Coalition ?




 
--
Boots
 
September 16th, 2014  
tetvet
 

Topic: Coalition ?


Obama and Kerry are trying as best they can to get something going against ISIS-ISIL , Mr. Obama recently announced that a number of allies will come together to deal with the growing threat of ISIS , the names of the coalition Countries read like , what and who , the coalition has one member who might actually do something , Australia other than that not much .
September 16th, 2014  
Sara
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tetvet
Obama and Kerry are trying as best they can to get something going against ISIS-ISIL , Mr. Obama recently announced that a number of allies will come together to deal with the growing threat of ISIS , the names of the coalition Countries read like , what and who , the coalition has one member who might actually do something , Australia other than that not much .
Do you mean our Commander in Chief?... our President?... President Obama declared war?.. Or does it (his plan) not have that title? What's in a name anyway? Just the words "Obama, coalition, deal with, and ISIS" lead me to believe that Our president has declared war on murderous cowards.
September 16th, 2014  
tetvet
 
The more important issue is not ISIS-ISIL over there but to keep them from coming here , some would say destroy ISIS before they could come here , that is a pipe dream if ISIS crashes and burns there will be another to take its place and another it just keeps on going . Obamas grand strategy is put a finger in the dike and hope for the best .
--
Boots
September 16th, 2014  
Timothy
 
 
What a bloody mistake the 2009 pull-out was. I heard these guys have 20,000 to 31,000 fighters. I highly doubt anything significant can be done with air-strikes (even if they are stepped up to an extreme level). The Iraqi army seems incompetent, as does the Free Syrian Army. IS will continue to grow until large scale coalition ground operations ensue.

Chances of this happening ... well ...
September 16th, 2014  
tetvet
 
I don't know how many people ISIS has but they have the Guns so that makes them King of the hill . Air Strikes alone forget it won't work , I was in Vietnam when they had a jillion Air Strikes a day with little effect got to have people in place to make it work and there's no guarantee that would work .
September 16th, 2014  
JOC
 
 

Topic: B-52's


Quote:
Originally Posted by tetvet
I don't know how many people ISIS has but they have the Guns so that makes them King of the hill . Air Strikes alone forget it won't work , I was in Vietnam when they had a jillion Air Strikes a day with little effect got to have people in place to make it work and there's no guarantee that would work .
The bombing on the trail and jungle bases didn't do much from what I understand. However it did help to win certain victories like Khe Sanh, which was a hollow victory since they gave the territory they won back, crazy.
However the sustained bombing of Hanoi with the B-52's nearly reduced the city to ashes and shook up the NVA considerably.
Didn't Nixon's sending in the B-52's to bomb Hanoi bring the NVA to the peace talks, even though they lied and crossed the DMZ a few years after the peace treaty was implemented?
September 16th, 2014  
Remington 1858
 
 
It's important to keep in mind that these are non-state players. ISIS or ISIL, if you will, is not a country. Conventional military operations don't very much apply. They have no capitol to capture, no infrastructure of their own, no territory of their own. This is unconventional warfare in the raw. The need to to "attrit" their leadership, as they say in the Pentagon. Kill or capture ( preferably kill) their leadership, when new leaders take over, they move up on the hit parade. How is this to be done? ISIS has enemies. So in addition to drone strikes, air strikes and all the rest, it's important to play one group against the other. Some of that is going on now, It's risky. You may replace ISIS with something as bad or worse, but it doesn't require much in the way of troop commitments and that is critical in the U.S. with our current political climate.
September 16th, 2014  
JOC
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Remington 1858
It's important to keep in mind that these are non-state players. ISIS or ISIL, if you will, is not a country. Conventional military operations don't very much apply. They have no capitol to capture, no infrastructure of their own, no territory of their own. This is unconventional warfare in the raw. The need to to "attrit" their leadership, as they say in the Pentagon. Kill or capture ( preferably kill) their leadership, when new leaders take over, they move up on the hit parade. How is this to be done? ISIS has enemies. So in addition to drone strikes, air strikes and all the rest, it's important to play one group against the other. Some of that is going on now, It's risky. You may replace ISIS with something as bad or worse, but it doesn't require much in the way of troop commitments and that is critical in the U.S. with our current political climate.
I don't beleive you'll find a worse terrorist organization. Mainstream Al Quada broke away from these guys because they were to radical. They may not have a country in the conventional sense, but they have a lot of land under their control. Nor is it unconventional warfare they wage. In fact they are operating more like a conventional army then other terrorist groups. Using all the US hardware taken from the retreating Iraqi army and hardware purchased with their oil money. This was the problem with there fighting the Kurds. The Kurds didn't have heavy equipment and artillery IS does. They have many enemies, countries that feel threatened that this radical group could spill over: Jordon, Iran, Arabia. The way they would start is likely with bombing to create unrest (like they are doing in Bagdad which remains out of their reach) and to try and to send in subversives to innate grassroots support.
September 16th, 2014  
tetvet
 
The Christmas bombings of Hanoi in '72 did bring the North too their knees as General Giap ( Jape ) said three more days and they would have no choice but surrender and they agreed to go to Paris an talk about it an talk an talk giving the North time to regroup which they did , the rest is history .
September 16th, 2014  
brinktk
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timothy
What a bloody mistake the 2009 pull-out was. I heard these guys have 20,000 to 31,000 fighters. I highly doubt anything significant can be done with air-strikes (even if they are stepped up to an extreme level). The Iraqi army seems incompetent, as does the Free Syrian Army. IS will continue to grow until large scale coalition ground operations ensue.

Chances of this happening ... well ...
You mean 2011 right?
 


Similar Topics
U.S. banks on strong Iraq coalition, but allies are hesitant
Syrian opposition coalition elects new president
German coalition hurt by scandal but won't break
Iran, US coalition ships ride waves in Persian Gulf
Iraq's ruling Shi'ite coalition to hold together