Obliterating Islamic State (ISIS) - Page 20




 
--
Obliterating Islamic State (ISIS)
 
December 3rd, 2015  
MontyB
 
 
Obliterating Islamic State (ISIS)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sara
What's ironic is that you take this article and pick out quotes which suit your opinion of America as an opportunity to validate your own.

I don't think it took Americans 12 years to "figure out" what "the world" told them at all. Members of our military have the freedom to speak publicly about their opinions and lessons learned; that says a lot about our country.
I didn't pick and choose any quotes from the article I just posted the opening sentence as a teaser because the whole article was 12000 characters and a post can only be 10000 characters and linked the whole article rather than butcher it.

On the whole I agree with pretty much everything in the story.

Oh and the obligatory counter quote...

Quote:
You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else.
Winston Churchill

December 3rd, 2015  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Easy-8
The best thing anyone can do against ISIS is to attack their economy. capture their oil fields, destroy their drug plants, stop them from getting hold of ancient artifacts, rescue the people they kidnap without paying ransoms. This strategy even if it doesn't kill ISIS will greatly weaken them to the point they can no longer function as an independent nation (which at this point it pretty much is). It worked against the Confederates and Plains Indians in the 1800s, it also nearly worked and outright worked in both world wars less than a century later.
But in doing this you are almost recognising them as a nation which is dangerous in itself.

I think our mistake is that we are still trying to "understand" them and are treating them with caution when the simple fact is that they are little more than a cult of death, they are either killing or dying and I would prefer it be the later.
December 3rd, 2015  
Sara
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
I didn't pick and choose any quotes from the article I just posted the opening sentence as a teaser because the whole article was 12000 characters and a post can only be 10000 characters and linked the whole article rather than butcher it.

On the whole I agree with pretty much everything in the story.

Oh and the obligatory counter quote...

You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else.
Winston Churchill

How witty......

When I lose something, I always find it in the last place I look. I'm guessing that you never lose anything....but then that's my first guess, so I'm probably wrong.



After all, I am an American.
--
Obliterating Islamic State (ISIS)
December 3rd, 2015  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sara
How witty......

When I lose something, I always find it in the last place I look. I'm guessing that you never lose anything....but then that's my first guess, so I'm probably wrong.



After all, I am an American.

Nothing is ever lost as it is always in the last place it was put as such you always know where it is consequently it can not be lost.
December 3rd, 2015  
JOC
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
But in doing this you are almost recognising them as a nation which is dangerous in itself.

I think our mistake is that we are still trying to "understand" them and are treating them with caution when the simple fact is that they are little more than a cult of death, they are either killing or dying and I would prefer it be the later.
They consider themselves to be a Caliphate. They absolutely require oil revues to continue to fund their organization. By destroying the oil wells and oil facilities this effectively cripples ISIS. Also by destroying their weapons and arms producing facilities ISIS can be dealt a major blow. After all they have to arm themselves and they only have so much left over American equipment and other ill gotten gains. If they don’t have money and arms then how do they train new recruits? If they don’t have money and arms how do they seize and keep territory?

A week long focused air campaign of heavy bombing by the Russians using the SU-24 and SU-34 bombers “after the downing of the airliner” was resulting in such damage. However now they have shifted to again spending more effort bombing the rebels fighting for democracy then bombing ISIS. Fortunately the French and to a lesser extent the Allies are still bombing ISIS but not to quite the extent the Russians did.
More heavily arming the Kurds is a good option since they are not looking for troops but could use heavy weapons to counter ISIS AFV’s and artillery.

It’s easy to say just kill them. But in reality one must have strategies and mechanism for doing so. These are just a couple.
December 3rd, 2015  
MontyB
 
 
We are just back to this circular argument again so for the last time I will reiterate my position/opinion on this issue.

ISIS are nothing more than a cult of death, we do not need to understand them as there can be no negotiation with them (as they want it all) as such there can be no co-existence with them.

The answer (in my opinion):
My preference is to turn the job of dealing with ISIS in Syria over to the Russians and Iranians to deal with however they see fit (basically it means at least temporarily Assad stays) but it must also include a full military campaign to remove their control of territory aka land sea and air combat.

This means throwing the Syrian rebels under the bus but so what, in the rebels we are not backing the side that will give us a peaceful conclusion as if they win they will happily slaughter Assads followers and each other we are only picking the survivors.

The West will have to do the same in Iraq which means committing ground forces to support the Kurds and whatever forces Iraq calls its army that are actually willing to fight, the cost of this to Iraq and Turkey should be our support of an independent Kurdistan as the Kurds have proven themselves over and over to be reliable allies and good fighters that are not hell bent on conquest.

The current air campaign is doomed to failure unless it is supported by a meaningful ground action.
This will not end ISIS as a terrorist organisation but it will greatly reduce their recruiting power and financial capacity.
Done.
December 3rd, 2015  
JOC
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
We are just back to this circular argument again so for the last time I will reiterate my position/opinion on this issue.

ISIS are nothing more than a cult of death, we do not need to understand them as there can be no negotiation with them (as they want it all) as such there can be no co-existence with them.

The answer (in my opinion):
My preference is to turn the job of dealing with ISIS in Syria over to the Russians and Iranians to deal with however they see fit (basically it means at least temporarily Assad stays) but it must also include a full military campaign to remove their control of territory aka land sea and air combat.

This means throwing the Syrian rebels under the bus but so what, in the rebels we are not backing the side that will give us a peaceful conclusion as if they win they will happily slaughter Assads followers and each other we are only picking the survivors.

The West will have to do the same in Iraq which means committing ground forces to support the Kurds and whatever forces Iraq calls its army that are actually willing to fight, the cost of this to Iraq and Turkey should be our support of an independent Kurdistan as the Kurds have proven themselves over and over to be reliable allies and good fighters that are not hell bent on conquest.

The current air campaign is doomed to failure unless it is supported by a meaningful ground action.
This will not end ISIS as a terrorist organisation but it will greatly reduce their recruiting power and financial capacity.
Done.
Complete victory cannot be achieved solely from the air. Iíve stated this on many previous post. However it can go a long way towards victory: destroying ISISís Oil revues, infrastructure and organization as a whole. I will explain in detail.

Iran wants to use ISIS to extend itís own influence to become the regional power. They are a terrorist state. The Russian are more concerned with wiping out the Syrian rebels groups. There has been reports of collusion between Assad and ISIS over the joint use of power plants. As such the Iranian Ė Russian solution is unlikely to defeat ISIS.

The West will bomb ISIS on a limited bases while continuing to train and lightly arm both the Kurds and Syrian rebels. The current groups the Kurds, the Syrian rebels and remnant Iraqi army can at best keep ISIS at bay with a seesaw type war with no clear-cut winner or loser.

This bombing could be accomplished using the B-52 stratofortress. The ISIS organization and infrastructure would be reduced to a fraction of itself. Note: This is the same type of bombing that brought N. Vietnam and Saddam to their knees. We can locate these facilities, weapons using SAR radars and bomb them like nobody else on the planet, if we chose to do so. Unfortunately this will result in considerable collateral damage. Still ground forces would be needed for mopping up, after such an extensive air campaign took place (which is unlikely). The West is leery of committing ground forces (and rightfully so). However this is how the war could be won.
December 3rd, 2015  
brinktk
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
We are just back to this circular argument again so for the last time I will reiterate my position/opinion on this issue.

ISIS are nothing more than a cult of death, we do not need to understand them as there can be no negotiation with them (as they want it all) as such there can be no co-existence with them.

The answer (in my opinion):
My preference is to turn the job of dealing with ISIS in Syria over to the Russians and Iranians to deal with however they see fit (basically it means at least temporarily Assad stays) but it must also include a full military campaign to remove their control of territory aka land sea and air combat.

This means throwing the Syrian rebels under the bus but so what, in the rebels we are not backing the side that will give us a peaceful conclusion as if they win they will happily slaughter Assads followers and each other we are only picking the survivors.

The West will have to do the same in Iraq which means committing ground forces to support the Kurds and whatever forces Iraq calls its army that are actually willing to fight, the cost of this to Iraq and Turkey should be our support of an independent Kurdistan as the Kurds have proven themselves over and over to be reliable allies and good fighters that are not hell bent on conquest.

The current air campaign is doomed to failure unless it is supported by a meaningful ground action.
This will not end ISIS as a terrorist organisation but it will greatly reduce their recruiting power and financial capacity.
Done.
I agree.

Except for the understanding part...we do need to understand what compels people to be attracted to the narrative they sell. We need to understand how someone goes from being a normal person to a rebel massacring people. If we refuse to understand it, then we can't invalidate that narrative until it is too late for those being radicalized.

Getting an enemy to surrender of their own will is much preferable to simply killing them.
December 3rd, 2015  
JOC
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by brinktk
I agree.

Except for the understanding part...we do need to understand what compels people to be attracted to the narrative they sell. We need to understand how someone goes from being a normal person to a rebel massacring people. If we refuse to understand it, then we can't invalidate that narrative until it is too late for those being radicalized.

Getting an enemy to surrender of their own will is much preferable to simply killing them.
Just curious what you agree to? The Russians are unlikely to engage large scale land forces against ISIS. Do you prefer an Iranian dominated ME. Even if the west were to allow it? Kind of exchanging one terrorist organization for another. The Syrian rebels are not a powerful military option but at least they like the Kurds are freedom fighters.

Unfortunately Turkey (and Iran I might add) will never support an independent Kurdistan since the Kurdistan also extends into Iran and Turkey.

However I have the humility to admit that I’m no authority on the ME, who is.
December 3rd, 2015  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by brinktk
I agree.

Except for the understanding part...we do need to understand what compels people to be attracted to the narrative they sell. We need to understand how someone goes from being a normal person to a rebel massacring people. If we refuse to understand it, then we can't invalidate that narrative until it is too late for those being radicalized.

Getting an enemy to surrender of their own will is much preferable to simply killing them.
I certainly agree we need to work on what drives people to join these groups but I am not sure we need to come to an understanding on ISIS to achieve that as it is more the social aspect of our own societies that we need to focus on.

Personally I am not sure I want ISIS followers to just give up and go home because I think they are the sort of people that will simply sign up to the next loony cause and we will be facing them again over some other issue.
 


Similar Topics
Syrian Kurds battle Islamic State in northeast
U.S. fears Islamic State is making serious inroads in Libya
Islamic State says it's holding 'Israeli spy' in Syria
Iranian Phantom jet strikes the Islamic State in Iraq - IHS Jane's 360
Islamic State says executes second Lebanese soldier