an interview with Iraqiya state television. Coupled with previous losses of American weapons, the conclusion is simple: The United States is effectively supplying Islamic State with tools of war the militant group cannot otherwise hope to acquire from its patrons.

In addition to the Humvees, Iraqi forces previously abandoned significant types and numbers of heavy weapons to Islamic State. For example, losses to Islamic State include at least 40 M1A1 main battle tanks, as well as small arms and ammunition, including 74,000 machine guns, and as many as 52 M198 howitzer mobile gun systems.

“We lost a lot of weapons,” Abadi admitted.

To help replenish Iraq’s motor pool, the U.S. State Department last year approved a sale to Iraq of 1,000 Humvees, along with their armor upgrades, machine guns and grenade launchers. The United States previously donated 250 Mine Resistant Armored Personnel carriers (MRAPs) to Iraq, plus unaccountable amounts of material left behind when American forces departed in 2011. The United States is currently in the process of moving to Iraq 175 M1A1 Abrams main battle tanks, 55,000 rounds of main tank-gun ammunition, $600 million in howitzers and trucks, $700 million worth of Hellfire missiles and 2,000 AT-4 rockets.

The Hellfires and AT-4′s, anti-tank weapons, are presumably going to be used to help destroy the American armor in the hands of Islamic State. The United States is also conducting air strikes to destroy weapons seized by Islamic State. It’s a surreal state of affairs in which American weaponry is being sent into Iraq to destroy American weaponry previously sent into Iraq. If a new sequel to Catch-22 were to be written, this would be the plot line.

The United States also continues to spend money on training the Iraqi military. Some 3,000 American soldiers are currently in Iraq preparing Iraqi soldiers to perhaps someday fight Islamic State; many of the Americans are conducting the training on former military bases abandoned by the United States following Gulf War 2.0. In addition, some $1.2 billion in training funds for Iraq were tucked into an omnibus spending bill that Congress passed earlier this year. This is in spite of the sad reality that from 2003 to 2011, the United States spent $25 billion training Iraqi security forces.

The return on these training investments? The Iraqi army had 30,000 soldiers in Mosul, who ran away in the face of about 1,000 Islamic State fighters. The same thing happened just a few weeks ago in Ramadi, where 10,000 Iraqi soldiers, collapsing faster than a cardboard box in the rain, fled ahead of only 400 Islamic State fighters. The Iraqis left behind more weapons.

In an interview with me a year ago, Chris Coyne, professor of economics at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, predicted this exact scenario well before the United States sent troops back into Iraq:

“The United States government provided significant amounts of military hardware to the Iraqi government with the intention that it would be used for good. However, during the Islamic State offensive, many of the Iraqis turned and ran, leaving behind the United States-supplied hardware. This weapons windfall may further alter the dynamics in Syria.

“Now the United States government wants to provide more military supplies to the Iraqi government to combat Islamic State. But I haven’t heard many people recognizing, let alone discussing, the potential negative unintended consequences of doing so. How do we know the weapons and supplies will be used as desired? Why should we have any confidence that supplying more military hardware to a country with a dysfunctional and ineffective government will lead to a good outcome either in Iraq or in the broader region?”

The impact of all these heavy weapons falling into Islamic State hands is significant for American foreign policy goals in the Middle East. A report prepared for the United Nations Security Council warns that Islamic State possesses sufficient reserves of small arms, ammunition and vehicles to wage its war in Syria and Iraq for two more years.

And that presumes the United States won’t be losing more tools of war to Islamic State, thanks to the Iraqi army.

More...http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/06/02/dude-wheres-my-humvee-iraqi-equipment-losses-to-islamic-state-are-out-of-control/?utm_content=15915441&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook

No freaking wonder why ISIS is so potent w/ such a small crew. They can roam the countryside in these MRAPs and have unlimited ammo and heavier power to overwhelm everyone, including the chumps in the Iraqi army.

[galdur]

Yes. Obviously if you´re manning a defensive position and see 5-10 Humvees laden with high explosives approaching you don´t really want to stick around. That´s how ISIS breaches key defensive points whereupon the rest of the line soon crumbles. Simple but very effective. The Humvee is exceptionally well suited for such tactics. Sometimes the high command of your enemy, in this case U.S., being absolutely brain-dead is a more valuable asset to you than the strength of your own forces.

[bryant.coleman]

Yes. Obviously if you´re manning a defensive position and see 5-10 Humvees laden with high explosives approaching you don´t really want to stick around.

How hard it is to take out these Humvees in air-strikes? As I can see from the news, the ISIS is not even trying to hide these vehicles. They are always using them to attack the Iraqi Army / Peshmerga locations. Why can't the American pilots destroy these vehicles by dropping bombs on top of them? They have been conducting air strikes for many months now.

[galdur]

Yes. Obviously if you´re manning a defensive position and see 5-10 Humvees laden with high explosives approaching you don´t really want to stick around.

How hard it is to take out these Humvees in air-strikes? As I can see from the news, the ISIS is not even trying to hide these vehicles. They are always using them to attack the Iraqi Army / Peshmerga locations. Why can't the American pilots destroy these vehicles by dropping bombs on top of them? They have been conducting air strikes for many months now.

I don´t know; I´m not a friggin shrink. I have no training enabling me to figure out why psychopaths do or don´t do this or that.

[RodeoX]

Yes. Obviously if you´re manning a defensive position and see 5-10 Humvees laden with high explosives approaching you don´t really want to stick around.

How hard it is to take out these Humvees in air-strikes? As I can see from the news, the ISIS is not even trying to hide these vehicles. They are always using them to attack the Iraqi Army / Peshmerga locations. Why can't the American pilots destroy these vehicles by dropping bombs on top of them? They have been conducting air strikes for many months now.

Currently about 75% of the sorties are returning without dropping their bombs. Despite how easy it looks in the movies it is very hard to hit these things in an urban environment. Vehicles are easy to hide or disguise from the air. And our policies on civilian casualties require someone on the ground and observing that the target is free of non-combatants.
The enemy has been fighting against airplanes for a generation now and they know how to mitigate some of the risk. They bivouac in civilian homes, they hide military vehicles in the garage and patrol using civilian vehicles or on foot, they shuffle things around when a sandstorm comes; they know what they are doing. These are not the guys in street clothing spraying and praying from the middle of the street. Those guys are dead now and these are the ones who survived and learned.

[bryant.coleman]

Despite how easy it looks in the movies it is very hard to hit these things in an urban environment. Vehicles are easy to hide or disguise from the air.

Humvees might be difficult to spot from the air, when they are not moving. I was not referring about this situation. When 10 or 15 of these vehicles advance towards the Kurdish Peshmerga positions, armed with high-intensity explosives, I don't think that they will be that hard to distinguish from the other civilian vehicles. 

[galdur]

Too Big to Recover: Mosul Enters Second Year Under ISIS Rule
Locals Complain Iraq Seems Disinterested in Retaking City

by Jason Ditz, June 07, 2015

This time last year, the world was expressing shock with the news that ISIS had successfully captured the major city of Mosul. Iraq’s second-largest city, the fall of Mosul was a huge blow to Iraqi military morale, and played a big role in US and Iranian officials deciding the join the fight to “save” Iraq.

Retaking Mosul was the top priority then, and as summer gave way to autumn, it was pushed back to a “spring offensive.” A year in, the promises haven’t led to a single effort to retake the city at all, and some locals believe Iraq isn’t that interested in recovering their city at all.

It’s not that Mosul isn’t a valuable prize, of course. Rather, it’s that Mosul is such a big city, and Iraq’s military has struggled mightily with much smaller and less defended targets. Retaking cities like Tikrit and Baiji have become “priorities” because they’re at least attainable.

With Iraq unable to even keep the city of Ramadi from falling to ISIS, mustering a counteroffensive to retake Mosul is just not realistic. The official promises to retake Ramadi, which is more conveniently located near Baghdad and more easily reached by the military, still haven’t amounted to more than a stalemate outside the city.

Mosul residents were waiting for their turn to by “deliberated” to come last year, but at this point are resigned to the reality that their turn may not be coming at all, as their city is simply too big for Iraq’s bungling military to even think about retaking.

http://news.antiwar.com/2015/06/07/too-big-to-recover-mosul-enters-second-year-under-isis-rule/

[RodeoX]

Despite how easy it looks in the movies it is very hard to hit these things in an urban environment. Vehicles are easy to hide or disguise from the air.

Humvees might be difficult to spot from the air, when they are not moving. I was not referring about this situation. When 10 or 15 of these vehicles advance towards the Kurdish Peshmerga positions, armed with high-intensity explosives, I don't think that they will be that hard to distinguish from the other civilian vehicles. 

Ah yes. A vehicle out in the open desert, especially at night, is an easy target. They likely do not have civilians near them when fighting, they are less able to hide their heat signature. This is when we get them.
But they try their best to shoot, move, then hide before the airstrike comes. If an aircraft is on station then it could be minutes, if not it could take an hour or more to show up. Other problems include the enemy possessing better anti-air weapons and economic advantage. What I mean by that is the enemy can fight for less money against an air campaign. Each time an airplane makes a sortie it burns something like $2000 an hour in fuel. The bombs it drops cost more than the vehicle they hit. A hellfire missile costs $70,00 while an old pickup truck with a heavy machine gun costs half as much. So unless Iraq is willing to spend billions on an air campaign, they are going to have to fight these vehicles on the ground with cheaper indirect fire weapons.  

[Snail2]

Humvees might be difficult to spot from the air, when they are not moving. I was not referring about this situation. When 10 or 15 of these vehicles advance towards the Kurdish Peshmerga positions, armed with high-intensity explosives, I don't think that they will be that hard to distinguish from the other civilian vehicles. 

They should build some advance AT obstacles with hedgehogs and/or dragon's teeth, dig some trenches on the sides and a deploy a few BMPs (preferably BMP-2s) or M3s. None of those Iraqi army guys learned anything about building a defensive position?!

[bryant.coleman]

What I mean by that is the enemy can fight for less money against an air campaign. Each time an airplane makes a sortie it burns something like $2000 an hour in fuel. The bombs it drops cost more than the vehicle they hit. A hellfire missile costs $70,00 while an old pickup truck with a heavy machine gun costs half as much. So unless Iraq is willing to spend billions on an air campaign, they are going to have to fight these vehicles on the ground with cheaper indirect fire weapons.  

Oh common, the Americans have spent more than $2 trillion in Iraq so far. Why can't they spend a few million more to stop the ISIS advancing? Also, the real economic cost if the ISIS capture Baghdad, or some of the major Iraqi oilfields will be in hundreds of billions of USD. So it will be better to spend some money now, rather than incurring huge costs later.

[RodeoX]

What I mean by that is the enemy can fight for less money against an air campaign. Each time an airplane makes a sortie it burns something like $2000 an hour in fuel. The bombs it drops cost more than the vehicle they hit. A hellfire missile costs $70,00 while an old pickup truck with a heavy machine gun costs half as much. So unless Iraq is willing to spend billions on an air campaign, they are going to have to fight these vehicles on the ground with cheaper indirect fire weapons.  

Oh common, the Americans have spent more than $2 trillion in Iraq so far. Why can't they spend a few million more to stop the ISIS advancing? Also, the real economic cost if the ISIS capture Baghdad, or some of the major Iraqi oilfields will be in hundreds of billions of USD. So it will be better to spend some money now, rather than incurring huge costs later.

We did not have the 2 trillion we already spent. lol. And defeating DAESH will cost many billions more. Each time a jet flies a sortie it carries about 1/3 of a million dollars in ordinance. Let's say each time they get three vehicles. In that case just to get the 2,300 HMMWVs will cost $245,336,333.33. Those HMMWVs are just the tip of the iceberg. There are all sorts of checkpoints, artillery, tens of thousands of other vehicles, etc.
At some point after degrading all these assets we still have to get out of our vehicles and fight with small arms. This is the most dangerous phase and will require motivated and highly trained troops. Troops Iraq does not have.  If we (America) is going to pay for this it is going to require a significant increase in taxation. And an acceptance of the reality that we might still lose. 

[bryant.coleman]

If we (America) is going to pay for this it is going to require a significant increase in taxation. And an acceptance of the reality that we might still lose. 

It was the Americans who toppled the secular regime of Saddam Hussein, thereby creating the power vacuum, which ultimately resulted in the creation of the ISIS. So IMO, the Americans should bear the cost of defeating the ISIS. Else, the Americans can pay for these operations, using the revenues from Iraqi petroleum and natural gas deposits.

[galdur]

The question remains what did the U.S. regime hope to achieve by rendering this so called Iraqi military absolutely useless? They´ve been spending billions upon billions "training" that force for over a decade. The results should be obvious even to total retards around here.

[RodeoX]

If we (America) is going to pay for this it is going to require a significant increase in taxation. And an acceptance of the reality that we might still lose. 

It was the Americans who toppled the secular regime of Saddam Hussein, thereby creating the power vacuum, which ultimately resulted in the creation of the ISIS. So IMO, the Americans should bear the cost of defeating the ISIS. Else, the Americans can pay for these operations, using the revenues from Iraqi petroleum and natural gas deposits.

I agree. I think we broke it, we bought it. The ethical thing to do is stand with Iraq even if it bleeds us dry. And it will. This is why I was dead against going there in the first place. In 2003 you could not convince anyone that this would take decades. The administration predicted the war would be over in 6 months. That was over 12 years ago and the end is no where in sight. Now we have only bad choices. If I were king I would draft 500,000 troops and get this over. It is going to take tens of thousands of U.S. lives and years, but we would win if we committed. 

Lesson for next time... Don't poke the fucking bear!

[cryptocoiner]

Loosing 2,300 American Humvees to ISIS in Mosul Alone? LOL, just as planned. Burn middle east, burn. For the profit of international bankers. America, fuck, yeah!