"Martyrs Wanted: ISIS' Devastating Defector Problem" Topic

"As the pressure on the Islamic State (ISIS or ISIL) mounts against the backdrop of coalition attacks and a Kurdish offensive in Syria's Raqqa region, militant recruitment has become a pressing matter for the radical organization, which has lost many fighters in clashes around Iraq and Syria. According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR), out of 1,800 people killed during the Kobani battles, 70 percent belonged to ISIS. On February 14, 132 fighters died across Syria, including forty-four ISIS militants. Given mounting losses, ISIS expansion has relied on a two-pronged recruitment approach: targeting foreigners looking to join the new caliphate and enlisting members of the local population. While the foreign recruitment strategy appears successful, local recruitment faces growing obstacles in Syria and Iraq.

ISIS has relied on a powerful branding strategy, diffusing violent images on social media, YouTube and Twitter. The organization has released several documentaries boasting its military exploits such as the Flames of War featuring heroic-looking militants and gruesome footage of bombings and executions. This systematic glamorization of violence has allowed the terror group to attract foreign recruits. In January, a new study by International Center for the Study of Radicalization and Political Violence estimated that the number of foreign fighters in Iraq and Syria had reached about 20,000.

ISIS's local recruitment approach has been described in Idarat al Tawahosh (The Management of Savagery), a book written by Abu Bakr Naji in 2004, which ISIS has adopted. Naji argues that the first step for recruitment is "the creation of organizations to improve the management of the areas under our control." ISIS applied this technique initially following its surge in June. The groups managed everything from bakeries and banks to schools, courts and mosques in Raqqa. One activist admitted at that the time that the organization had been doing "massive institutional work."…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Well sooner or later they may run out of all the lunatics they need to martyr themselves. But I feel if we went from 50 Airstikes a day to say 500 … that might speed up the process …

@L4: while all the airstrikes in the world won't win the war, I'm getting seriously tempted to push for a WW2-style 24/7 bomber offensive. Drones, fighter-bombers, 3-ship formations of B52s, etc.

Set up a rotation so that nearly the entire USAF is overhead, with appropriate rotations for fuel and ammo.

You cannot hide, Azrael is watching you.

L4: while all the airstrikes in the world won't win the war, I'm getting seriously tempted to push for a WW2-style 24/7 bomber offensive. Drones, fighter-bombers, 3-ship formations of B52s, etc.

Of course we all know that you can't "win" with just airpower … but for now, I feel it's a good option …

I say we adopt a 'scorched earth' policy and level the towns and villages where they're hiding. Then when they expect us to move in so they can bleed us dry a la' Stalingrad we don't.

Let's see where the Daesh rats hide next.

If both sides murder civilians, how would we know who the good guys are?

Besides, what do you guys genuinely believe happens when a bunch of local civilians are trying to stay out of the conflict and we come in and shell them to bits?

Who do you think they'll side with afterwards?

that would be descending to their level though and also how can they claim to speak for everyone

If both sides murder civilians, how would we know who the good guys are?

Besides, what do you guys genuinely believe happens when a bunch of local civilians are trying to stay out of the conflict and we come in and shell them to bits?

Who do you think they'll side with afterwards?

I've said this before, for better or worse. When it comes to destroying Deash. Many, many, many of the belligerents of both/all sides plus scores of civilain losses will occur. With massive amount of collateral damage to infastructure and again including massive amounts of non-combatant deaths. I'm sorry to say, IMO, to cleanse the Deash plague effectively this must occur. Many, many, many will [have] to die. 99% of those being moslems of all factions, ethnicities, etc. … We may see horrendous losses. Not like we saw in WWII in MOUT, but close proportionately And/or against an enemy who is very much willing to die as did the most in the IJFs in places like Manila, Iwo, etc. … The Deash plague may only be "cured" with blood and death … huge amounts of it … Unless someone comes up with a better idea … which again, IMO is very, very unlikely. Tell me where I'm going wrong ? Tragically many of those non-combatants may/will/would die at Deash or other factions hands regardless … It truely is a nightmare scenario. Without Nucs even being used or considered …

If we were to obliterate that little town (can't recall the name, but it begins with a "D"), from the air, in NW Syria, where they are claiming their final, victorious battle of the apocalypse will occur, that just might cause them to re-think their whole belief system.

They're counting on drawing us in there, on the ground, apparently, for a climactic battle.

Can't see them rebuilding the city, after it's gone, so I believe that should be considered,

There's a big difference between collateral damage and Lions' advocacy for war crimes and genocide….

Just because one is unfortunate to live in the Caliphate doesn't make one a supporter.

Hamburg.
Cologne.
Dresden.

And for that matter Tokyo or even Caan.

When one is at war (as, I would argue, we are), deciding who the good guys are is, unfortunately, a luxury only afforded to the victors.

Don't make it 'right'.

Does, however, make it true.

Just being pragmatic.

John T

What is the German Proverb? Something to the effect of "Better an end with horror than a horror without end." It isn't a matter of deciding to inflict civilian casualties to fight back and win. Once someone starts a war, that is going to happen on both sides regardless of anyone's' hopes and wishes. The alternative is not to fight back, allow your opponent to win and have civilian casualties anyway.

What is the German Proverb? Something to the effect of "Better an end with horror than a horror without end."
-----------------
A German proverb is hardly the best one to quote given firstly their application of Schrecklichkeit/war to the knife aka we have to be cruel for the benefit of further generations/Rotterdam tactic and secondly their spectacularly unsuccessful military record despite their natty uniforms and cool tanks and ruthless approach

The tide is slowly turning in the Arab world's opinion of ISIL as they see the true actions of terrorism. I use Jordan and now Egypt as examples.

We do not need to radicalise 1+ billion Muslims by indiscriminately bombing cities ISIL has captured. You do not create victory by killing innocents. Carpet bombing a city of 1 million in order to try and kill a few thousand is simply stupid and would not achieve anything worthwhile.

If we use WWII examples, the Allies did not indiscriminately bomb conquered cities like Paris. Cities subjected to mass bombings were ones originally belonging to the Axis powers.

Carrying this argument forward about killing ISIL fighters and stopping recruitment, shouldn't we bomb London?

or to stop IRA support, the Vulcans could have been rolled out to bomb Boston!

ZoC – because the Germans are exactly the people whose relatively recent experience we should be emulating.

We hanged those perpetrators. I sincerely hope a noose awaits anyone else who thinks genocide is a legitimate means of warfare.

Since WW2 bombing has moved on somewhat – we don't have to flatten cities any more.

If you act as prescribed you'll have a lot more than a billion Muslims to worry about.

guys what's the story with isis wounded especially foreign fighters, are they being left to die from their wounds(amputations) can,t very well return home to their own countries seeking medical help?

ISIS maintains their own hospitals with the best doctors and best equipment/medicines. There is also a report that ISIS is harvesting human organs for sale as well as for their own use.

I doubt that they're receiving treatment equal to Western standards, but it appears that they receive better care than the conquered people in their control.

Hamburg.
Cologne.
Dresden.

And for that matter Tokyo or even Caan.

When one is at war (as, I would argue, we are), deciding who the good guys are is, unfortunately, a luxury only afforded to the victors.

Don't make it 'right'.

Does, however, make it true.

Just being pragmatic.

Very, very true John …

Lion – you're advocating killing civilians by the hundred of thousand on the say so of a few nutters.

I think you'll find murdering children is still a war crime. That you don't think it is speaks volumes.

Stu let me say this again … When it comes to destroying Deash. Many, many, many of the belligerents of both/all sides plus scores of civilain losses will occur. With massive amounts of collateral damage to infastructure and again including many, many non-combatant deaths. I'm sorry to say, IMO, to cleanse the Deash plague effectively this must occur. Many, many, many will [have] to die. 99% of those being moslems of all factions, ethnicities, etc. … We may see horrendous losses. Not like we saw in WWII in MOUT, but close proportionately And/or against an enemy who is very much willing to die as did the most in the IJFs in places like Manila, Iwo, etc. … The Deash plague may only be "cured" with blood and death … huge amounts of it … Again … Tragically many of those non-combatants may/will/would die at Deash or other factions hands regardless … It truely is a nightmare scenario.

The tide is slowly turning in the Arab world's opinion of ISIL as they see the true actions of terrorism. I use Jordan and now Egypt as examples.

And that is a very good but small "sign" …

We do not need to radicalise 1+ billion Muslims by indiscriminately bombing cities ISIL has captured. You do not create victory by killing innocents. Carpet bombing a city of 1 million in order to try and kill a few thousand is simply stupid and would not achieve anything worthwhile.

I don't think anyone is seriously thinking about Carpet Bombing, targeting/murdering children, etc., etc. … However, more firepower will have to be used to support aggressive ground actions … And very unfortunately many civilains may/will be among the dead … it's sadly unavoidable …

The Western Way of War has rules. There are rules for "the Just War" throughout the ancient world and the Middle Ages right up to today. There are also rules for "Jus in Bellum" Justice IN War. The literature on this is vast. Basically as codified by Grotius and others, I will deal only with the latter, "Jus in Bellum" or Justice in war, and leave the idea of a "just war" behind for a moment, as "Just war" or not, the rules of "Jus in Bellum" apply to all, including those fighting an "unjust war."

Justice in War according to the laws of war means war is to be fought by disciplined, uniformed armies led by professional officers serving under a legitimate recognized territorial government which has power of coercion over its army and population. That is, the power to discipline and make it's polies felt. The old, the sick, the young, the non-combatant are not legitimate objects of destruction though they MAY be if they are engaged in direct war production and support of the aforementioned army. The reason the army is uniformed is to distinguish themselves from these non-combatants. When this is the case, the rules with regard to just and merciful treatment of prisoners, surrenders, civil populations, the innocent apply. All of those niceties and honors and restraint that have been part of Western war are validated and must be observed.

However if the one side is as the guerilla does "hide amongst the people," then that violates the cardinal rule of war, namely who can be killed and who cannot When this is the policy of one of the agents in the war, then it strips, by the logic of the agency implementing the policy the protection of non combatant and the quality of "innocent" from the population in general. They become as legitimate a target (their women, children, infants, cattle and so forth) as much as any bunker, fortification or shield to the combat troops would be. Thus massacre and extermination is possible and legal under the rules of war so long as the policy is pursued. If the people allow these agents to hide in them they are reducing themselves to such protective objects and are no more worth of consideration than an entrenchment or fox hole to be destroyed.

If you don't want to reach the stage of genocide, then play by the rules.

OSchmidt wrote:

If the people allow these agents to hide in them they are reducing themselves to such protective objects and are no more worth(y) of consideration than an entrenchment or fox hole to be destroyed.

True. These 'innocents' may have been forcibly used as human shields but by allowing themselves to be held hostages rather than running away or fighting back they can be considered as collateral. It doesn't mean we're deliberately targeting civilians and treating them as enemy combatants.

And I beleve we already loosened the ROE on airstrikes last year with regards to collateral damage.

Note that Bush stated the Americans wer e'Crusaders'.

No he did not.

He did once state in 2001: "this crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take awhile." -Not the smartest choice of words, but not the context you are trying to prove. And it happens to be a true prediction.

Quite fabricating information to try to prove your point. This isn't an 'America vs the World' discussion. The Brits have been elbow-deep in Middle east meddling since before WWI.

Of course we Brits have been meddling almost everywhere East of Suez for longer than most, but I think we've come to the conclusion that the genocide of thousands of innocent civilians used as human shields in occupied territories so actively promoted by more than one American poster here, is rarely a good or morally defensible solution to the problem.

To describe those civilians in the terms used by OSchmidt and 28mm Fanatik is grotesque.

Any US soldier who regards hostages as simply an object to be destroyed should, after due process, be hanged.

Or, even better, left to rot on a tropical island somewhere without the neeed for a trial until he goes insane from boredom.

I think we've come to the conclusion that the genocide of thousands of innocent civilians used as human shields in occupied territories so actively promoted by more than one American poster here, is rarely a good or morally defensible solution to the problem.

To describe those civilians in the terms used by OSchmidt and 28mm Fanatik is grotesque.

Your response is emotional, but not logical. When the enemy places his critical facilities in the middle of housing areas, for instance, do you bomb or not bomb?

When it comes to destroying Deash. Many, many, many of the belligerents of both/all sides plus scores of civilain losses will occur. With massive amount of collateral damage to infastructure and again including massive amounts of non-combatant deaths.

Fortunately, this doesn't seem to be true in the case of towns which have been liberated so far.

Bill – in your instance you bomb and do your best to minimise the collateral damage.

There's a big difference between that and simply declaring al civilians to be legitimate targets… which is a war crime.

Too many people seem to be getting this whole thing out of proportion.

ISIS aren't supermen. They're not a threat to anyone remotely organised.

The Lebanese Army has hammered them for goodness sake.

It seems many, predominately American (sad to say) posters simply like calling for the deaths of thousands of Muslims just because it makes them feel better.

The Japanese murdered Chinese civilians in massive droves in early ww2. The Chinese did not surrender.

The Germans bombed, shot and murdered civilians in droves in Poland and the USSR.
The Soviets didn't surrender and the Poles only surrendered when they were militarily defeated.

The Allies bombed the Germans for years and they only surrendered when they were militarily defeated.

We bombed the North Koreans relentlessly for years and they only came to the peace table when they were military bogged down (and their allies wanted out).

We bombed North Vietnam for years and they did not surrender.

The Soviets bombed Afghanistan for years and the Mujahideen did not surrender.

Seeing any patterns here?
Mass bombings do NOT win a war because they CANNOT win a war.
They never have and they never will.

They didn't do it in Russia, they didn't do it in China, they didn't do it in Korea, they didn't do it in Vietnam and they didn't do it in Afghanistan.

We already know how to win against insurgencies. We've done it before.
It involves nothing of what has been posted here. (it's also slow, expensive and doesn't easily align with ideology).

"Your response is emotional, but not logical. When the enemy places his critical facilities in the middle of housing areas, for instance, do you bomb or not bomb?"
Following this logic, the 911 attacks were OK then. Attack the financial infrastructure and if anyone is in the way tough luck? I seem to remember we called those attacks murder.
"True. These 'innocents' may have been forcibly used as human shields but by allowing themselves to be held hostages rather than running away or fighting back they can be considered as collateral."
How would you apply this reasoning to the victims of the Holocaust? Were they 'collateral'? By not fighting they deserved to die?

Remember when the US kills thousands of civilians – it's 'collateral damage'.

When Muslims kill Americans it's 'murder'.

Weasel – very wise words but alas doing things properly doesn't involve shiny expensive jets flown by Good Ol'Boys blowing up the landscape in a photogenic manner than looks good on TV.

Hence no interest.

Remember when the US kills thousands of civilians – it's 'collateral damage'.

When Muslims kill Americans it's 'murder'.

Not an apt analogy I'm afraid. There's a difference in the intent. The Americans aim to kill the bad guys, not the civilians, but sometimes collateral damage is the unavoidable result. We're not going to be deterred just because the bad guys use innocents as shields, but we certainly don't go out of our way to kill civilians.

But terrorists do. When the terrorists kill Americans on September 11, they're targeting civilians, not soldiers. Even though you can make a case for the Pentagon attack that they're targeting military personnel.

The difference is that the terrorists' intent is to kill American non-military personnel, while we aim to kill terrorists, not civilians, even though sometimes collateral damage is the unfortunate result.

However if the one side is as the guerilla does "hide amongst the people," then that violates the cardinal rule of war, namely who can be killed and who cannot When this is the policy of one of the agents in the war, then it strips, by the logic of the agency implementing the policy the protection of non combatant and the quality of "innocent" from the population in general. They become as legitimate a target (their women, children, infants, cattle and so forth) as much as any bunker, fortification or shield to the combat troops would be. Thus massacre and extermination is possible and legal under the rules of war so long as the policy is pursued. If the people allow these agents to hide in them they are reducing themselves to such protective objects and are no more worth of consideration than an entrenchment or fox hole to be destroyed.

Agreed … again right out of Mao and Che' …

Any US soldier who regards hostages as simply an object to be destroyed should, after due process, be hanged.

Nobody thinks that, you are putting words into mouths to suit your skewed logic … again …

Or, even better, left to rot on a tropical island somewhere without the neeed for a trial until he goes insane from boredom.

That is what I think should happen to any of the few surviving Deash, AQ, etc. members once most are killed. You can't rehab these guys[or gals !]. They are like TV zombies. You have not choice but to kill or confine them … I'm a big fan of the first.

Your response is emotional, but not logical. When the enemy places his critical facilities in the middle of housing areas, for instance, do you bomb or not bomb?

Exactly …

Bill – in your instance you bomb and do your best to minimise the collateral damage.

Yes that is alway the way it is done. But sometimes collateral damage is unavoidable …

"When it comes to destroying Deash. Many, many, many of the belligerents of both/all sides plus scores of civilain losses will occur. With massive amount of collateral damage to infastructure and again including massive amounts of non-combatant deaths."
Fortunately, this doesn't seem to be true in the case of towns which have been liberated so far.

The key words are "so far" … the purge of Deash has only just started and on a tiny, tiny scale.

ISIS aren't supermen. They're not a threat to anyone remotely organised.

The Lebanese Army has hammered them for goodness sake.

Again, a tiny victory … oh, BTW I trained with the Lebanese ….

It seems many, predominately American (sad to say) posters simply like calling for the deaths of thousands of Muslims just because it makes them feel better.

Again, an emotional response on your part. In this case it is moslems because of the location/area. I didn't say Martians or Amish because there aren't any on the battlefield. Also … Please study the MOUT operations in WWII, Korea, '48 & '67 Arab-Israeli Wars and Vietnam … My comments are based on generally sound tactics, study of military history, my varied training and experiences as a former military "professional". For over a decade …

Remember when the US kills thousands of civilians – it's 'collateral damage'.

When Muslims kill Americans it's 'murder'.

Weasel – very wise words but alas doing things properly doesn't involve shiny expensive jets flown by Good Ol'Boys blowing up the landscape in a photogenic manner than looks good on TV.

Again emotional amd polariazed reponses … As 28mm wisely said …

Not an apt analogy I'm afraid. There's a difference in the intent. The Americans aim to kill the bad guys, not the civilians, but sometimes collateral damage is the unavoidable result. We're not going to be deterred just because the bad guys use innocents as shields, but we certainly don't go out of our way to kill civilians.

But terrorists do. When the terrorists kill Americans on September 11, they're targeting civilians, not soldiers. Even though you can make a case for the Pentagon attack that they're attacking military personnel.

The difference is that the terrorists' intent is to kill American non-military personnel, while we aim to kill terrorists, not civilians, even though sometimes collateral damage is the unfortunate result.

I want Good Ol'Boys flying CAS support when my troops and I are in the attack. Again along with FA, it's sound military judgement. Sadly yes, sometimes there will be collatral damage. Yes, that means non-combatants may/will be casualities. However, I've heard too many stories where US forces in Iraq and A'stan were denied CAS and FA to prevent collateral damage. And in turn more US soldiers lives we lost.

Killing mass numbers of non combatant civilians is never justifiable. It is something you get away with and if you have a conscience… You hope your side wins.
Curtis le May at least had the honesty to admit that he could be tried as a war criminal if his side lost.

Yes, we all know that … and again, they are not targeted … As I and many have noted previously sometimes collateral damage sadly happens. The only way to avoid it entirely is to avoid war. But the Nazis, IJFs, North Koreans, China, VC/NVA, and currently jihadis, terrorists etc., don't give us that option … And yes, had the US lost we'd have been charged with war crimes … if for nothing else, dropping A-bombs on Japan.

The best way of avoiding collateral damage is to stop using the pathetic euphemism to cover your arse, and say what's really happening, civilian death. Collateral damage is a burnt out Toyota pick up that was in the blast radius. A dead child is not.

Everyone knows there are civilian casualties in war, especially in asymmetric warfare where the enemy is embedded among a civilian population. But gleefully calling for WW2 style bomber offensives with modern technology means you can't cover your arse and just blame it on the otherside for having the civilians around them as a pathetic mask over a conscious decision.

Legion you can I'm sure come up with some actual accounts of when US lives were lost because CAS was not forthcoming specifically for fear of 'collateral damage'.

Ordinarily, the US tries to avoid collateral damage.

Terrorists hide among the civilian population to try to take advantage of this.

The really despicable terrorists intentionally set their operations bases around schools or hospitals, places that are supposed to be protected from the fighting according to the laws of war. Using a school for an ammo dump or a hospital for a military HQ is a War Crime.

Legion….

Nobody thinks that,

Er… you need to check upthread.

Weasel:
Seeing any patterns here?
Mass bombings do NOT win a war because they CANNOT win a war.
They never have and they never will.

You somehow managed to skip the near-total destruction of Japan in WW2. Japan was on the verge of surrender, while they still had ~1 million troops fighting in China and 10,000 aircraft available to repel an invasion of Kyushu. Why? Partly because we burnt their whole country to the ground. Operation Meetinghouse (9/10 March 1945 vs Tokyo) was the deadliest air raid of the entire war, with 80-100,000 civilians killed. To say nothing of the industrial output lost nationwide from having 50-70% of every major urban area burnt to a cinder.

You also seemed to draw the wrong conclusions from Germany vs Poland: review the 1944 Warsaw Uprising. The Poles lost…because the Germans essentially sent in a giant gang of sociopaths to murder everyone they encountered (150,000+ dead civilians in 2 months) and level the place…city block by city block. Nobody left to resist when the Soviets occupied the city shortly thereafter. Iraq's al Anfal campaign (summer 1988, specifically) is a similar example.

Most of the examples you cited (Soviets in A-stan, etc.) lacked the overwhelming and continuous application of mass firepower against the civilian population. Unless you are killing 10's of thousands or hundreds of thousands of civilians in a few days/weeks/months….no, it's not going to work. It will take you forever to break their morale at the regional/national level in the absence of wholesale slaughter.

The thing is, the US absolutely retains such a capability. It took 279 B-29's to drop 1,665 tons of bombs on Tokyo for Operation Meetinghouse. Our 77 B-52H's can carry 2,425 tons of ordnance. So the capability is there.

Daesh/Salafists/Wahabis/whatever want to wage a total war. Conventional military might is stacked in our favor. Economic might is stacked in our favor. So we'd pretty much have to trip over our own feet to lose a total war. Civilians are an economic asset, therefore in a total war they are a military asset.

National Socialism as an ideology and its related institutions were a cancer on human civilization. This cancer was recognized as such by the western powers and excised accordingly, regardless of cost. Radical Islam is cut from the same vile cloth. Why is the West failing to terminate this ideology….with extreme prejudice?

few things … the japanese surrendered because they did not want the home islands to be invaded and occupied by the soviet union. they knew that the russians would expend the lives of their troopers like matchsticks to take the islands….

another thing is isis is not japan or germany. despite their pretensions they are just a guerilla movement, and so bombing them is not like bombing germany…..

Civilians are an economic asset, therefore in a total war they are a military asset… Radical Islam is cut from the same vile cloth. Why is the West failing to terminate this ideology….with extreme prejudice?

The Allies never set out to exterminate the German population.

Arguably the bombing campaign against Japan, which targeted cities, did target civilians… on the reasoning that it was the only way to end the war without massive Allied casualties.

There does not seem to be a parallel situation here.

Not only that, but the population in question was conquered, and does not necessarily support ISIS.

The best way of avoiding collateral damage is to stop using the pathetic euphemism to cover your arse, and say what's really happening, civilian death. Collateral damage is a burnt out Toyota pick up that was in the blast radius. A dead child is not.

Everyone knows there are civilian casualties in war, especially in asymmetric warfare where the enemy is embedded among a civilian population. But gleefully calling for WW2 style bomber offensives with modern technology means you can't cover your arse and just blame it on the otherside for having the civilians around them as a pathetic mask over a conscious decision.

Legion you can I'm sure come up with some actual accounts of when US lives were lost because CAS was not forthcoming specifically for fear of 'collateral damage'.

Collateral damage also include destruction of structures, etc. … not just civilain losses. It's not a "pathetic" euphemism it's a technical term. And the pick up truck mounting weapons or transporting jihadis ,etc., is the … let's use the Technical term … TARGET … anything else that is hit in the blast radius that is not enemy personal and equiptment is … let's again use the Technical term … collateral damage … WE DON'T TARGET Civilains … The jihadis and terrorists do … I'm sure you understand that. And yes, read a number of AARs from Iraq and A'stan. The US makes it policy to avoid civilain losses and destruction of infastructure, etc. ie.: collateral damage, as often as it can. If not … many places would look like the dark side of the Moon …

Legion….

Nobody thinks that,
Er… you need to check upthread.

stu … please enlighten me … show where it blatantly says that … And let me say again … In this case it is moslems because of the location/area. You know Iraq, Syria, etc. … I didn't say Martians or Amish because there aren't any on the battlefield. [As far as I know] Also … Please study the MOUT operations in WWII, Korea, '48 & '67 Arab-Israeli Wars and Vietnam … My comments are based on generally sound tactics, study of military history, my varied training and experiences as a former military "professional". For over a decade … And very good points Noble … Very good …

The deliberate targeting of civilians cannot be justified with the argument that they're mere "economic assets" and are therefore fair game as "military assets" because they're victims and we would be committing genocide.

That's not the same as "collateral damage" since it's not the unfortunate byproduct but the cause itself.

It's amazing Legion, you've made this pick up sprout weapons and jihadis. They weren't there in the original, but that's ok, you've justified the 'target' to yourself now.

Just because it's technical jargon doesn't mean it's not a euphemism, indeed if you use it to talk about human deaths it's pretty much the definition of one.

Show me some of these AARs.

It's amazing Legion, you've made this pick up sprout weapons and jihadis. They weren't there in the original, but that's ok, you've justified the 'target' to yourself now.

How do you know that vehicle did mount a weapon or was used to carry troops ? It's standard military practice to destroy enemy transport and logistics assets. I had over two dozen cargo trucks in my Support Plt in Korea. Without those trucks I would have had very hard time running resupply for the forward elements. No justification needed … Sorry war is horrible … we do try to limit the horror and in turn the collateral damage … With the enemy who is fighting a version of COIN is using to their advantage. Again, read Mao and Che's or study the partisan movements in WWII. And note, weapons, equipment and personal are hidden in what looks like carts, trucks, etc. under hay, produce, etc. … See this is a bad thing …

Just because it's technical jargon doesn't mean it's not a euphemism, indeed if you use it to talk about human deaths it's pretty much the definition of one.

Now we talking semantics. All US planning considers effects on non-combatants/civilains, destruction of buildings, structures, roads, bridges, all infastructure, again, ie.: collateral damage. Sorry no matter what you call, it could be bad. So we greatly attempt avoid it. Again, if not, target areas would look like the dark side of the moon.

Show me some of these AARs.

Off the top of my head I don't have hard copies. However, what most recently comes to mind is an interview with a USMC Sniper on the History Channel. He talked about when they were taking sniper fire in Iraqi town. He believed he saw where the fire was coming from and requested CAS and/FA to suppress the location. His request was denied for fear of collateral damage to the non-combatants. And the sniper fire continued until he finally could ID the target. And took it out with his own sniper rifle. That saved US lives … period. That is standard operating proceduces in US and I'm sure other Western military forces. I don't have to review a number of AAR to know how we do things … You may … but after over a decade in my youth as an Infantry officer deployed worldwide. I was concidered skilled in my job. When was the last time you were in a Hot Zone ? Were you even ever in combat unit in any military ?
For some reason … I don't think so … You have little knowledge of how combat units work. But you are welcomed to your opinion … as am I … Mine should hold more a little more weight on this topic than yours, I'd think …

Oh I see Hestor [you are German yes ?], I'm sorry your post was deleted. But I know that song and video well. We used to laugh about it. I don't know how you or some others here propose to handle Deash, AQ, etc. … But I'd be interested in hearing it … as I'm sure others are. And knowing your military experiences … if any … Please read my last post … It may explain some things to you and others about the reality of combat situations from the POV of Grunts. But like many who hold opinions similar to you and others here. Have you or any others that believe as you do have any real workable solutions ? Or can't see beyond your rose colored glasses ? Noble said it better than I can. I think he is or was USMC ?

Daesh/Salafists/Wahabis/whatever want to wage a total war. Conventional military might is stacked in our favor. Economic might is stacked in our favor. So we'd pretty much have to trip over our own feet to lose a total war. Civilians are an economic asset, therefore in a total war they are a military asset.

National Socialism as an ideology and its related institutions were a cancer on human civilization. This cancer was recognized as such by the western powers and excised accordingly, regardless of cost. Radical Islam is cut from the same vile cloth. Why is the West failing to terminate this ideology….with extreme prejudice?

And I again quote from G. Orwell

" We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm. "

Sleep well …

Noble wrote:

National Socialism as an ideology and its related institutions were a cancer on human civilization. This cancer was recognized as such by the western powers and excised accordingly, regardless of cost. Radical Islam is cut from the same vile cloth. Why is the West failing to terminate this ideology….with extreme prejudice?

While I agree that radical Islam should be dealt with the same extreme prejudice as Nazism in WWII, it's not that simple an analogy because it's a different situation and offers a different set of challenges:

While Nazi Germany was a nation-state with clear borders and a populace mobilized to the cause of fascism, radical Islamic groups are amorphous, stateless entities without borders spread out among numerous countries whose governments are fighting them.

In the good old days, a nation will surrender if we march into the capitol and take off the head. Simple. Radical Islamic groups are more resilient in that when a head is removed another will soon take its place (OBL, Zarquawi, Baghdadi, etc.).

National Socialism (Fascism) and Communism (rather, Socialism) are ideologies, but radical Islam is more than that because of its powerful religious aspect. That makes it a much more dangerous force since it draws its followers from an entire religion which has been around for centuries.

Radical Islam tries to force us to become "monsters" by targeting civilians and to conduct war with wanton disregard for civilian casualties. If we try to "kill a fly with a sledgehammer," more people will surely flock to their banner. The radical Islamic "cancer" is best rooted out with the precision of a surgical scalpel or laser, but due to lack of patience, stirred emotions from propaganda and taped beheadings, and our 'need' for an easy solution we're now hearing people calling for "Total War" as if non-state entities can be treated like traditional nation-states.

Maybe the Iranians supporting the Iraqis may be the anti-jihad crusaders to put an end to Deash. And again, we can just watch it all on CNN.

You said

I've heard too many stories where US forces in Iraq and A'stan were denied CAS and FA to prevent collateral damage. And in turn more US soldiers lives we lost.

and told us to go read AARs to prove it. Where are they – the story you come up with above isn't one. In fact it neatly demonstrates that you don't need to bomb the enemy to smithereens collateral be damned.

I'm not sure where I claimed I was in the military. Apparently though that precludes me from calling dead people dead people.

Arguably the bombing campaign against Japan, which targeted cities, did target civilians… on the reasoning that it was the only way to end the war without massive Allied casualties.

While LeMay did have some influence over the USAAF's strategy, the reason the US was bombing entire cities in Japan is because the Japanese didn't have single large factories. Instead, they had tens of thousands of cottage industries mixed among the civilian housing.

If a factory building airplanes is a legitimate military target, when pretty much the entire city is involved in the building (Tomo's house makes the tail planes, Fujita's makes the fabric coverings, etc), you're going to see massive destruction as the USAAF bombs the factories (with the -poor accuracy inherent in dumb bombs).

I'm really reluctant to get involved in this because… (a) this thread was initiated by Tango … and (b) secondly I'm rapidly reaching the point where I really no longer care what happens here anymore… and (c) Ed in Chief will no doubt delete this comment or lock me (again) because I ask pertinent questions…. but despite proclaiming to be neutral he invariably sides with US based reactionaries time and time again… and before anyone takes objection, just consider why it is that he keeps fanning the flames in these kind of discussions again and again… does he have a vested interest in simply generating contentious traffic on TMP to make a living? Is he ultimately taking the out of everyone? Normally it's only "liberal" types (although personally speaking, I'm way, way to the left of liberal!!! ) who usually end up worse off in these debates because their views are instantly muffled by a biased editor thus denying any REAL genuine debate… but you know, is he really sticking the proverbial two fingers up at you all too?

I could simply say that Legion 4, … I'll take pride in taking into account the socio-politics of the whole world, not just of any one country and I'm quite willing to risk the indignation of conservative to do it. bearing in mind the link that was deleted, the times they are a changing maaan… and they have been for decades… In the long run, history will be far kinder to that kind of world-centric sensibility.

But I'll also be more specific…. please don't misquote and try to appropriate one of the great British writers of all time … it's a common mistake to misquote Orwell as responsible for the statement you attribute to him but I think you'll find that it's actually a 1993 Washington Times essay by well known neoconservative kneejerk Richard Grenier who was MISinterpretting Orwell in his own words as it suited his purpose to do so.

I also find it pathetic that you make grand posturing noises about military experience and yet if I've understood your other comments correctly your own (experience) pertains as far back as the 1950s…. what right have you got to preach about contemporary conflict? You sound still stuck in that decade along with McCarthy and everything that represents .

Apparently you are unaware that the US *STILL* has an entire Division in Korea, badlydressedhob.

Which division has changed over the years, IIRC, but there has been an entire US division stationed in Korea since 1953. L4 was in Korea in the 1980s, IIRC.

What is a US Division doing in Korea, you ask? Well, 50% of the job is preventing the North from marching south, and the other 50% is preventing the South from marching north. It's about like separating two scratching 5-yea-olds.