Obliterating Islamic State (ISIS)

Tuan

Tuan

Irreplaceable Intelligencer
As the whole world is coming forward to combat ISIS, I would like to share here my opinion regarding how to fight ISIS and eventually obliterate them just like the Sri Lankan military defeated the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) just six years ago.

ISIS, as an offshoot of Al Qaeda, continues to commit atrocities against humanity in Iraq, Syria and now into Libya. Unless this fast spreading violence and hatred is stopped, the carnage will most likely expand throughout the Middle East and Asia in the near future.

In reading Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) in the ongoing counterterrorism operations in Iraq, Syria and Libya, I have noticed a pattern, in the Islamic State terrorists’ “modus operandi”, that of a spider.

Spiders have eight legs and two body parts - a head region (cephalothorax) and an abdomen. Most spiders have toxic venom, which they use to kill their prey.

So if the international community wants to get rid of ISIS, hypothetically speaking, they have to get rid of the head region of ISIS, the “cephalothorax” of the spider, instead of fighting with its eight legs.

Of course, they will replace it with another head, so get rid of the other one too, then the next one and so on. All we need is accurate and effective tactical military intelligence collection. I feel that the international intelligence agencies have a bigger role to play, than just being the eyes and ears of any nation, with feet of clay, when faced with an enemy of many different faces. Recommendations for an appropriate tradecraft to achieve such a role are the need of the day. There is NO truth to search for, there is no absolute truth, and everything is subjective! But the kind of role intelligence play in deterrence is what paramount! And achieving A STATE OF GLOBAL DETERRENCE is what I consider the bottom line.

In conclusion, since Al Qaeda, Taliban, and now ISIS are using exactly the same modus operandi and tradecraft as the LTTE did in Sri Lanka, I believe that the international community could combat ISIS in a similar model that Sri Lankan military did against the LTTE in order to obliterate them.
 
Last edited:
I don´t think the war against LTTE should be perceived as something successful! And when it comes to international involvement, United Nations (UN) has been accused of deliberately hiding facts about civilian deaths during the last months of the war in order to protect possible complicity in crimes committed in the Vanni. Check out just the WIKI about sri lankan conflict..
 
quynn75 said:
I don´t think the war against LTTE should be perceived as something successful! And when it comes to international involvement, United Nations (UN) has been accused of deliberately hiding facts about civilian deaths during the last months of the war in order to protect possible complicity in crimes committed in the Vanni. Check out just the WIKI about sri lankan conflict..
Click to expand...

However we are talking about the war on ISIS, not the previous Iraq war involving the US and coalition against the insurgency. In which the US did everything possible to reduce civilian casualties "unlike the insurgents". I'm up to here with the lousy media coverage our men received in a deliberate effort to give the US forces a black eye!

As for ISIS all intelligence the US and others can supply that leads towards the destruction of these murderous maniacs the better. Although I prefer the US doesn't engage them directly with ground forces (except for special forces used to train the opposition). I believe we could hit them harder from the air. The news (if one can believe it) showed a hugh ISIS convoy consisting of countless trucks and armed vehicles. We should reduce such convoys to ash.
 
JOC said:
However we are talking about the war on ISIS, not the previous Iraq war involving the US and coalition against the insurgency. In which the US did everything possible to reduce civilian casualties "unlike the insurgents". I'm up to here with the lousy media coverage our men received in a deliberate effort to give the US forces a black eye!
Click to expand...


Agreed that is literally shocking considering media coverage back from the Second WW . But then again we had social media, cell phone cameras and such in Iraq the second time.

I honestly feel that our military did it's job as best it could despite the state department and the White House tying it's hands behind it's back on several occasions.

Lastly the Military did not choose to go to war, the military did not choose to make the state decisions in the aftermath of the fall of Baghdad, the military did not mismanage the whole debacle surrounding what to do with the insurgency and proto factions that ultimately led to ISIS in Iraq years later.

Even for myself I have enough common sense to know where to look for that debate. And our armed forces is not where the blame lies. Same goes for all other allied nations armed forces who fought here. Compare that to the current bombing by the Saudis in Yemen....

As for the shadow stagey, under current practice for majority of times we have tried it, it has either had negative blow back or outright failed. Just like most proxy governments we have tried to set up. So regardless, we should still be countering ISIS, but tread carefully that we don't shatter it into a dozen more terror groups. Or even draw Iran, who is using this crisis to their advantage closer into Israel's sphere or influence, for after this is over that would most likely lead to friction where ever their new lines are drawn.
 
Last edited:
quynn75 said:
I don´t think the war against LTTE should be perceived as something successful! And when it comes to international involvement, United Nations (UN) has been accused of deliberately hiding facts about civilian deaths during the last months of the war in order to protect possible complicity in crimes committed in the Vanni. Check out just the WIKI about sri lankan conflict..
Click to expand...

You are missing the main point made on this thread, which is the “significance of the tactical military intelligence collection when combating terrorism”. If you’ve studied how LTTE was obliterated in a military dimension, (not the political dimension, which involves the human rights, war crimes, UN interference etc…) you would understand that "intelligence was the capital" in defeating terrorism in Sri Lanka.

Let me quote Professor Bruce Hoffman, a veteran American scholar on terrorism:


Gathering "good intelligence" against terrorists is an inherently brutish enterprise, involving methods a civics class might not condone. Should we care?

“Intelligence is capital," Colonel Yves Godard liked to say. And Godard undeniably knew what he was talking about. He had fought both as a guerrilla in the French Resistance during World War II and against guerrillas in Indochina, as the commander of a covert special-operations unit. As the chief of staff of the elite 10th Para Division, Godard was one of the architects of the French counterterrorist strategy that won the Battle of Algiers, in 1957. To him, information was the sine qua non for victory. It had to be zealously collected, meticulously analyzed, rapidly disseminated, and efficaciously acted on. Without it no anti-terrorist operation could succeed. As the United States prosecutes its global war against terrorism, Godard's dictum has acquired new relevance. Indeed, as is now constantly said, success in the struggle against Osama bin Laden and his minions will depend on good intelligence. But the experiences of other countries, fighting similar conflicts against similar enemies, suggest that Americans still do not appreciate the enormously difficult—and morally complex—problem that the imperative to gather "good intelligence" entails.

The challenge that security forces and militaries the world over have faced in countering terrorism is how to obtain information about an enigmatic enemy who fights unconventionally and operates in a highly amenable environment where he typically is indistinguishable from the civilian populace. The differences between police officers and soldiers in training and approach, coupled with the fact that most military forces are generally uncomfortable with, and inadequately prepared for, counterterrorist operations, strengthens this challenge. Military forces in such unfamiliar settings must learn to acquire intelligence by methods markedly different from those to which they are accustomed. The most "actionable," and therefore effective, information in this environment is discerned not from orders of battle, visual satellite transmissions of opposing force positions, or intercepted signals but from human intelligence gathered mostly from the indigenous population. The police, specifically trained to interact with the public, typically have better access than the military to what are called human intelligence sources. Indeed, good police work depends on informers, undercover agents, and the apprehension and interrogation of terrorists and suspected terrorists, who provide the additional information critical to destroying terrorist organizations. Many today who argue reflexively and sanctimoniously that the United States should not "over-react" by over-militarizing the "war" against terrorism assert that such a conflict should be largely a police, not a military, endeavor. Although true, this line of argument usually overlooks the uncomfortable fact that, historically, "good" police work against terrorists has of necessity involved nasty and brutish means. Rarely have the importance of intelligence and the unpleasant ways in which it must often be obtained been better or more clearly elucidated than in the 1966 movie The Battle of Algiers. In an early scene in the film the main protagonist, the French paratroop commander, Lieutenant Colonel Mathieu (who is actually a composite of Yves Godard and two other senior French army officers who fought in the Battle of Algiers), explains to his men that the "military aspect is secondary." He says, "More immediate is the police work involved. I know you don't like hearing that, but it indicates exactly the kind of job we have to do."
Click to expand...
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2002/01/a-nasty-business/302379/

It is against this backdrop that I posted the above thread keeping in mind that the NATO led coalition forces will only be able to defeat ISIS so long as they gain the upper hand in military intelligence dominance over them, regardless of air strikes or ground forces.
 
Last edited:
At which stage has ISIS ever looked like an organisation a normal person would join especially a woman?

The fact is ISIS have always been a murderous bunch of thugs and at some point that appealed to these people as such they should not be allowed back and we should be rounding up every single one that has come back from that conflict and dropping them down a very large hole.
 
It seems that you overlooked the obvious though. These folks will help you know ISIS inside out and it is vital to know the characteristic weaknesses and strengths of your enemy.

It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.
 
I don't want to know ISIS I just want them dead, I would entirely agree with you if there was a chance of a negotiated end to this mess but there isn't so wipe them out where ever you find them.
I am prepared to bet once people learn that joining this bunch of lunatics is a death sentence the shine will disappear off the group as well but the West has a strange desire to "understand things" rather than fix them.

The same applies to piracy, if everytime a warship found a pirate vessel it was sunk along with its crew we would have far less issues with pirates.
 
MontyB said:
I don't want to know ISIS I just want them dead, I would entirely agree with you if there was a chance of a negotiated end to this mess but there isn't so wipe them out where ever you find them.
I am prepared to bet once people learn that joining this bunch of lunatics is a death sentence the shine will disappear off the group as well but the West has a strange desire to "understand things" rather than fix them.

The same applies to piracy, if everytime a warship found a pirate vessel it was sunk along with its crew we would have far less issues with pirates.
Click to expand...

I agree with this, however, if you posted this on Facebook the looney lefties would be jumping up and down quoting the Geneva Convention.

One wouldn't need a warship, all one would need to do is put a well trained and well armed team on board every ship and shoot the bejabbers out of any all all pirates one comes across.:mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
BritinAfrica said:
I agree with this, however, if you posted this on Facebook the looney lefties would be jumping up and down quoting the Geneva Convention.

One wouldn't need a warship, all one would need to do is put a well trained and well armed team on board every ship and shoot the bejabbers out of any all all pirates one comes across.:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Hey if ISIS want to sign up to the convention or even just adhere to it then I would happily apply it to them as well but they don't, all they want to do is kill and destroy so I am more than happy to apply the same rules to them.

Hell I am not even convinced that there are any "innocents" within ISIS held territory especially after watching blind, crippled and elderly flooding Europe it is pretty clear that anyone that wants to get out of ISIS held territory can so in my opinion all that are left are supporters, sheep or idiots in which case napalm the region and move on.

I am a great fan of responding to these issues in the manner of your opposition.
:)


I also agree with armed teams on ships passing through the regions, once pirates stop returning home and the odd one washes up on a beach with bullet holes piracy wont be seen as a lucrative profession any longer and the problem stops.
 
Last edited:
MontyB said:
Hey if ISIS want to sign up to the convention or even just adhere to it then I would happily apply it to them as well but they don't, all they want to do is kill and destroy so I am more than happy to apply the same rules to them.

Hell I am not even convinced that there are any "innocents" within ISIS held territory especially after watching blind, crippled and elderly flooding Europe it is pretty clear that anyone that wants to get out of ISIS held territory can so in my opinion all that are left are supporters, sheep or idiots in which case napalm the region and move on.

I am a great fan of responding to these issues in the manner of your opposition.
:)

I also agree with armed teams on ships passing through the regions, once pirates stop returning home and the odd one washes up on a beach with bullet holes piracy wont be seen as a lucrative profession any longer and the problem stops.
Click to expand...

That means you believe in the concept that “terrorism can only be neutralized by terrorism” – a classic ‘eye for eye, tooth for tooth’ discourse that would eventually have the whole world blind and toothless.

Contrary to your statement, I would say that we have to analyse the root causes of terrorism rather than its obvious and harsh symptoms, that you’re trying to respond.
 
Not at all, I believe we have to work on the causes of terrorism to reduce the problem before it starts but at the same time we must be prepared to confront terrorism with what ever force is necessaryto defeat it.

The have been numerous instances where terrorist groups have negotiated an end to armed struggle and I do not have an issue with that but ISIS is not a group that is prepared to negotiate anything so we have no need to understand them or come to terms with them we either have to give in to their rule or destroy them I favour destroying them.

I personally think you are over complicating a very simple issue.
 
All I can say is that unlike ISIS we as a civilized society have to be humane. It doesn't mean we have to give in. Or as you say we should napalm them, but choose your brain over brawn.

I personally think you are over complicating a very simple issue.
Click to expand...

The point is the world is between conformist and non-conformists. Liberals and Realists. Realists believe might is right, but intelligence says knowledge is power,another word for might, so there is always a chance for a small man to make a big difference, after all it took a small child to inform the mighty King that he was naked.
 
Last edited:
Tuan said:
All I can say is that unlike ISIS we as a civilized society have to be humane. It doesn't mean we have to give in. Or as you say we should napalm them, but choose your brain over brawn.



The point is the world is between conformist and non-conformists. Liberals and Realists. Realists believe might is right, but intelligence says knowledge is power,another word for might, so there is always a chance for a small man to make a big difference, after all it took a small child to inform the mighty King that he was naked.
Click to expand...

We can argue this point until hell freezes over, but the reality is that ISIS can not and does not want to negotiate anything so what is there to understand?

They not us have chosen a path of conquest, destruction and misery for anyone that does not agree with them so as I have said if you can not reach a common ground with them then you only have 2 options.
1. Surrender to their demands.
2. Fight them.

There is no need to understand anything because the options are limited to those two.
There can be no peaceful coexistence with them.
 
Certainly some of those methods have merit but a number of them seem like "wishy-washy" poor misunderstood youth lets not be too hard on them crap as well.

I have a somewhat different view of ISIS recruitment because I think there is merit to letting all those that want to join them do so and that is that it gets all the crazy bastards out of our society and into one place where they can be disposed of.

Personally I don't think we need 10 ideas on how to destroy ISIS you just need 1 and that is kill them where ever you find them but first encourage as many of the lunatics to join them as possible.
 
Tuan said:
All I can say is that unlike ISIS we as a civilized society have to be humane. .
Click to expand...


No,NO,and again NO : the only thing that matters is to win,and if being humane means we do not win (=we are losing) ,we must throw away this humanity.

We do know what ISIS is doing where it is the master and we should do EVERYTHING to prevent this to happen in Europe,US,.......EVERYTHING .And if we had not handled ISIS with kid gloves, the situation would be different : we would be winning and not losing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top