Originally Posted by Kesse81

We create a hell of a lot more enemies with that method.

How so?
If we have a mass of soldiers, we can act for more pinpointed.
The civilians would have far less casualties, I reckon.

Originally Posted by crazytanker

Just going to add two cents here. The problem with a massive show of force is that A. Civilians get killed in the crossfire and B. It creates a negative attitude from the inhabitants to the "defenders". Both of those are going to make the problem worse, because people who were not involved have become so pissed that now they get involved and start shooting back. Someone who offered you a bed and a hot meal might only have hot lead to offer now.

Civilians are not meant to be in the crossfire.
If the shooting starts, the civilians should go into their houses.
When the enemy sees us coming, they to will head for cover, that's when we start the door to door check.
I foresee far less innocent lifes spilled this way.
Now, sadly, with some operations there will be loss of civilian life, no matter what you try.
And when the perps use human shields... they basically leave us no choice, but then the casualties are on their book, not ours.

Originally Posted by JOC

I.e. killed 10 to 100 for every German or SS soldier killed, or wiping out a village that had supposedly supported partisans.

Now, that is more ISIS methods than ours.
Although I am for a swift and hard strike, I do not like this method to be used by us.
In the end, ISIS doesn't care, Al Qaeda does not care, Boku Haram does not care for civilian loss.
Life of others has no value to them.
Heck, in many a case, not even THEIR OWN life has value.

Originally Posted by Kesse81

The view we have on the Middle East today is how we define the Middle East's future.

I agree completely.
But this ALSO means we need to get rid of the terrorist movements, these people ASK for our help, and we do useless actions to what end?
These cost enormous amounts of finance, resource and personnel.
And we get NOWHERE!

Originally Posted by Kesse81

The future is not something that is; it is something that we create.

I agree again.
But we cannot help them if these terrorists are still around, now can we?
First things first.
You do not build a house if you laeve a rotten foundation, right?
And the foundation is bloody rotten ATM.

Originally Posted by Kesse81

The initiatives and actions that we take today can help shape the future of the region. Investment in the construction industry, for example, can help to develop a future high-tech architectural mecca, which may even surpass Dubai and the United Arab Emirates. Thus, investment and other forms of participation in the region will help to influence the Middle East's future and develop a market which opens up further opportunities for investment, trade and ultimately peace.

True, buty again, first we need to root out the rotten foundation, before we begin to build.
Or am I wrong here?

Originally Posted by Kesse81

The Crusader period has passed.

I disagree here, respectfully.
Sure, we can sit back and watch the show, sure we can.
But I think, THAT waould be a VERY bad idea.
Don't you?
I mean, what example would we set doing such???

Originally Posted by Kesse81

Sometimes I wish that politicians would listen to us who have been there and seen and heard when the locals talk about their dreams for the future

And again I agree.
But they never listen, do they...

Originally Posted by brinktk

I'm quite aware of the threat. I may have spent a little time in the region dealing with the people you are speaking of. You are overly simplifying the problem in order to sell an overly simplified solution.

I come from a place that spouts virtues such as freedom, reason, honor, integrity, morality, compassion, and opportunity. I did not join the military to stoop to the level of evil that ISIS is. I don't massacre people and I try to protect those who cannot protect themselves. What you prescribe makes us like them...it makes us indistinguishable. That is unacceptable to me.

I'm a professional...an officer. I take my oath and my values very seriously. How we win this matters. It determines the way forward...or backwards.

I find it interesting that the people with the most experience on this site here in the subject matter (literally years of experience) are the ones who most openly resist your "solution". But, the powers that be haven't listened to us for years so it is no surprise that every Tom, Dick, and Harry thinks they know the resolution tomthis very complicated problem.

I understand.
And I respect your point of view.
I am not here to sell something, but I am defending my POV since I see no counter suggestion.
Again, I am not here to make a fight, but to change ideas, to learn, to make others think.
I have been over-thinking this problem for LONG time, but whatever alternate tactic I came up with, it does not get result in short term bases, or a "normalized cost" in finance, resource and personnel.
I heard a few things like "preventing through education", but people in terrorist factions are not willing to learn.
Thus, this is not a viable solution in my book.
And I am looking for solutions.

On top: my term in the army was in a completely different generation.
Back in the days where we hunted these warlords, we used what I now would call the Firemen approach.
We went to hot zones, literally eradicated the problem by the roots, and moved back.
Our linie had ZERO civilian casualties (note: with zero casualties I do not count lethal threats, those sadly happened of quite a few occasions), and we were proud of that.
Very even.
We were thought to be extreme.
Boxing with steel gloves, if you like.

But still: we have a non-functional style of operating.
How can we deal with this?

I'll refrain from posting a bit, since I get the feeling that a few are getting angry on what I write, and that was not my intention.
Reading for a while now.

Originally Posted by Kesse81

In WWII it was “kill them all” Today it´s “kill them with kindness”

And to those who think it doesn’t work - been there, done that and it works.
But the process requires patience. It may take several generations and are we willing to devote the time and funds for so long?

No, we cannot afford to stay very long. Governments and the public wants short term solutions even if the short term solution is unrealistic. But that is how the world works

The huge military intervention theory with an army a la the Second World War or even from the Cold War will not work either. The armies of today are much smaller in size than they were in the 1980s. There is not a political interest to increase the size.

The methods used in Iraq worked quite good when the US military was stationed there. But when they left Iraq a power vacuum was created and maybe the same will happen in Afghanistan.

So either we (North America, Europe) stay in a country for decades or even longer. The financial cost will be very high and without visible results the support by the public and the governments will decline rapidly. With a hit hard and leave kind of doctrine, we may create more power vacuums and these will be filled by something we do not really want.

I also think it is better to have different approaches depending on where and who we are dealing with. Striking against the leadership and other assets like what the US and probably others are doing toward Al Shabab but not a major intervention with ground forces. ECOWAS and AU are in Somalia and they are dealing with the threat on the ground, how successful they are? Well I don't know. The African military and especially the Nigerian military has made corruption to an art. However, this may not work else where.

Hmm...
I stop, everyone stops?
Want me to continue to shock you to get responses? XD
JK.

The term innocent civilians in a belligerent society does not correlate since all civilians contribute to the war effort though civilians can be a hindrance and should be evacuated as in example Berlin in 1945 but Hitler being crazy felt all should go down the tube with him and they did .

Originally Posted by tetvet

The term innocent civilians in a belligerent society does not correlate since all civilians contribute to the war effort though civilians can be a hindrance and should be evacuated as in example Berlin in 1945 but Hitler being crazy felt all should go down the tube with him and they did .

What belligerent society today do you speak of?

Let's discuss civil.
Since, civil ain't that civil after all...
Crooks, whackos, terrorists...
Yeah, civility is gone.

I don't think I was speaking about any particular society other than civilians that support a government that is hell bent on doing harm to others should have to share in the outcome , I hope this clears up any confusion .

Question: when civilians support a criminal faction, say ISIS, can they be considered innocent?
Maybe they do not kill, or do anything inhumane, but supporting a faction such as ISIS is -IMHO- just as criminal.
Basically it is like housing a murderer, which in our western world is punishable as crime?

Originally Posted by 1st Lt. Kirzillian

Question: when civilians support a criminal faction, say ISIS, can they be considered innocent?
Maybe they do not kill, or do anything inhumane, but supporting a faction such as ISIS is -IMHO- just as criminal.
Basically it is like housing a murderer, which in our western world is punishable as crime?

Yes!
When you live in a democratic country, then sympathy and ideology is not illegal.
Another thing is if you actively support with money, then it could possibly be that it becomes criminal.

You can´t control people´s thoughts - you can suppress them, and that´s it
And who should decide who´s a terrorist or freedom fighter

Che Guevara, what was he?

I agree, up to the point that it is not illegal.
Question: when a man tries to convince a teenager to join "the holy war" for ISIS, is that legal?
Or when ISIS-fans try to put others into terrorist acts (the military killed in England, for example), is that legal?
Thus, is supporting such terrorist factions legal?

It's not here in Belgium!