| Tango01 | 02 Jul 2015 11:50 a.m. PST |
"As Iraqi government forces struggle to hold their own against the self-declared Islamic State, the limitations of the current U.S. strategy have become clear. Our side is losing both individual battles and the larger war. Although the fight against the Islamic State will not be won by ground combat alone—Vietnam taught us too well the gap between tactical success and strategic victory—we must begin by winning on the battlefield. In turn, this will require a reexamination of how U.S. forces in the region operate, as well as what level of risk senior leaders are able to accept. To address the Islamic State's tactical successes, there are increasing calls to embed U.S. combat advisers with Iraqi government-aligned forces, removing restrictions that keep U.S. expertise far from the front lines. However, as Marcus Weisgerber in Defense One points out, one does not simply embed US troops in Iraq. Calls to allow U.S. troops to accompany Iraqi military units on offensive missions generally ignore support requirements. If we apply the risk-to-force calculus we have become accustomed to during the past fourteen years, the logistics and support tail required to support embedded advisers in Iraq would include medical evacuation, personnel recovery, combat search-and-rescue, quick reaction forces, and compounding logistics…"
Full article here
link Amicalement
Armand |
| 15mm and 28mm Fanatik | 02 Jul 2015 11:55 a.m. PST |
They should do nothing. It's a regional "problem." Let the locals handle it. |
 Legion 4  | 02 Jul 2015 12:18 p.m. PST |
Yep … save for drone and air strikes … |
| Cyrus the Great | 02 Jul 2015 1:37 p.m. PST |
So when the next Iraqi Army regiment throws away all its equipment, the officers can turn over the embedded U.S. personnel to ISIS for ransom…at best. |
| Legion 4 | 03 Jul 2015 8:30 a.m. PST |
turn over the embedded U.S. personnel to ISIS for ransom … I think we have contingency plans for that. Like darkening the skies over the area with drones and airstikes, along other contingencies, like CSAR, etc. … |
| jowady | 03 Jul 2015 9:56 a.m. PST |
Personally I think that maybe the "Non-Militant" Islamic Governments need to fight this thing. Support them with equipment (unless they're throwing it away) and intel and air power but not on the ground. Unless and until these countries stand up for themselves whenver US and NATO forces leave this this will happen. |
| Legion 4 | 03 Jul 2015 1:44 p.m. PST |
Personally I think that maybe the "Non-Militant" Islamic Governments need to fight this thing. If only they'd get off their butts and go Daesh hunting … Of course some would say that would spread/start a larger sectarian war. Isn't that what is going on now ? I'd say Yes … |
| Ottoathome | 04 Jul 2015 4:41 a.m. PST |
The methodology for war in this region was established by G.Khan and sons. I read they only had 30,000 men where their adversaries had over 120,000! |
| Bangorstu | 04 Jul 2015 5:32 a.m. PST |
Legion – not all of them are rich neough to afford a war…. OK the UAE and Saudis are rolling in dosh, but the Jordanians aren't and they seem keenest to get involved. |
| Legion 4 | 04 Jul 2015 6:58 a.m. PST |
Legion – not all of them are rich neough to afford a war…. Possibly, but maybe their fellow moslem bros like the Saudis could/should loan or "Lend Lease" them some cash … Or just let Daesh continue to rape, slaughter, enslave, destroy, butcher, etc., fellow moslems … The #1 killer of moslems is moslems. It pales the US body count by many magnitudes … we all know that. |
| jowady | 04 Jul 2015 9:54 a.m. PST |
OK the UAE and Saudis are rolling in dosh, but the Jordanians aren't and they seem keenest to get involved.
And that is the problem. As long as they aren't willing to get involved nothing will change. Western troops can go and fight and die but as soon as they leave the situation reverts to this. |
plays Ambush Alley at Council of Five Nations.
