"Opinion: U.S. Air Power Won’t Defeat ISIS" Topic

As Iraq and Syria Islamic State (ISIS) insurgent forces advance on Baghdad, some American political leaders, , have urged that the United States begin airstrikes immediately to stop the growing unrest in Iraq. Although air power may be the only expedient and politically acceptable option, there are several reasons why that all-too-familiar impulse to use our asymmetric advantage in airpower will not defeat ISIS…

link

I think using American airpower to support the Iraqi Army is just the thing to enable the Shia government to crush the remaining Sunni population, keep the pro-Iranian government in power, and blame the US in the process.

Win-win! Except for the US, of course.

Leave them alone to fight it out.

link

Cancel the passport of anyone who goes over there to volunteer.

Exactly!!!! I'm with zippy on this one. Let them fight it out. They've been killing each other for a thousand years; this is just the next chapter in that long story.

No more American blood shed over oil…!!!!

If . . . nothing more needs to be said on the matter.

This is a trap….

…airstrikes immediately to stop the growing unrest in Iraq…

Some people will never learn. should know, better than anyone, that airpower alone cannot win battles. Airstrikes are good at killing people and destroying facilities. Tanks are good for taking ground. To hold the ground taken you need "boots on the ground".

One of the problems in Iraq is the army is running away. Since we wouldn't put more US troops in there all our air can do is kill people and add to the list of complaints against us.

But they will be SOOOOO grateful!

Here is an exercise for you. Open a copy of Runciman's History of the Crusades, at random. Note the number of factions. Seljuk turks, Danishmend Turks, 3 varieties of Franks, Jews, Byzantines, Fatimids, Ayyubids, etc.
What has changed since then?

This all seems very Blue Fez to me…

A pox on all their houses…..

I think more highly of the pox than to wish that on it.

Oh, come on Editor!
You are the one who started the thread, and then you DH jpattern2 for responding to it. Appropriately too, in my not so humble opinion.

As the Dear Editor has initated this thread, I shall assume it is safe to respond.

When will people learn. Just walk away and find our energy sources in other ways. Lets frack and nuke (power) our way to victory.

Are we willing to carpet bomb the entire middle east with nuclear weapons? no? That is the only sort of air intervention which would actually make any difference, otherwise it is just a futile gesture propping up another puppet regime trying to hold back the tide of history.

Did anyone actually believe invading random foreign countries to stop terrorism would really work? Especially when those terrorists are being paid for and supported by our notional 'allies' against them.

It won't defeat them … but in the short term, if the strikes can be accurate and limit collateral damage, it will attrite them. And it appears in the War against fanatical islamists/terrorists/jihadist/etc. that is the best the West[US] can do … no easy answers … and only drones and Cruise missiles should be used. Don't risk downed pilots scenarios …

What ever happened to Neutron bombs. Actually you would think if you leveled everything there would be nothing to fight over. But I have a feeling they would still find a reason to kill each other and us.

"and only drones and Cruise missiles should be used. Don't risk downed pilots scenarios …"

So no humans involved.

Well … if it makes you feel better … humans will be programming and launching the drones and cruise missiles … Don't want any pilots getting beheaded videos …

And we trust Iraqis to provide accurate targeting information? They'll be so happy to provide a list of targets that include every Sunni in the region. We'll do their dirty work for them and be cursed by all.

Not sure how this helps US interests in the long run. Let Iran spend their blood and treasure propping up their client state.

Yeah, we propped up our client state long enough. Time for someone else to take over that thankless job.

American public opinion also believed that Europe should fight Europe's War. Leave the US alone, was the belief of the day. Then…….1940.

Letting a barrel of oil run up to 250 dollars a barrel isn't much of a smart move for the West to allow. That just strengthens folks we don't like. I'm not particularly thrilled with our options right now. But I do know that as long as the West relies on oil we sometimes have to do things that the public (or ourselves) aren't too thrilled about. That's called LEADERSHIP to do what's needed in difficult times.

YMMV.

Thanks,

John

Anyone else getting a sort of 1975 vibe from this?

Oh, come on Editor!
You are the one who started the thread…

Discussing military options is possible without getting partisan and political.

My post was deleted, and those days are long gone.

John the OFM wrote:

Here is an exercise for you. Open a copy of Runciman's History of the Crusades, at random. Note the number of factions. Seljuk turks, Danishmend Turks, 3 varieties of Franks, Jews, Byzantines, Fatimids, Ayyubids, etc.
What has changed since then?

I'm guessing that the influence of the Fatimids has declined somewhat since that time.

Damned if I can remember if Byzantium is a member of NATO or not.

All the best,

John.

Why can't the Iranians use their "Air Force", which they seem to brag on all the time?

They've got F-4s, F-5s, F-14s, and various Migs and Mirages that defected from Iraq, in addition to that nice looking little "indigenous fighter" they were showing off just a year or three ago, not to mention tons of ultra-light seaplanes as well.

Surely, they'd be perfect for taking out troops on the ground, or acting as "Stinger-Bait".

By the way, who was the DOLT that gave the Iraqis (and/or "Freedom Fighters/Terrorists") Stinger missiles in the first place??????

That person, or those person should be terminated with extreme prejudice.

Discussing military options is possible without getting partisan and political.

"War is the continuation of politics by other means."
---Clausewitz

You can't have peace between people who remember and still seek to avenge past wrongs done hundreds of years to ago their ancestors.

Air power could be effective, but both sides are bringing their kids and families to the fight. The only thing that seems to get them to stop fighting each other (briefly) is having some foreigners to fight instead. That is all we could ultimately bring to the conflict in my opinion.

You always manage to make me laugh, Mako11. Thanks again.

Don't forget that mock up of a U.S. carrier that Iran is building. Maybe they will throw that into the fight.

Many thanks to The Editor for starting and allowing this discussion. I look forward to your next topic.

Glad to be able to entertain at least one person with my sarcasm.

I do try!

Yes, I forgot about their "carrier".

Certainly, it can at least be used to break the morale of their opponents, or to serve as a distraction.

I wonder what it will be named?

I have a couple, or three ideas, but mentioning those will get me banned, so I'll let you use your imagination, following the usual naming convention for them……

Air power can never defeat ISIS:
YouTube link

At this point the only group in Iraq we could trust for somewhat accurate targeting intel is the Kurds … maybe …

Are we at the "come back Saddam, all is forgiven" stage yet?!

Seriously, when you hear ISIS, am I the only one who thinks of this?

Oh, and if these Islamists threaten to seize Whore Island, I say we nuke them.

Add me to the list, darthfozzywig.

Speaking of which, what kind of zone do you figure Iraq is turning into?

And is there a road you could possibly drive to that danger on?

Better than a road, more of a . . . highway.

It's turning into… The Danger Zone.

(and yes, Archer has been going through my head ever since the jihadis started being referenced as ISIS)

Seriously, when you hear ISIS, am I the only one who thinks of this?

Wait, I had something for this…

Oh yeah!

RAMPAGE!!

Wait, are we not doing "phrasing" anymore?

More than 1975 Vietnam, this seems to recall 1980 and the war in Iran & Iraq. Two groups Western leaders despise are at war (ISIS & Iran). No doubt we shall soon see Western (and other) arms merchants selling to both sides.

A good amount of the ISIL (better "DAIISH" for "al-Dawla Al-Islamiya fi al-Iraq wa al-Sham") line-of-advance from Mosul toward the Baghdad lies within the range of sensors that could be deployed in Iraqi Kurd held territory. The Peshmerga (Kurdish army) could do target designation, and support pre-deployed SF SAR assets if manned western air assets are used. By the way, the Peshmerga is actually fighting ISIL, rather successfully, unlike the Iraqi national or central-government's army.

Also, the Kurds have been very open to western influence these last twenty plus years. They even made peace with Turkey, whom they had held guilty of the genocide of Kurds in the early 20th century. No westerner has been hurt in Kurdish territory (even by criminals, let alone insurgents) since 2003. They are not religious extremists – there is an Arabic saying : "Compared to an unbeliever, a Kurd is a good Muslim."

I think that western air power could guarantee that the Peshmerga will successfully defend Kurdish territory. They might do it anyway, on their own. In the process of consolidating their current gains in Sunni-held areas, and perhaps extending their area of control, ISIL may provide some target-rich opportunities. Since extremists are usually hard to locate among civilian populations, it might be useful to attrit them if such targeting opportunities arise.

Leaving the Shi'ia extremists and Iranian puppets aside (Muqtada al-Sadr and his urban "militia", Quds Force operatives and their indigenous allies, etc.), there are moderate Shi'ia in the clans controlling most of the Basrah region. Similarly, there are quite a few Sunni in al-Anbar governate that are prepared to be moderates – also some former Bathists. Sorting these out and protecting them from either Sunni or Shi'ia extremists (or Iranian puppets) is non-trivial – and would require rather overt co-operation from the Gulf States and Saudi's. The west has not "invested" heavily in this effort (diplomatically, economically, national intelligence services, etc.) in the past few years. It may be too late to start now.

Just an opinion.

- Sasha

P.S. – Optional, you wrote "No doubt we shall soon see Western (and other) arms merchants selling to both sides."
Well, especially the "other". The margin on a few used AKM's is really not going to get Lockheed-Martin or BAe too excited.
But, really, do you begrudge the leopard his spots?