"They’ve Got U.S. Guns. Can They Stop ISIS?" Topic

"The Mu'tasim Brigade appears to be the very model of a fighting force the U.S. Defense Department can get behind—so why is it always running short of bullets and shells?

"During the siege, we were hit with 50 ISIS car bombs," Mu'tasim Abbas told me. "Each car was filled with 10 tons of explosive."

Abbas is the commander of the Mu'tasim Brigade (the name, he assures me, is just a coincidence), one of a mere handful of Syrian rebel groups backed by the U.S. Department of Defense to defeat ISIS.

"I've been fighting them for three and a half years," Abbas said, in an often digitally shaky Skype conversation. "I joined the Pentagon's ‘train and equip' program a year and a half ago and started coordinating with the U.S. to get my men trained in Turkey and to call in U.S. airstrikes."
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

I posted this yesterday on a thread, in a less than serious vane.

Willard: Charlie didn't get much USO. He was dug in too deep or moving too fast. His idea of great R&R was cold rice and a little rat meat. He had only two ways home: death, or victory.

You may recognize it from the movie Apocalypse Now. Realizing it's only a line in a movie. But I'm sure many in the US military probably thought similarly. At least to a point.

But think about it. For Daesh to be defeated. The local arabs/moslems need to be as motivated … as dedicated … as ruthless, etc., … As the West is not going to commit much more blood & treasure that it has there now. Or has in the past.

But frankly … I don't think the local arab/moslems who are not radicalized fanatical islamists have it in them to do what it takes to eliminate Daesh, AQ, etc., in their own backyards. Their "culture", psychological predilections, etc., … they just does not seem to have it in them. If so … one indicator is all the military age moslem males that came into Europe, etc., with the largest refugee flood since WWII. They should have stayed there and took the fight to their fellow lunatic fringe moslem brethren. But they didn't have it in them … at least the vast majority. Plus all the different religious, tribal, ethnic, etc., factors is not in their favor.

But no … again, they don't have the motivation, dedication, ruthlessness to push their fanatical brethren out of their land it seems. And kill them … eliminate them … At least not anytime soon …

Is it just me, or does 10 tons of explosives in each car sound like hyperbole?

Perhaps the measurement of "tons" in the Middle East is a bit different, or their cars are even bigger than Texas-sized vehicles.

10 tons per car is hyperbole as most automobiles won't go far under that much mass. However, in a truck or on a tank its perfectly possible. ISIS uses the Vehicle Based IED's (VBIED's) like a form of artillery sending a vehicle in to explode at a set location. Doesn't do the driver of the vehicle much good but heck, they recruit suicide bombers just for that purpose.

But frankly … I don't think the local arab/moslems who are not radicalized fanatical islamists have it in them to do what it takes to eliminate Daesh,

I read in another comment section somewhere observations from someone who had trained the Iraqi army a while back. He said they would pay attention during shooting training, but any time they did physical training, especially endurance training like running…. Guys would just stop after 1-200m and just drop their gear and wander off. As if they didn't understand the concept that warfare is physically demanding, and that resistance to physical discomfort is essential. -_-

And of course we know that comment sections from some random section of the internet are reliable sources of information.

In the article, their 400-man militia was provided 70k 7.69x39 and 40k 7.62x54 ammo. That's a 200rd loadout for riflemen plus MG ammo. About enough for one engagement.

Nothing extravagant or excessive.

-although I doubt the 100,000 mortar rounds number.

100k mortar rounds I could believe. Got what, 3 different calibers (60, 81, and 120mm), multiplied by how many different kinds of rounds per caliber? Smoke and HE at a bare minimum, so you're down to ~15k rounds per type per caliber, divided across at least 10 tubes.

Assuming US-style TO&E, of course.

But no … again, they don't have the motivation, dedication, ruthlessness to push their fanatical brethren out of their land it seems. And kill them … eliminate them … At least not anytime soon …

Maybe that "Hearts and Minds" program that worked so well in Vietnam could be resurrected?

You jest Ochoin, but there actually WAS a H&M program in Vietnam that DID work: USMC CAPs/CAC (Combined Action Platoon/COmpany). A squad of USMC with a Navy Corpsman would live in a village and train and patrol with the local RF/PF, do civic action projects, and basically be in the village living with the villagers 24/7. It was a highly successful program that was of course later hamstrung because it didn't follow the "high body count" strategy that MACV demanded.

Now, I do not think that this sort of operation would work in the middle east, as betrayal and corruption is a significant part the culture there, even more so than it was in Vietnam. Just saying that there were success in VN with H&M…

Maybe that "Hearts and Minds" program that worked so well in Vietnam could be resurrected?

Remember it didn't work that well in the big picture. The Communist North won.

1-200m and just drop their gear and wander off. As if they didn't understand the concept that warfare is physically demanding, and that resistance to physical discomfort is essential.

I have heard similar and it certainly fits in to the narrative of the poor Iraqi combat record.

Now, I do not think that this sort of operation would work in the middle east, as betrayal and corruption is a significant part the culture there,

I totally agree … H&M is SE Asia of the '60s, as we have said before on other threads, does Not seem to work with the Mid East or A'stan in the current era. It's two different cultures. Plus the average SE Asian was not so strongly wedded to a religion from the 7th Century. That supposedly dictates many of their actions.

Think about Buddhism*, etc., vs. hard core islam … I think we can all see the differences fairly easily. Plus many/most in Mid East and A/stan have a lot of tribal, ethic, etc., distain and hatreds that go back decades if not centuries.

Then add the seminal problem of their islamic religious differences. Which seems again to be behind much of what they do and how the act, etc., it appears. As long as you believe that it is "God" telling you it is your duty to kill and/or enslave those who believe differently than you … you'll be stuck in the 7th Century. No room for H&Ms …

And I'd think it is a bit of a stretch to try to equate hard core islam to Communist ideology. Even if one can find some similarities …

*E.g. : Religion in Vietnam (2014)

Non-religious or folk belief (73.2%)

Buddhism (12.2%)

Catholicism (6.8%)^

Caodaism (4.8%)

Protestantism (1.5%)

Hoahaoism (1.4%)

Others (0.1%)

^ In the 60s Vietnam was @ 15% Catholic, based on the French colonization since the mid 1800s.

You jest Ochoin,

You got me. I was being ironic.

I do believe the various Hearts & Minds' programs were a failure in Vietnam. The North Vietnamese won after all.

My point was that Ralph & probably other Americans (the US government?) have to realise that not every foreigner WANTS to be an American & if some Arabic people aren't as anti-ISIS as they'd like, it might be because that although they aren't keen on ISIS, they aren't all that keen on the US either.

And to be fair, they have pretty good reasons for this viewpoint.

My point was that Ralph & probably other Americans (the US government?) have to realise that not every foreigner WANTS to be an American & if some Arabic people aren't as anti-ISIS as they'd like, it might be because that although they aren't keen on ISIS, they aren't all that keen on the US either.

Yes, the biggest realization is we have to stop thinking we can "nation" build in places like SE Asia, the Mid East, A'stan, etc., …

We went to Vietnam in the fear of the "Red Peril"/spread on Communism, etc. But as time went on we learned for every hard core "commie" in the NLF/VC there was probably one or two nationalists. And Ho had asked the US for assistance in their efforts to no longer be a European Colony. But the fear of the spread of Communism over rode anything else.

After all, the West believed that China was "lost" to Communism. Which can be debated, regardless the Communist faction in China "won".

And as the French were losing their Indo-Chine Colonies. The UN lead by the US was fighting North Korean and Chinese Communists in Korea. So it may have appeared to the West, Communism was spreading. Which also could be debated.

Again with hindsight being 20/20. Had Vietnam been given it's freedom after WWII. There would have been a lot less French, Vietnamese and US dead and wounded from 1945 to 1973. And today the US is an active trading partner with Vietnam. Recently the US dropped the arms embargo. Which the main reason, IMO, was to annoy the Chinese. As the Chinese are doing some saber rattling in the region. And in the past Vietnam and China have fought at least one war and border disputes. But regardless … we see, this whole terrible chapter in world history could have been avoided if another European Power decided to give freedom to one of their colonies after WWII.

So IMO here's another case where the US gets a bad rep for it's actions. Where if a European Power failed to see having colonies after WWII [or even WWI]was a bad idea.

So to continue this reply to Ochoin's post. The US only went to A'stan in response to 9/11. To eliminate AQ and it's supporters. Not necessarily to turn A'stan into a democracy. But the thought was if the US/West could help with creating a functioning government that could keep AQ and it's kind from being a threat to the West, etc., … And with any luck eliminate them and their supporters altogether.

Well again hindsight is 20/20. And as we now see as the UK did in past centuries. A'stan will continue to live by it's age old ways. And the average Afghani from 6 or more tribes could care less about a functioning capable government, etc., … And now we see no matter what the West does. The situation there has devolved into a massive factionalized conflict between the ANA/ANP vs. the Taliban and AQ vs. Daesh. Likened somewhat to what we see in Iraq and Syria.

In retrospect, the US. etc., supporting the Muj vs. the USSR was an error. And was done for a number of reasons. But the CIA's first idea of letting the Muj and Russians bleed each other out. Would have been the "smart" play. Of course we see ghosts of Vietnam again arose. And the US saw supporting the Muj was payback for the Russian's support of the VC/NVA. It would have been better to let the USSR fight and kill as many of the Muj and their supporters. Like UBL and all the foreign fighters, etc., on jihad who were going to throw the "infidel" Russians out of the islamic dominated A'stan.

With any luck terrorists like UBL, AZK, etc., would have died by Russian ordinance. And AQ and other islamic terrorists movements that grew out of AQ, etc., that plague the West today. Would have died in the A'stan countryside. When I saw that a faction of Afghani's killed the US Ambassador in '79. Then the "Godless" Russians invaded. They were actually trying to move the Afghanis into the 20th Century. Plus having A'stan in their sphere of influence, etc., … which was their primary goal.

I thought in retrospect. We were supporting the wrong side. But again, we couldn't see beyond our fear of the "Red Peril". And as we see radical islam is a very real conventional threat today more so than the Communists and/or former Communists. And radicalized islamists from UBL on down. If they could they'd used nuc/WMDs. If they could get hold of some.

The Russians would most likely not use WMDs. As the Russian/Communist ideology is not as warped or dangerous as radical islam. Clearly …

Plus we could blame the situation in the Mid East again on the shortsighted now dead European leadership. That after WWI divided up much of the region to suit it's colonial ambitions. Not on religious and ethnic lines. As we see the artificial state of Iraq would have been better being three separate nations. But again that did not fit the Euros plans. etc., … So again to blame the situation in Iraq on the US alone is not considering the whole story.

But as I have said many times before. Besides supporting the Muj vs. the USSR was the US's 1st major error. When dealing with the moslem world, much of who are still living in the past.

The 2d major error was GWII. Again here is another situation of the US trying to create a functioning government that would not be run be a tyrant/dictator. And would threaten the region with WMDs or not become another haven of AQ, etc. As Saddam was clearly trying to get WMDs and had some chemical weapons already. And Saddam was certainly acting like he had a lot of WMDs and possibly nucs. We see now he put out a "Beware of Dog" sign without having a very big dog or any dog at all.

But as we see a similar situation as in A'stan. And was only compounded by the US withdrawing from Iraq too soon. But that is debatable too. As I feel the Iraqis are very much in a similar paradigm as the Afghanis. Wedded to age old religious, ethnic, tribal, etc., hatreds and distain. And as long as both live by these concepts/beliefs. There will be no peace. Many in the moslem world needs "fix" their own problems and move into the 20th, let alone the 21st Century.

The US and Coalition did free Iraq from a ruthless dictator. But as we see. Saddam managed to, in some cases using draconian methods. To keep this artificial Euro created "nation" under control. And as we see … Saddam was the lesser of evils compared to Daesh. Again hindsight is 20/20. And before Euros and other blame the US for much of situations with moslems in certain regions. They need to realize, "People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.", IMO … And there are a lot of dirty hands and many shades of grey.