Tango01 | 20 Aug 2014 10:43 p.m. PST |
"The brutal murder of the American journalist James Foley on Tuesday has gruesomely raised the stakes in the international effort to battle the spread of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isis). The beheading has been a turning point for Isis, marking the first definite shift in its attention away from regional fighting and towards hurting the West and its citizens. It has also come as a visceral reminder for a hitherto-guarded Washington and its allies of what the violent jihadi group represents and the threat it poses…"
Full article here link Amicalement Armand |
COL Scott ret | 21 Aug 2014 3:12 a.m. PST |
It all depends on how tough you are willing to get as a nation. This is true whether you are discussing a wargame or real life. |
GarrisonMiniatures | 21 Aug 2014 3:50 a.m. PST |
Best response would be to hurt them more than they hurt you. Double aid to the Kurds and suggest that any more atrocities will result in further increases beyond what would have been given. |
Milites | 21 Aug 2014 4:19 a.m. PST |
Doing it would be very easy, having the will do it? Aye, there's the rub! Regarding the photo, what do they think it looks like? Apart from some psychopathic wing of the air-soft movement. Please use pistols, as your primary weapons, please watch your Expendables and Die Hard movies movies as tactical training resources. Iijets, we should first deploy merciless mockery before the drones. |
David Manley | 21 Aug 2014 4:35 a.m. PST |
I would be interested to know how it could be accomplished "easily" |
Pedrobear | 21 Aug 2014 5:41 a.m. PST |
Well, at least it will be an easy army to paint – mostly black, not many faces… |
Dentatus | 21 Aug 2014 8:02 a.m. PST |
Pedrobear for the win. *** I'm sorry… Is war ever 'easy'? We have to be willing to do what we gotta do. |
Legion 4 | 21 Aug 2014 8:34 a.m. PST |
Yes, I think it's obvious to all but the most uninformed … The War on Terrorism was never over after UBL was sent to sleep with the fishes. I've been saying it for sometime. Along with I've said, if we don't start massive CAS, Drone, C/missile strikes and support local/regional forces with arms, log, intel, etc., against this new improve more deadly version of AQ/fantical islam, etc. on 'roids – ISIS. Like cancer it will go unchecked and spread rapidly … I firmly believe only Spec Ops, CIA, etc. types should be the only boots on the ground to assist the Kurds and hopefully others with the severe culling of ISIS and it's ilk. The Iraqis should hide their heads in shame for the poor showing of their US trained and funded military. And that poor showing lies directly in the Iraqi govenment. Thank God for the Kurds picking up the dropped ball. |
James Wright | 21 Aug 2014 8:37 a.m. PST |
Short of direct military action--and a lot of it--which I doubt the West has the stomach for right now, they will drive on. However, if we arm, train, and support the Kurds with air power and some logistical aid, I suspect they have a good chance of at least holding their own. Sadly, unless someone wants to get really draconian, I suspect the caliphate is here to stay. |
Legion 4 | 21 Aug 2014 8:49 a.m. PST |
Oh James, we can't get draconian … that might upset someone … but that may be the only solution to have some real affect … Draconian IMO = B-52s, B-1s, B-2s, F/A-18s, Drones, Cruise Missiles, etc. … to name a few … Or we just let the entire region become ISIS … and the West is next … OH ! And a lot of models companies make B-52s, B-1s, etc., in a number of scales … for my $$$, GHQ is the best place to go for wargaming this conflict and others … link |
Lion in the Stars | 21 Aug 2014 9:01 a.m. PST |
One suggestion I heard was to let all those refugees go someplace else, then treat the Islamic State like it wants to be treated: A nation engaged in an offensive war of conquest. After all, Turkey is a member of NATO, so can ISIS say "Article 5"? |
Legion 4 | 21 Aug 2014 9:09 a.m. PST |
Turkey won't say Article 5 … until ISIS is crossing their borders and then they will yell for US/NATO help ! Oh, did I fail to mention Turkey has the 2d largest Army in NATO. And IIRC they are also the only moslem member, as well … Of course much of NATO has downsized a lot of their combat power. Modern tech costs … lots ! The UK, IIRC, has only 1 RTR left and a few ACRs for example … Of course in typical Limey bravado, they will say that is all they need ! God Save the Queen ! |
David Manley | 21 Aug 2014 9:26 a.m. PST |
Not every armoured regiment is an RTR….. |
Cyrus the Great | 21 Aug 2014 9:41 a.m. PST |
Understatement of the early 21st century! |
Milites | 21 Aug 2014 9:46 a.m. PST |
It can be accomplished easily because the population of the NATO States involved will rarely feel any hardship, in fact you would have little evidence of any involvement, bar some increased police presence. Financially, the cost would be tolerable as contingency budgets could be raided and again no real hardship for the civilian population, Those directly involved would have an opponent who has combat experience but only basic training, no command of the air, few ground troops, little in the way of heavy support weapons and has decided to occupy long strips of land that could be cut off and eradicated easily. Their self-styled state (i.e. deranged fantasy) is painfully vulnerable to having its finances frozen or intercepted and its recruiting strongly curtailed. ISIS could be obliterated, root and branch therefore, quite easily, but, and yes there is always a but, the will is just not there. So yes, easy, but also impossible. |
Legion 4 | 21 Aug 2014 10:05 a.m. PST |
David Manley 21 Aug 2014 9:26 a.m. PST Not every armoured regiment is an RTR…..
I know David, <geez!> that was an example, I served in 4 Infantry Bns and was attached to several Armor Bns in my youth on active duty in the US ARMY for over a decade. I know the UK Army is more than just an RTR and a few ACRs … maybe you may want to goggle it an let us know what the current strength of the UK Ground Forces is … if makes you feel better or just FYI … |
Phil Hall | 21 Aug 2014 10:12 a.m. PST |
My own opinion is we are responding in exactly the way we need to. We are generally not welcomed in the region and boots on the ground just exacerbate the problem. If we are smart we will continue to provide air cover for the Kurds, ramp up the supplies to them and let them fight for their homes. They will appreciate us more in the end and hopefully get a Kurdish state out of this that will be at least moderate in its attitude towards the U.S. and the West. I truly believe that the failed government in both Iraq and Afghanistan is directly related to doing everything for them instead of letting them do it themselves with our backing. Perhaps our stance in the Mid-East should be one of identifying our friends and provide help in the areas they are lacking. I don't mind that we are providing Air Support to the Kurds and acting pretty much as their Air Force. Beyond that the only BOTG should be limited to Spec Ops to train the Kurds. |
Tango01 | 21 Aug 2014 10:56 a.m. PST |
Pedrobear… dude!. (smile) Amicalement Armand |
skippy0001 | 21 Aug 2014 11:45 a.m. PST |
Go all the way or don't go. YouTube link No matter what their culture will change. |
Porthos | 21 Aug 2014 1:05 p.m. PST |
This is, to use an understatement, a rather complicated matter. For instance: an important force of Kurds is the PKK. The PKK however is according to USA, EU and Turkey a terrorist organisation. IS is Sunni, like Saudi Arabia, but will the only country named after a family (Saud) really accept a caliphate ? Since the region was build on colonial borders and not tribal ones there obviously are lots of "failed states". The film of the beheading of James Foley was aimed to create more hatred against the US and a violent response, although of course very understandable, would not help a bit. I agree with Phil Hall. |
Flecktarn | 21 Aug 2014 1:40 p.m. PST |
I have to agree with those arguing for a measured response. Nobody in the "Muslim world", including the Kurds, are our friends and the best that we can do is to work with our temporary allies (whoever is in a moderate mood at the time) to keep the fanatics in check. Ultimately, this is a problem that can only be dealt with by the "Muslim world"; if we become more deeply engaged or react violently to provocations, then we will just create more enemies. Jurgen |
Milites | 21 Aug 2014 2:45 p.m. PST |
Although I agree with your sentiment Flecktarn, I don't think we have the luxury of letting the Muslim world sought it out by itself. They are in a slow burn civil war that is over a thousand years old and is being fought by proxies, who latest iteration are the fanatical jihadists. If we help any side, their opponents will hate us and that hatred will not be temporary or logical, however brief or beneficial our assistance. If we do nothing, historical grievances and our support for Israel can always be activated to keep the street angry. One does sometimes wonder if Alexander's solution to the Gordian knot was a product of genius or a mind conditioned by war? |
Flecktarn | 21 Aug 2014 2:57 p.m. PST |
Milites, My argument is that, by keeping the conflict at a bearable level, we win time for the Muslims to get their act together and sort their own problems out. The only problem is that they show no sign at all of having either the willingness or the ability to do so. There is no simple solution and, almost certainly, no "right" one. Whatever we do or do not do will have consequences for us and for others and, as we cannot know the future, we can only try to do whatever we believe will cause us the least harm in the long run and give the best chance of the "Muslim world" coming to its senses. Jurgen |
Mako11 | 21 Aug 2014 4:15 p.m. PST |
Pork-tipped weaponry for the psy-ops angle, to keep them from going to greet Allah and all those virgins. |
Milites | 21 Aug 2014 4:39 p.m. PST |
To be honest Flecktarn, I thing our current strategy is causing us the greatest harm. it's not working but we don't seem to have any contingency plans, just some vague hope that the Muslims will suddenly become enlightened. Do you think one reason for their lack of any incentive, to seek a resolution, is the West's constant intervention, based on misguided philanthropy or blatant self-interest? |
coopman | 21 Aug 2014 7:36 p.m. PST |
I wonder how many of their fighters have already crossed the border with Mexico and are now in the US to wage jihad against us? With this kind of threat out there, we definitely should have very strict control of our borders. |
Flecktarn | 21 Aug 2014 10:45 p.m. PST |
Milites, What would cause us the greatest harm would be to do one of two things: 1. To go back into Iraq etc in full "war fighting" mode; that would just generate even more hatred and give the likes of IS even more targets. 2. To keep out entirely; that would almost certainly result in organisations like IS getting so close to success that Iran would become even more involved than it already is, and the fallout from that would be massive. I do not think that the Muslim world will suddenly become enlightened; it may take a very long time. I suspect that the lack of willingness among Muslim states to sort the problem out is at least partly due to our intervention; however, I suspect that it has more to do with the fact that many of both the leaders and the people either support the likes of IS or are so scared of them that they do not want to be seen to oppose them. The main thing that prevents the Muslim world sorting itself out is their backwards, conservative religion. Until that is reformed, they will carry on as they are, and that reformation can only come from within; we cannot impose reform on them. If we intervene too heavily, that only entrenches the religion; if we do nothing, that also only entrenches the religion as the fanatics will win. However, the "elephant in the room" is the US's unflinching support for Israel. For reasons that some here are aware of, I do not usually discuss Israel; however, it is key to understanding why the Muslim world hates the West, and, in particular, the US so much. Given that the US cannot abandon Israel to what would probably be its fate, it will constantly provide a cause with which the religious fanatics can stir up trouble and hatred, preventing, or at best delaying, reform. Jurgen |
Milites | 22 Aug 2014 4:17 a.m. PST |
I think one of the major reasons the Muslim world hates the US and, to a lesser extent Israel, is because their respective successes are a constant reminder to them of how far they have fallen behind. Entrenched attitudes are a classic response to a refusal to admit reality and hatred a useful vehicle to redirect legitimate grievances, in this case, incompetent governance. I fear if Israel was given to the crocodile it would not be sated, instead the 'feared ones' would agitate for more concessions, touting that very example, as proof of the efficacy of their methods, namely terror and blackmail. Looking at your options there is a third way, a Hegelian inspired synthesis of your options, although many would consider it ethically dubious. Given the path to European 'enlightenment' was paved with bloody struggles surely we should be encouraging Islam to engage in a series of bloody intra-sectarian conflicts? It would focus their hostility inwards, though I do realise the Syrian example suggests we would have to far more draconian in our interpretation of citizenship. This I think is the central hub around which all spokes fit, can we still continue our relentless drive for improving our condition, or do we realise the danger and, as countless generations have done, temporarily restrict personal freedoms for the greater good? I also think out relentless focus on the reaction in the wider Muslim community is concealing an unpleasant historical truth. If a situation becomes serious enough the population in large will dispense with political solutions and 'vote with their feet'. so to speak. |
Flecktarn | 22 Aug 2014 4:42 a.m. PST |
Milites, To an extent, your third way is what I was arguing for; keeping the fighting contained and ensuring that the seriously bad guys do not win, in the hope that the somewhat less bad guys will eventually become something approaching good guys. The two approaches that I mentioned were not my options, but what I thought were the two worst things that we could do. Jurgen |
latto6plus2 | 22 Aug 2014 4:50 a.m. PST |
Its what going to happen anyway – evidence from algeria, Morocco etc suggests that even if ISIS establish their caliphate it will splinter into ever more tangled fights over who is the real muslim. They will all scream heretic at each other and then start shooting. Of course if the Kurds get tooled up it may mean trouble for or from Turkey… I imagine it will all end with the re-establishment of old fashioned saddam/assad style strongmen or iraq will devolve into kurdish/sunni/shia successor states. The west isnt in any danger of being overrun and a more objective approach to israel would remove a major sense of muslim grievance |
Legion 4 | 22 Aug 2014 5:58 a.m. PST |
The only BOTG should be Spec Ops, CIA types … heavy CAS, Drones, Cruise Missiles, should take out confirmed targets. Provide weapons supplies, log, intel, etc. to those units, sects, factions, etc., that will fight. The US, UK, etc. should not deploy Bns, Rgts, Bdes, Divs, etc. on the sands … Let's use our high tech, take our time and carve up ISIS into little pieces, like a pizza for a Super Bowl party … And as noted, hopefully the local/regional forces will see the urgency of ISIS being within a Toyota pick up truck's ride to their borders … |
latto6plus2 | 22 Aug 2014 6:26 a.m. PST |
None of thats working in yemen or pakistan. Agree with the embedded advisors idea though; trying to turn the iraqis into a western style army has failed and the turks wont let the kurds become too effective. If the west has ruled out helping assad, it makes sense to turn the locals, who are probably handy enough with an AK already, into a more effective guerilla army than ISIS. Dont know much about vietnam but would this match the montagnard experience there? |
Milites | 22 Aug 2014 6:49 a.m. PST |
Talking of Vietnam, would a Phoenix programme work, or does that rely on a significant presence on the ground to gain the intel? Though I see that the IDF took out three top Hamas commanders and probably seriously injured the head of their military wing, resulting in a wave of people being murdered by HAMAS, looking for the spies, as it was weeks after the Israelis pulled out their forces. Flecktarn, apologies, I should have checked, my third way though was a little darker, as it entailed containment at home but active encouragement and support of the various jihadist factions fighting each other. Latto, I hope it would not match the Montagnard experience, as those tribes people, who'd provided such valuable support, now lead a wretched existence when the US cut and ran from Vietnam. |
Legion 4 | 22 Aug 2014 8:03 a.m. PST |
'Yards and the like were certainly different than the factions you run into in Iraq and the region … |
Legion 4 | 22 Aug 2014 8:10 a.m. PST |
None of thats working in yemen or pakistan.
It's working to the point that islamists in thoses areas are not rolling unimpeded across the countryside. Killing, capturing, etc. at the level that ISIS is … |
Lion in the Stars | 22 Aug 2014 9:48 a.m. PST |
The challenge to winning an insurgency is to get the population to hate the 'bad guys' more than they hate you or the other players in the area. ISIS is doing a very good job of that for the most part. Personally, I'm all for arming and training the … Yazidis(?) that were holed up on that mountain. Not sure how many men are left, but there should be enough to make a pretty serious defense force that will be very happy to take the fight back to the cities/towns/villages ISIS has taken, once we stick a couple 'advisors' into the group to train and motivate. Said advisors should have access to drone and air support. The Kurds seem to be holding their own tolerably well, which will at least give a reasonably safe area to stage out of. I'm not sure how much support to give the Kurds, to be honest. I agree that the Turks are not going to like a bunch of well-armed Kurds, but I think the Turks are going to have to put up with it. I suppose that we might be able to work a deal with the Turks to give up some land for Kurdistan in exchange for an equal-sized chunk of Syria if they'll work with us to curbstomp ISIS and Assad. |
Weasel | 22 Aug 2014 10:47 a.m. PST |
If we're fighing ISIS and Assad is fighting ISIS, why would we be "curb stomping" Assad? |
Flecktarn | 22 Aug 2014 10:55 a.m. PST |
Lion, "I suppose that we might be able to work a deal with the Turks to give up some land for Kurdistan in exchange for an equal-sized chunk of Syria if they'll work with us to curbstomp ISIS and Assad." Western nations creating lines on a map are part of what created the mess in the Middle East in the first place. I cannot see the Turks giving up any land to create Kurdistan, which would also upset the Iranians, and transferring land from Syria to Turkey will only give another cause for conflict. As for Assad, I tend to think that we should have supported him against the rebels. He is a relatively sane and non-religious leader and just the sort of strongman who can keep the people in check. Jurgen |
Legion 4 | 22 Aug 2014 12:28 p.m. PST |
At this point, it's pretty clear Assad would be lesser of the two evils. However, like the Iranians sending troop to Iraq and previously to Syria … the enemy of my enemy may still not be my friend … the best we can do is not to shoot at those who are shooting at ISIS too … |
Tango01 | 22 Aug 2014 9:16 p.m. PST |
US military believes ISIS may have as many as 17,000 fighters. "The Sunni militant adversary the United States is confronting in Iraq is a highly mobile force that may number as many 17,000 fighters and can move across the Iraq-Syria border with impunity, according to US military and civilian officials. To counter recent advances by the Islamic State group, the Pentagon on Thursday announced that US warplanes conducted six more strikes on Islamic State targets in the vicinity of the Mosul Dam, destroying three Humvees, another vehicle and and several improvised explosive device emplacements. The attacks brought to 90 the number of airstrikes conducted by the fighter jets, drones and bombers that the United States has unleashed on the Sunni militants since President Barack Obama authorized the strikes as part of the battle against the Islamic State. There have been 20 attacks since the militants beheaded an American journalist and threatened to behead others if the United States did not stop the airstrikes…" Full article here link Amicalement Armand |
Great War Ace | 23 Aug 2014 8:02 a.m. PST |
Oh fine, "we" have "harshly condemned the slayings". That will stop the IS from kidnapping journalists or any other Americans and cutting their heads off. The IS really hates being harshly condemned. "Bad press is better than no press". The more we "harshly condemn" the more it benefits the IS. The IS must believe that the USA will retreat entirely from the region in order to save our people. And the IS might be right. Nothing on the ground provides security for journalists and that region is probably the most dangerous spot on earth for American journalists right now…. |
latto6plus2 | 23 Aug 2014 9:52 a.m. PST |
Stupid question; what is the threat that Isis poses to the US? As opposed to US prestige I mean? Their goal is their caliphate which if it ever happens will be limited by Iran/ Turkey/Israel/egypt. Horrible regime as it will be; will it be worse than Iran, Saudi, Pakistan? Not being arsy here but objectively whats to be gained by getting involved. What real threat do they pose? |
Lion in the Stars | 23 Aug 2014 9:53 a.m. PST |
If we're fighing ISIS and Assad is fighting ISIS, why would we be "curb stomping" Assad? Because Assad is not a desirable leader in Syria, no less than ISIS is. |
Flecktarn | 23 Aug 2014 11:08 a.m. PST |
Lion, Not desirable for who? If the answer to that is "the USA" or "the West", then that is tough. The reality may well be that he is the best available leader of Syria for the Syrian people, its neighbours and the West. The USA has to stop trying to impose the leaders that it wants on other nations. Jurgen |
Weasel | 23 Aug 2014 11:27 a.m. PST |
A leader imposed by a foreign power will always be viewed as a puppet of that power. Eventually that will cause reaction and that reaction may well push the country on a path far less palatable to us. |
Legion 4 | 24 Aug 2014 7:54 a.m. PST |
Stupid question; what is the threat that Isis poses to the US? As opposed to US prestige I mean? Their goal is their caliphate which if it ever happens will be limited by Iran/ Turkey/Israel/egypt. Horrible regime as it will be; will it be worse than Iran, Saudi, Pakistan? We can only hope that is as far as they go … but like AQ they still makes threats both real and with rethoric … We still remember 9/11, the USS Cole, etc., etc. … |
Legion 4 | 24 Aug 2014 7:58 a.m. PST |
The USA has to stop trying to impose the leaders that it wants on other nations. I don't believe the US does that in most cases. The US left the Iraq government to it's own devices and we saw how well that went … And we will see something similar happen in Afghanistan in due time. Regardless no matter what the US does, someone is angered. And again, we don't want to have another 9/11, etc. … |
Phil Hall | 24 Aug 2014 9:57 a.m. PST |
ISIS isn't going to stop where it is. It intends to conquer the entire Muslim world. If it manages to do that it becomes an economic force controlling a large share of the world's oil and has the ability to destroy economies by holding the oil hostage. Then there is the exportation of Jihadi revolution to other parts of the world. A Caliphate with the resources of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern states under its control can cause a peck of trouble in the world. Best to stop it now when it is aborning than later when it will cost many lives and much treasure. |
Milites | 24 Aug 2014 10:36 a.m. PST |
Phil, then they wake up and have to face reality, any temporary success will hasten their demise. As the Maltese say. spit in the air all the time and one day it will fall in your eye. They are annoying and upsetting too many people, states survive using a mixture of force and diplomacy. They are acting like a bunch of kids, playing a game, high-fiving themselves at how clever they are, but the tears and recriminations will soon come. |
Blackhorse MP | 28 Aug 2014 2:11 p.m. PST |
The USA has to stop trying to impose the leaders that it wants on other nations. Wrong-o. Seems that we imposed pretty much everything on the Germans and Japanese after WW2, with the end result being that they transformed from two of the most dangerous, militaristic countries in the world to two of the most free, prosperous and peaceful countries. That of course stands in direct contrast to countries like Iran and Cuba who picked their own leaders, with an end result that hasn't been good for either their people or the world. Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for people being free to choose their own leaders, it's just that when you're dealing with an ISIS, Taliban, Saddam, Fidel or other such obvious problems-in-waiting it's foolish IMO, to allow them to take power and THEN decide to do something. If that sounds a little high-handed or heaven's forbid, judgemental, so be it. Like it or not, with power comes responsibility. The US has both. I'll admit I might see things differently if I lived in say, Ghana or Paraguay. |