is there a relevance to where we started, which was ISIL who fled Ramadi?
Ha, well you brought Stalingrad up.
My point has always been that good commanders need both the freedom and wisdom to decide whether to stand and fight or make tactical withdraws in the face of impossible odds to preserve their strength to be better used in another battle that is either more important and/or one they actually have a chance of winning.
When the battle has already clearly and irredeemably been lost, good commanders' top priority should then become one of saving as much men and materials as they can from that defeat so they can regroup and fight another day.
Demanding that they stay and fight to the death when all hope of victory has already been lost is plain stupid.
The needless deaths of all those men and loss of valuable equipment that could easily have been saved achieves no strategic value.
Tactically speaking, when your side has already been routed, even if you stayed to fight to the death, you are not likely to be able to achieve much of anything before getting cornered and picked off by the enemy.
It's simply a stupid policy and a waste of men and materials to demand your troops never retreat. It's far worse to summarily execute men who have retreated, especially in such a gruesome manner.
If these reports are true, then ISIS is finished. It just doesn't know it's dead yet.
I wonder if the Russians and coalition air strikes have managed to liquidate all, or enough of the sensible ISIS leaders and field commanders, to leave the clueless zealots in charge.
If that is the case, best stop targeting ISIS leadership with air strikes, as these bonehead leadership and blind brutality is helping to kill ISIS members just as, if not more efficiently then coalition air strikes.
OK, the scale ... it's only about one mile from Jarjisa to Rastan, and some ten miles from Rastan to Taqsees
