Why Is the Military Giving Its Playbook to ISIS?

Maybe the U.S. military has a new policy of giving its enemies warning of how it plans to kill them. To some, that’s how it seems lately.

A Pentagon-sanctioned briefing last week that released critical details of a coalition operation against a key Islamic State group stronghold in Iraq continues to leave national security experts baffled, wondering why the military would go against its tradition of not publicly providing information that could prove useful to enemy forces seeking to defend against an attack.

A senior official from U.S. Central Command told reporters by teleconference at the Pentagon on Thursday that a force of 20,000 to 25,000 Iraqis, with some coalition support, would launch an attack on Mosul, likely in April or May.

When asked during the conference why the military chose to release this information, the official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said, “Just to describe the level of detail that the Iraqi security forces are doing and the level of commitment that they have to this, and the significance of the upcoming operation.”

But the divulgence sparked vitriol among retired top officers, including those involved with the military campaign in Iraq, as well as members of Congress.

[READ: Who Holds the Real Power in ISIS?]

Sen. John McCain, newly minted chairman of the Armed Services Committee, cowrote a scathing letter to President Barack Obama, claiming the disclosures “not only risk the success of our mission, but could also cost the lives of U.S., Iraqi, and coalition forces.”

The Arizona lawmaker, along with fellow Republican and co-author Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, asked for an explanation as to how the release happened and called for those responsible to be held accountable. Both are frequent critics of Obama, particularly for his military and foreign policies.

Pentagon spokesman Army Col. Steve Warren on Tuesday confirmed the Defense Department was working on its response to members of Congress, which will remain confidential. Warren declined to categorize whether the Tampa, Florida-based Central Command misstepped, or whether the Pentagon had authorized the leak.

“I will not get into those kinds of judgment calls on whether or not – on how Central Command characterized their information,” he said. “We work very closely with our Central Command partners, every single day. Obviously in this case, sometimes [it’s] impossible to predict specifically what questions will come and what answers will come, but we are very closely tied with Tampa.”

“What’s important is that Central Command is doing what they can, as [are] we here in the department – we do what we can to ensure that both you here in the press and the American public understand what it is we’re trying to do.”

[ALSO: U.S. Announces Plan for Massive Counter-ISIS Attack]

Active and retired members of the military, and those who have worked closely with them, continue to debate the merits of releasing such information and the potential damage it could cause.

Privately, top uniformed members of the military have hypothesized that announcing a future offensive could allow Central Command to determine whether what it knows about the Islamic State group is accurate. It could also track what it believes are known routes of extremist fighters who may wish to participate in the springtime showdown.

Others believe the move is supremely ill-advised.

“In my mind, that’s all stupid,” says retired Army Lt. Gen. Daniel Bolger, who previously held top positions in Iraq and Afghanistan and advised the Iraqi army from 2005 to 2006.

“Either we’ve suddenly cracked the code and are about to demonstrate some skill I haven’t seen for the last 15 years, or we’re just goofing up. Unfortunately, I have to go with choice B based on what I’ve seen,” says Bolger, who now teaches military history at North Carolina State University. “They’re either inexperienced in combat, or they’re incredibly arrogant.”

Thursday’s information release is far from the first time the U.S. government and its allies have broadcast future military procedures. American commands in Iraq before 2011 routinely announced peaceful operations such as plans to train an Iraqi unit or provide aid to a particular village.

Apparent “loose lips” have preceded lethal military operations as well. The U.S.-backed Iraqi government gave advance notice of Operation Lightning in the spring of 2005. The strategy involved 40,000 military and police forces divvying up Baghdad and setting up checkpoints to root out insurgent fighters.

[MORE: Amid Criticism, Obama Continues Push to Separate Islam, Extremists]

Similar to Central Command’s explanation last week, officials then claimed the plan showed powerful collaboration between the Iraqi defense and interior ministries, according to a Los Angeles Times report.

The Iraqi government also provided hints ahead of a massive 2004 offensive aimed at wresting the key town of Fallujah from insurgent control.

In some ways, such disclosures align with the predictability of recent enemies. Taliban fighters in Afghanistan and Pakistan routinely operate around a “fighting season” in the spring through fall, when temperatures are warm enough to clear mountain passes of snow, and usually lay lower during the winter months. Al-Qaida franchises have operated under a similar tempo in the region, so Thursday’s move could provide an opportunity for the Iraqi military to show it’s also preparing for a fight.

Regardless, last week's announcement will either attract more fighters, Bolger says, or give existing ones time to dig in to defensible positions.

“You don’t tell the enemy what you’re doing,” he says. “You just do it to them.”