PDA

View Full Version : Just how would you defeat ISIS?


Richard T. Eger
20th November 2015, 21:26
Dear Nick, John, Ruy, and the rest of the TOCH! membership,

Besides being who shot down who types, which I find an incredibly boring subject, we do have a huge expertise among our members as to good and bad decisions made in the conduct of WW II. As they say, those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past and, since we are a group focused on WW II, we have unique expertise in this area.

Thus, squelching discussion along these lines seems to me to be aggressively heavy handed.

Are the attacks on Paris and elsewhere acts of desperation akin to the V1 and V2 programs, distracting from the fact that otherwise things were going quite badly for Germany. The losses suffered today, while attention grabbers, are of the same low order of magnitude. If we acknowledge that we are at war, it changes our perspective. It doesn't take away from our compassion for losses suffered, but it does give us a chance to do more.

What other parallels can we apply to our current situation?

Regards,
Richard

Paul Thompson
20th November 2015, 23:11
Dear Richard,

I am afraid that Nick, John and Ruy will shut down this thread, for reasons that they have explained several times before. One alternative to such a thread that I can think of, within the confines of the forum, is the private messaging system. This is because any member "may send a message to up to 5 people at a time". Another alternative would be a multi-member email discussion, but these are disliked by many, for obvious reasons.

As a matter of personal opinion, I think a discussion between members on this subject would be both useful and interesting. However, I do not think having such a discussion in a publicly viewable thread such as this would lead to anything apart from strained feelings and frustration. I would be very happy to participate in a private discussion on this subject if an appropriate mechanism was found. I think that the historical parallels that you suggested, Richard, are hihgly appropriate and can lead to a much more serious understanding of the problems in the present.

I will finish by sorting out an issue which arose in the previous thread and is not in any sense connected to you, Richard.
All fluent users of English will know that the word mulatto is exceptionally offensive, but for those who do not, here is an extract from the Oxford English Dictionary:
"mulatto, n. and adj.
1. A person having one white and one black parent. Freq. more generally: a person of mixed race resembling a mulatto. Cf. metis n. 1, quadroon n.
Now chiefly considered offensive."
The same remark applies to the word quadroon, for equally obvious reasons.

Warm regards,

Paul

Richard T. Eger
21st November 2015, 01:06
Dear Paul,

Before tossing in the towel, let's get some feedback from the moderators or Ruy.

I agree Paul that the previous thread diverged into nasty rhetoric. Here I think, if we can all agree, we can focus on the mechanics of what could be done, based on our collective interest in WW II history.

For instance, focus by France has now put a spotlight on oil production and distribution in Raqqa, which is straight out of the WW II playbook. If this is the first such attack, one has to wonder why it wasn't done before. No oil nor fuel means cutting into ISIS' main revenue source as well as immobilizing its ground activity in Syria and Iraq. There are probably considerations as to why this hadn't already been done such as the fact that, once this is all over, we'll likely end up with the tab of rebuilding what has been destroyed.

What other lessons from WW II can we apply?

Regards,
Richard

Nick Beale
21st November 2015, 11:30
My view, for what it's worth: if — as Richard seems to be saying — people want to talk about lessons from WW2 for the successful use of air power, then go ahead.

Keep it to the "technical" issues and I don't see a problem; start denouncing the foreign or domestic policies of any nation or nations and I do.

Paul Thompson
21st November 2015, 15:26
My view, for what it's worth: if — as Richard seems to be saying — people want to talk about lessons from WW2 for the successful use of air power, then go ahead.

Hello Nick,

Thank you for your constructive position, I shall keep to the terms of the discussion as you have outlined them.

I will take this opportunity to mention that you have had a private message from me in your inbox for a couple of days. Since the message might require you to make some travel plans, I think you ought to have a look at it :)

Warm regards,

Paul

John Beaman
21st November 2015, 15:27
I agree with Nick. BTW, note that the original thread has not been closed. Just be careful of what you post, as Nick says.

As for defeating ISIS, how about some ARC LIGHT strikes? We have plenty of B-52s doing nothing at the moment. ;)

Richard T. Eger
21st November 2015, 15:55
Dear Nick and John,

Thanks for the go ahead. Nick, I think to be complete, we also need to consider ground forces, as well.

John, I had to read up on ARC LIGHT to know what you are suggesting. A question comes to mind. Are there adequate numbers of area targets to make ARC LIGHT operations effective? B-52's, which used to be quite large in numbers, are down to a fleet of about 100 aging aircraft. All told, the U.S. strategic air force only numbers about 300 aircraft. I don't know how many retired B-52's can be resurrected to cover operational losses, these probably mainly from wear and tear.

That said, refineries, oil drilling sites, power plants, and port facilities would be strategic targets in which ARC LIGHT might be productive.

Regards,
Richard

Paul Thompson
21st November 2015, 16:26
As for defeating ISIS, how about some ARC LIGHT strikes? We have plenty of B-52s doing nothing at the moment. ;)

Hello John,

I would say 'plenty' somewhat exaggerates the number of B-52s available. I will try to look up the exact number of B-52s in the PMAI (Primary Mission Aircraft Inventory), but I would imagine it is no more than 50.

As to the state of USAF aircraft strength as a whole, there is a useful presentation by Lt. Gen. Deptula (Ret.) from May this year, see link - http://www.daedalians.org/documents/DD%20Dadaelians%2030%20May%2015.pdf (http://www.daedalians.org/documents/DD%20Dadaelians%2030%20May%2015.pdf). Note, in particular, page 8 of this document, which shows large declines in the USAF inventory since the beginning of the War on Terror in 2001.

LtG Deptula is a very experienced officer, it is interesting to look through the wider body of his commentary. See his official biography here - http://www.af.mil/DesktopModules/ArticleCS/Print.aspx?PortalId=1&ModuleId=858&Article=104634 .

Oh and a N.B. from me: you have a private message in your inbox, on Luftwaffe-related issues.

Warm regards,

Paul

Paul Thompson
21st November 2015, 17:01
refineries, oil drilling sites, power plants, and port facilities would be strategic targets in which ARC LIGHT might be productive.

Regards,
Richard

Hello Richard,

Of the targets that you listed, ISIS possesses only oil drilling sites and power plants, and not very many of either. What needs to be emphasised is just how little effort has been expended against ISIS. Even with the current weak state of the USAF and Allied air forces, a much greater effort can easily be made, even without strategic bombers.

Here is the official Department of Defense statistical review of operations in Iraq and Syria - http://www.defense.gov/News/Special-Reports/0814_Inherent-Resolve . The various air forces involved are conducting air strikes at a rate of slighlty more than one in every seven sorties. That is an appallingly low intensity of operations, which contributes directly to the ineffectiveness of the campaign taken as a whole. Even in cases when strikes are carried out, on average fewer than two targets are destroyed or damaged in a single air strike.

There are more detailed monthly statistical reports, the most recent one is "Combined Forces Air Component Commander 2010-2015 Airpower Statistics – As of 31 October 2015" http://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/features/2014/0814_iraq/docs/31_October_2015.pdf . This shows that on average 1.8 munitions have been expended for every target destroyed or damaged. The munitions used are very accurate, but the majority of those dropped are small and so the overall effect of air power is distinctly limited. There has been a great reluctance to use more powerful area-effet weapons, even guided ones like the Wind-Corrected Munitions Dispenser, see its description here - http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app5/wcmd.html .

Warm regards,

Paul

Brian
21st November 2015, 17:07
Hi guys

What I would like to see:

Europe, USA and Russia and China all pool knowledge and air power - and act as one good force to defeat evil IS. Then perhaps there would be greater unity between West and East, for the good of us all.

And I would like to see the non-terrorist Muslims come out on the streets in Britain and Europe to denounce terrorism.

Then, I believe, we would be getting nearer to enjoying a peaceful world, instead of one heading for self-destruction.

That's my tuppence worth!

Cheers
Brian

Richard T. Eger
21st November 2015, 19:51
Dear Paul,

Thank you for the various bits of information on the state of today's USAF and state of the art munitions guidance. It appears that my number of available strategic bombers was too high, being only 171 as of 2014. Gen. Deptula's assessment, backed by Gen. Mark Welsh, Air Force Chief of Staff, reflects my concerns about a very ancient fleet of aircraft and the distinct likelihood, if pressed, that wear and tear will significantly lower their already low numbers. I knew that there was an effort to retire the A-10 Warthog, so I was pleased to see that it is still in service and is being used in the current conflict. It is a very unique aircraft with unique capabilities.

Given the rather low weapons release rates per sortie, either we need better intelligence or we need to change tactics, e.g., accept more collateral damage.

A question. If ISIS doesn't have access to a refinery, where does it get its fuel from?

Regards,
Richard

Paul Thompson
21st November 2015, 20:15
What I would like to see:

Europe, USA and Russia and China all pool knowledge and air power - and act as one good force to defeat evil IS. Then perhaps there would be greater unity between West and East, for the good of us all.

And I would like to see the non-terrorist Muslims come out on the streets in Britain and Europe to denounce terrorism.

Hello Brian,

Pooling air power with Russia and China is not a possibility. For Russia, see how it uses air power indiscriminately in Syria - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aesD9IOyPoY and how it deploys aircraft on the occupied territory of its neighbour - http://europe.newsweek.com/russia-tests-new-fighter-bombers-crimea-332670 . For China, see the nature of its military modernisation, directed at the US - https://twq.elliott.gwu.edu/sites/twq.elliott.gwu.edu/files/downloads/TWQ_Fall2015_Heath-Erickson.pdf .

As for European Muslims, here is a story which shows just how inconsistent and duplicitous attitudes to air power are in Europe - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5218036.stm .

To return to Richard's original intention, historical analogies and experiences with air power, I would like to remind members that RAF air power was decisively and quite unnecessarily weakened in the years preceding the Second World War. Much the same is happening now.

Warm regards,

Paul

Nick Beale
21st November 2015, 20:45
Keeping to principles (all highly arguable):

The first function of air power is reconnaissance — identifying targets. Roaming around looking for something to attack reflects either lack of such intelligence, the desire to be seen to be doing something (anything), or having more aircraft than you know what to do with (e.g. USAAF & RAF in 1945)
Airpower is best used in support of specific ground operations (e.g. the recapture of Sinjar)
Next, against transport systems and the production of vital basic materials (e.g. oil)
Lastly against manufacturing capacity (assuming ISIS has any to speak of).

Brian
21st November 2015, 20:55
Hi Paul

I hear what you are saying - Pooling air power with Russia and China is not a possibility - but surely it is! Isn't about time that we broke away from the Cold War attitudes? This is a great opportunity to pull together.

Just the thoughts of a simple man!

Brian

Richard T. Eger
21st November 2015, 22:11
Dear Paul, Nick, and Brian,

Starting with you, Paul, your first link's discussion seems to have vindicated the Russian action. The second link says that Russia continues to modernize its air force, in contrast to the situation here in the U.S. The third link is written by 2 jackasses who don't know how to summarize their subject. It reminds me of some NASA reports. The fourth link is to a 9-year-old article.

Nick, air reconnaissance was an integral part of WW II intelligence gathering, but it was only a piece of the puzzle. I agree that by 1945 the USAAF and RAF had essentially accomplished their strategic tasks and further bombing was pretty much gratuitous. The fact that I wanted to include ground forces in the discussion is supported by your comment. We will have to bite the bullet and bring in some ground forces supported by a lot of forward and aerial targeting forces. I'd put strangling the supply of oil, fuel, and weapons inflow much higher on your list of uses for air power. But, you are right, you have to know where to hit. I'm not sure what ISIS manufactures, save possibly for suicide vests, which would be near impossible to target. How does one develop a workable government whose sole function is to control and destroy?

Brian, I think there is something to cooperation between Russia and the U.S. As for China, the world is so interdependent on trade with China and vice versa, that it would seem that much of what is going on from a military adversary point of view is bluster. China in no way would benefit by starting a war against the U.S. So, given that, there might be something to military cooperation against ISIS. Three senior Chinese business executives were killed in the Al Qaeda hotel attack in Mali on Nov. 20th, as well as 6 Russian employees of a cargo company.

Regards,
Richard

Nick Beale
21st November 2015, 22:58
Nick, air reconnaissance was an integral part of WW II intelligence gathering, but it was only a piece of the puzzle.

I'm only saying (badly, perhaps) that you need to find targets before you can decide what to hit. I'm cheating a bit by including orbital systems in "aerial".

I agree that by 1945 the USAAF and RAF had essentially accomplished their strategic tasks and further bombing was pretty much gratuitous.

Not just the strategic forces but all those fighter pilots shooting at anyone and anything that moved in the last days.

The fact that I wanted to include ground forces in the discussion is supported by your comment. We will have to bite the bullet and bring in some ground forces supported by a lot of forward and aerial targeting forces.


Indigenous ground forces are already there although they need to make common cause (and, in some cases, find a willingness to fight).

I'd put strangling the supply of oil, fuel, and weapons inflow much higher on your list of uses for air power.

Doesn't matter if you can overrun territory swiftly. If you can't, then I agree.

Richard T. Eger
22nd November 2015, 04:13
Dear All,

Tonight on TV they ran a repeat of Fareed Zakaria's CNN program on how ISIS came into being and, of particular interest, the population's attitude in Mosul about being occupied. A German reporter named Jurgen Totenhofer was granted permission to film life in Mosul, survived the experience, and was quite disturbed about how accepting the population was to being occupied and to accepting the radicalizing of its youth.

The positive thing that ISIS brought to Mosul was a sense of stability. Being Sunni, the population had a grudge against its second class citizen status from the Shiite government in Baghdad, obviously fostered by the U.S.' complete bungling of the postwar era and the alienation caused by the Nouri al-Maliki government.

What is happening with ISIS is brainwashing. When I was in AFROTC, we were presented with an intriguing situation of an alien invasion. The question was what to do about it. All sorts of hints were dropped as to the suggestability of the aliens and I was the only one that got the correct solution - they needed to be brainwashed. (No, I didn't enter the Air Force because I flunked flight training offered in my senior year and the Air Force was gracious enough to let me out of my contract. I went onto NASA instead.)

So, here we have Mosul under the direct influence of ISIS, a radical Sunni organization. In WW II, we dropped a lot of propaganda leaflets on Europe. How successful were these and should leaflets be used to counter the brainwashing of populations under ISIS control and, in specific, Mosul, which is a large city rather undeserving of a large bombing campaign?

Regards,
Richard

Paul Thompson
22nd November 2015, 20:39
In WW II, we dropped a lot of propaganda leaflets on Europe. How successful were these and should leaflets be used to counter the brainwashing of populations under ISIS control and, in specific, Mosul, which is a large city rather undeserving of a large bombing campaign?

Dear Richard,

The Second World War effort was not succesful because of the activities of the Gestapo and Geheime Feldpolizei.
Leaflets are being used continually in the Middle Eastern campaigns. During Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, the M129 leaflet bomb was common - http://www.psywarrior.com/leafbomb.html . Now the PDU-5 (a converted Rockeye cluster bomb) is more popular - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/03/26/how-the-u-s-dropped-these-gory-propaganda-leaflets-over-syria/ . The problem is that ISIS has its own Gestapo and all such campaigns are limited in their effectiveness in the absence of a clear and persuasive ideology. To put it very mildly, the Cairo speech did not help at all.

Regards,

Paul

Paul Thompson
23rd November 2015, 13:00
Dear all,

I might as well put the following extract here:
"The dispenser bomb, SUU-76C/B, is configured as a CBU-100/B that has had the Mk 118 bomblets removed and has a payload sleeve and spacers installed. When the payload sleeve is filled with leaflets and inserted into the dispenser, the All-Up-Round (AUR) is redesignated PDU-5/B." Text taken from this link - http://www.usna.edu/Training/_files/documents/References/2C%20MQS%20References/NAVEDTRA%2014014A%20Ch.%209%20Aircraft%20Ordnance. pdf .

The Second World War equivalent used by the RAF appears to have been the Small Bomb Container (SBC). See the following image - http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205210211 . The use of the SBC for leaflet operations is mentioned in the following book - https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=I-mqBgAAQBAJ .

Of course, none of this technical jargon gets us any closer to understanding how to defeat ISIS :) To get us back to that subject, I think it is worth mentioning that the very agressive use of air power, including 'Super Hind' attack helicopters, by the Algerians during the In Amenas hostage crisis in 2013 shows that the air element of counter-terrorism is very useful. Of course, it must be mentioned that there were heavy casualties among the hostages, partly caused by the firepower of the Algerian armed forces.

Regards,

Paul

Richard T. Eger
23rd November 2015, 17:26
Dear All,

What Cairo speech are you referring to Paul?

Also, while you gave a technical answer as to the use of leaflet releasing equipment, what hasn't been answered is how effective was this in WW II and what techniques from that war as to what the leaflet says were most effective?

As for all the accumulated knowledge gained from our membership of WW II strategy, I'm a bit frustrated that more have not joined in on the conversation. Is it really all about who shot down who and no strategic thinking? Theo Boiten, Larry deZeng, where are you?

Regards,
Richard

Brian
23rd November 2015, 22:22
Hi guys

I've just seen a headline that states 'China declares war on IS'.

See my earlier post!

Cheers
Brian

Richard T. Eger
23rd November 2015, 23:45
Dear Brian,

touché!

Regards,
Richard

Paul Thompson
24th November 2015, 00:02
What Cairo speech are you referring to Paul?

Also, while you gave a technical answer as to the use of leaflet releasing equipment, what hasn't been answered is how effective was this in WW II and what techniques from that war as to what the leaflet says were most effective?

As for all the accumulated knowledge gained from our membership of WW II strategy, I'm a bit frustrated that more have not joined in on the conversation. Is it really all about who shot down who and no strategic thinking? Theo Boiten, Larry deZeng, where are you?

Regards,
Richard

Dear Richard,

How easily one forgets :) Here is a mention of Obama's Cairo performance from a male donkey (jackass in US English) in a very left-wing news magazine - http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/obamas-two-speeches-tragedy .

I did answer that the leafleting could not possibly have been effective in the face of the Gestapo and Geheime Feldpolizei. You might have heard of the 'White Rose' group and the posthumous distribution of their message by Allied leafleting - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21521060 . It needs not to be mentioned that this led to no significant change in German morale. If you want to know more about German reactions to leaflets, you can have a look at the 'Meldungen aus dem Reich' collection.

On the wider strategic questions, I have tried repeatedly to emphasise that air power must be used on a large scale and with a high intensity. Clearly, this hasn't sparked the attention of too many people :)
What we have at the moment is a rather minor parody of the Second World War, see here that the current raids on undefended oil trucks have somehow been named after the Ploesti raid of 1943 - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34906011 . There is, of course, copious leafleting going on simultaneously. Allow me to point out that both the attacks on oil infrastructure and the deployment of leaflets are essentially tactical decisions, while you said that you wanted to discuss strategy.

Regards,

Paul

Paul Thompson
24th November 2015, 00:10
I've just seen a headline that states 'China declares war on IS'.

Dear Brian,

The reason that I provide links in my posts is to support my points with factual evidence. Could you do the same in this case?

Since we are discussing historical parallels, let me remind you that there were British (and Frenc) defence talks with the USSR in 1939 in what are similar historical circumstances. These talks very nearly ended with this - https://suite.io/paul-iddon/66t6285 . Meanwhile, there isn't too much ground for enthusiasm about Chinese air or naval intentions - http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2014/11/10/senior-navy-intel-officer-removed-for-controversial-comments-on-china/18789539/ .

A thought experiment might be appropriate. If British taxpayers do not want to increase the UK's defence budget, how would you react if you were a member of the Chinese government?

Regards,

Paul

Richard T. Eger
24th November 2015, 04:11
Dear Paul and Brian,

I Googled Brian's claim and it is verified. See:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/china-declares-war-isis-after-6862200 amongst other items.

Okay, I've looked at the article on President Obama's Cairo speech. As I promised Nick and John, I will not go into the trap of political discussion. Enough said.

As for the supposed ineffectiveness of leaflets or subterfuge in WW II, there was one incident at the end of the war of Allied misdirection that, when the war actually ended, caused many receiving the supposed official surrender notice to question its voracity. Surely, there are incidents that affected the ability to conduct warfare, such as the judicious use of information obtained through Ultra. So, let me expand my "leaflet" idea to anything along the lines of information/misinformation that helped win the war for the Allies. For that matter, there well may have been effective use of such by the Third Reich against the Allies.

As for your claim Paul of no affect on the German population, just why were there repeated attempts on Hitler's life if everyone was happy with their lot?

Regards,
Richard

Werwolf
24th November 2015, 05:48
Use their own ideology against them, after all historically ideologies are proven to be poor armor.

1 Go for the head, to be named caliph one must comply with a series of requisites and there have the believe that they will only twelve(?) caliphs. Kill enough of them to disprove their claim. People can rationalize anything but this could give them pause.

2 Attack their incoming. The caliphate has the responsibility to comply with certain social duties like welfare and healthcare for everyone. If this responsibilities are not meet the caliph lose any legitimacy.

3 They want the apocalypse and it is easy to bring it to them. They are waiting for a mayor battle (one that they can refuse) at certain Syrian town. If a coalition brings troops there they are obliged to attack. They can be as much as 200,000 combatants but they lack any modern armament and heavy equipment.

Paul Thompson
24th November 2015, 13:41
I Googled Brian's claim and it is verified. See:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/china-declares-war-isis-after-6862200 amongst other items.

Okay, I've looked at the article on President Obama's Cairo speech. As I promised Nick and John, I will not go into the trap of political discussion. Enough said.

As for the supposed ineffectiveness of leaflets or subterfuge in WW II, there was one incident at the end of the war of Allied misdirection that, when the war actually ended, caused many receiving the supposed official surrender notice to question its voracity... let me expand my "leaflet" idea to anything along the lines of information/misinformation that helped win the war for the Allies. For that matter, there well may have been effective use of such by the Third Reich against the Allies.

As for your claim Paul of no affect on the German population, just why were there repeated attempts on Hitler's life if everyone was happy with their lot?

Dear Richard,

What the articles say is very different from the screaming headline. The only susbtantive Chinese quote provided is as follows: "Xi Jinping said: 'China will strengthen cooperation with the international community, resolutely crack down on violent terrorist operations that devastate innocent lives and safeguard world peace and security.'" None of that constitutes a 'declaration of war', whatever that may involve when a terrorist organisation is the enemy. To address the point directly, there is a possible parallel with the Spanish civil war, where Stalin did send his army and air force, but for purposes very different from those declared by his Western supporters. See this link for the genesis of the Soviet air component, among other things - http://www.gutenberg-e.org/kod01/kod14.html .

You are welcome to ignore the Cairo speech if you wish. It did have direct consequences for air power, specifically the suspension of US F-16 and Apache deliveries to Egypt just as the current Sinai conflict began.

By expanding the discussion regarding leaflets to information/misinformation as a whole, you are completely changing the terms of the discussion. Disinformation is of course of essntial importance in war and there are many examples of its success. I do not recognise the ULTRA story as you describe it, but I believe Martin Pegg may be working on this at the moment. It had been contemplated that the Allies might be forced to issue the surrender orders to the Germans themselves - http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/ETO/Surrender/ECLIPSE/ .
In operations against ISIS, disinformation is usually employed by the US and alllied forces to sow doubt as to the exact nature of the information available to them. As an example, see the report of a raid in Syria this May, where the details of the intelligence obtained are carefully obscured by vague phrases. There is an operational security aspect of this, of course, but disinformation is also an important consideration - http://edition.cnn.com/2015/05/16/middleeast/syria-isis-us-raid/ .

I did not at any time claim that the German population was 'happy', indeed such a claim would be intolerably vague. The number of attempts on Hitler's life, especially those with any reasonable chance of success, was limited when seen in the context of a 12 year dictatorship which initiated a World War. The German population was largely quiescent, that it was what I claim and it would be very difficult to deny it. There was no equivalent inside Germany to the Ukrainian UPA or Baltic 'Forest Brothers', which fought Soviet military and paramilitary units for some years from 1944 onwards.

Regards,

Paul

Brian
24th November 2015, 14:10
Hi guys

Turkish fighters shoot down Russian jet!!

I'm off to join the Home Guard!!

Cheers
Brian

Paul Thompson
24th November 2015, 15:02
Turkish fighters shoot down Russian jet!!

Dear Brian,

So far, this is just the latest among several incidents that have occurred during the civil war. See a list of the most prominent ones below:

A Turkish RF-4ETM Phantom II reconnaisance aircraft was shot down by a Syrian SA-3 or SA-24 surface-to-air missile battery in June 2012 - http://defensetech.org/2012/06/22/turkish-rf-4e-recce-jet-down-near-syria/

A Syrian Mi-17 Hip-H helicopter was shot down by Turkish F-16s in September 2013 - http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/16/us-syria-crisis-turkey-idUSBRE98F0K920130916

A Syrian MiG-23BN Flogger-H fighter-bomber was shot down by Turkish F-16s in March 2014 - http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2014-03-25/turkey-shoots-down-syrian-mig

A Syrian Su-24M Fencer-D bomber was shot down by an Israeli Patriot surface-to-air missile battery in September 2014 - http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newsisrael-shoots-down-syrian-su-24-fighter-over-golan-heights-4383291

A USAF MQ-1B Predator reconnaisance UAV was shot down by a Syrian SA-3 surface-to-air missile battery in March 2015 - http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2015/06/30/af-withdraws-acknowledgement-of-predator-shootdown-syria-drone/29519917/


Regards,


Paul

Brian
24th November 2015, 16:52
Hi Paul

I was aware, but none of those were Russian!!

Doom & gloom!

Brian

Paul Thompson
24th November 2015, 16:54
Dear Brian,

An excess of exclamation marks does not help with careful and reasonable understanding. It does appear that the consequences this time may be significantly different. This is not because of the nationality of those involved, but because the incident is more severe than originally reported:

It appears that a Russian Mi-8 or Mi-17 helicopter was destroyed by a rebel TOW missile on the ground in Syria, close to where the Su-24M was shot down in Turkey. The helicopter crew may have been involved in a search and rescue operation, looking for the bomber's crew. There are reports, understandably very vague ones, that the helicopter crew may have survived the incident. At least one member of the bomber crew has been found dead inside Syria.

Regards,

Paul

Richard T. Eger
24th November 2015, 20:32
Dear Paul and Brian,

There is no denying that the Chinese have lost people to terrorists. Regardless of how much you wish to water down Xi Jinping's comments Paul, they do have significance, especially in the UN Security Council. This is a unique situation in which all 5 members, generally at odds with each other, have skin in the game and are likely to vote as a block. That is very meaningful.

Regards,
Richard

Richard T. Eger
24th November 2015, 20:39
Dear Werwolf,

Thank you for your comments. The question is whether ISIS conforms to the niceties of a caliphate, or is it just making up its own rules.

However, your input could be used to effect in the propaganda war, turning ISIS' behavior onto itself.

Regards,
Richard

Richard T. Eger
24th November 2015, 21:21
Dear All,

A bit slightly off topic, but I think worthy of consideration is the following:

Bashir Asad of Syria, while generally considered in negative terms forcing through his bombing and ground campaigns many Syrians to flee the country, has one thing going for him - a small area of stability with an actual running government. He is supported by Russia and Iran.

But, now Russia has had its head also focused on ISIS. For different reasons, Iran is also focused on ISIS.

Russia is now bombing ISIS targets in Syria, a backlash to the downing of a Russian airliner in the Sinai.

Iran has a small, but effective, fighting group in Iraq and is having some success against ISIS. But, this success comes with a considerable risk to the Sunni population whose territory ISIS holds that they wish to take back - retribution on a very large scale.

The only other force of significance fighting ISIS in Iraq are the Kurds, which the U.S. is backing. There are Shiite militias from Baghdad that are also becoming somewhat effective but, like with the Iranians, this is likely to turn into a religious conflict within the Iraqi Muslim community, something the U.S. has desperately been trying to avoid, but with very little success to show for its efforts. Air power can do just so much and only boots on the ground can actually retake territory.

Okay, let's jump ahead and find ourselves a year or so from now having wiped out territorial ISIS. How did we do it? Well, let's assume that multiple armies from various countries making coordinated attacks does the job, much as was done in Iraq in the early 90's. With ISIS wiped out, we then have pieces of Al Qaeda to mop up in western Syria, which still leaves Asad in power. At least you'd have a stable government to start with.

But, who do you transition to? The "good" people have left for Europe. Lots of them. Get them back. How? Do what we did in WW II. Each of the coalition countries that took down ISIS and Al Qaeda would set up military zones of control. Once these established stability, Syrians that had fled to Europe would want to return home in droves, also help solving Europe's immigrant crisis. It literally would require a Marshall Plan. Yes, it took the fall of the Soviet Union to reunite Germany after decades of control and we might have to live with a mini-version of that.

As has been said: "You break it, you own it." Syria and Iraq are broken. Africa isn't much better. But the biggest problem right now is ISIS as the world is uniting against it. The above is a possible way toward repairing Syria and could serve as a benchmark as to how to deal with lesser terrorist organizations as well. In part, we'd be learning as we go. This time around, hopefully, we'll be smarter.

Regards,
Richard

Paul Thompson
24th November 2015, 21:31
There is no denying that the Chinese have lost people to terrorists. Regardless of how much you wish to water down Xi Jinping's comments Paul, they do have significance, especially in the UN Security Council. This is a unique situation in which all 5 members, generally at odds with each other, have skin in the game and are likely to vote as a block. That is very meaningful.

Regards,
Richard

Dear Richard,

You are attempting to argue by implication, namely that since Chinese citizens have been killed, the Chinese government will follow a particular course of action.

Let me provide an example from a very different field in order to demonstrate the problem with your line of thought. China has suffered repeated disasters in the coal mining industry, see a few listed here - https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/EnvirGeolNotes/MineDisasters.HTM . Unlike the case with ISIS, there is no armed opposition to better safety standards, but this has been a very long and difficult road for China's government and industry. I think it is reasonable to suggest that China is not nearly as sensitive to the deaths of her citizens as you are implying.

The second part of your argument concerns the UN Security Council and its supposedly great significance. You will find that there have been eleven unanimous resolutions of the Council regarding Syria, seven of them during the current civil war. It scarcely needs to be said that all of this solemn activity has not led to any fundamental change. For reference, here is the list of resolutions - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Syri a .

Regards,

Paul

Paul Thompson
24th November 2015, 22:19
As has been said: "You break it, you own it." Syria and Iraq are broken. Africa isn't much better. But the biggest problem right now is ISIS as the world is uniting against it. The above is a possible way toward repairing Syria and could serve as a benchmark as to how to deal with lesser terrorist organizations as well. In part, we'd be learning as we go. This time around, hopefully, we'll be smarter.

Dear Richard,

Iran is focused on spreading its ideology, not fighting ISIS. The current pattern of Iranian activity can be traced back to the Iraqi Shi'a uprising in April 2004, coordinated by Iran. You may know that Iran is currenly active in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and elsewhere. This started well before the formal emergence of ISIS in spring 2013.

You are committing a factual error when you suggest that Russia is bombing in Syria in retaliation for the attack on a Russian airliner. Russia started bombing on 30 September, the airliner was bombed on 31 October. Even more important is the fact that more than 90% of Russian air strikes are directed at the opposition to Assad, not at ISIS - http://www.dw.com/en/us-turkey-most-russian-strikes-do-not-target-is-al-qaeda-in-syria/a-18767378 .

It is rather strange that you consider Assad's government to have been stable or to be stable at the present time. The assasination of Lebanon's prime minister in 2005 and the destruction of a secret nuclear reactor in Syria in 2007 would suggest the opposite.

I would venture to suggest that you are inverting logic by proposing that ISIS is the biggest threat because the world is uniting against it. I would suggest the opposite is the case, that 'the world' or large parts of it are demonstrating a degree of unity precisely because they feel ISIS can be dealt with easily. Meanwhile, Assad's armed forces are still causing almost all the civilian casualties in the Syrian civil war - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11892319/Bashar-al-Assad-is-still-the-problem.html .

Regards,

Paul

Richard T. Eger
25th November 2015, 06:30
Dear Paul,

Let us agree to disagree. It's not that at least some of your points are valid in their place, but all appear to be deflection shots, which I don't find helpful. The world is changing and will continue to change. Events are unfolding as we dialog.

Regards,
Richard

Paul Thompson
26th November 2015, 00:19
Dear Richard,

We do not have to agree, of course. I would respectfully note that my points directly addressed your comments and related themes. Below is a brief summary of what I think are the most immediate paralles between the ISIS campaign and the Second World War and how these parallels can be applied to the planning of a more effective campaign:

1. The Second World War was entirely unnecessary, just like the present conflict. Both could have been avoided through the united action of Western democracies. This is the most pressing need now, both in a political and military sense.

2. The German victories on the ground and in the air from 1939 to mid-1942 were largely a consequence of the weakness of Western defences. The West must arm, and arm now!

3. The most effective military arm is the air force, as amply demonstrated by the events of the Second World War. Air forces possess speed, range and firepower that ground and naval force cannot possibly match. In the modern day, air forces are augmented by space and cyber technologies, so they have become even more powerful.

4. Firepower delivered from the air, including strategic bombardment, paralyses enemy forces and has an extremely severe effect on the enemy's resources, forcing him to concentrate on defences and concealment. As has been discussed in some of the posts above, the oil and transportation campaigns of the war can be repeated in the present.

5. Air power, like all forms of military power, can only be effectively applied with speed and unity of purpose. This does not just mean unified command, as was the case both in the war and now. It also means unity in the execution of military operations. Such unity would resemble that achieved by the Allies in Tunisia in March and April 1943, when Anglo-American forces advancing on two distinct fronts closely and direclty supported one another.

Regards,

Paul

Ruy Horta
21st July 2016, 22:00
As so many modern wars imho this is more about politics and hidden (and not so hidden) agendas, and less about tactics and strategies. Open discussion will lead to opposing world views and quickly deteriorate into an open fire fight.

Of course we could try to ignore this matter and discuss hypothetical strategies that are not being deployed in reality.

Richard, please don't see this as criticism.

Too be honest I wish I did not have any reason to have this cynical view of current events in Europe and the Middle East.

Dan O'Connell
21st July 2016, 22:14
After a great deal of deliberation on this matter, I will briefly enter this conversation.
A tremendous amount was learned in WW2 and many of the lessons learned still apply.
1: Have a clearly defined goal; WIN.
2: Be allowed to achieve that goal.
3: Do not attempt to initiate with out more than adequate resources of your own.

First, identify your strategic targets, and eliminate them, completely. This goal is to deny resources and communication lines of the enemy.
Recon must be maintained at all times. Much easier to attain now than in WW2.
Identify your first two tactical goals. At least two, in order to follow up reduced ground assets, which were sent to Goal 1 by Goal 2.
Close order air power is now essential, as was so valuably learned in WW2.
Ground troops are then sent in to Goal 1, with unfailing close air support.
When it is likely Goal 1 will be obtained, send the following ground and air support to Goal 2, and follow up on obtained objectives at Goal 1. Repeat.
Do NOT give up objectives achieved.
Through out the campaign, do NOT loose sight of the objective, WIN.
Continue as necessary until goal has been achieved.

Obviously this is all an over simplification, but it must never be forgotten why you are there; TO WIN. Unless that is quite clear, then it should not be attempted.

Six Nifty .50s
22nd July 2016, 17:44
IS is a criminal organization that hides behind politics and pseudo-religion in attempt to legitimize their actions and seek new recruits. The best antidote is good police work and discretionary warfare, with all fireworks kept to a minimum. A heavy bombing raid is not my idea of being discreet.

When I read the initial comment about B-52 strikes as a solution, I thought it was sarcasm and clearly intended to be a joke.

I cannot think of a faster way to swell the ranks of terrorists than flattening entire neighborhoods with air power, on the off chance that one face on a wanted poster might be home.

Richard T. Eger
23rd July 2016, 03:44
Dear All,

Since I first posted this question the world has become far more vulnerable, not only to ISIS and its sympathizers, but, at least here in the U.S., a constant drumbeat of increasing incivility. Our divides are both racial and religious and are growing more numerous in terms of outright armed attacks. In the rest of the world, it appears to me that the attacks are primarily religious in basis.

As for taking back land from ISIS, while it has been slow, we have had some notable gains by helping the local population counter ISIS. Thus, Sunni units of the Iraqi Army captured Fallujah. Yes, there was reporting of Shiite units committing atrocities against the local Fallujah population and I can only hope that this sort of behavior comes to an end. With the success at Fallujah, as Dan points out, Fallujah must be held and aid to rebuilding offered by the central government.

Next up is Mosul. With the success in Fallujah, the Iraqi Army has gained confidence that they are up to the task, which is very important for future success.

There remains Raqqa, which also must be taken with a minimum loss of life and, hopefully, using the same strategy. As I believe Colin Powell once stated, "If you break it, you own it". At least some of us have learned that lesson.

But, beyond these physical objectives, we also have an objective of winning "hearts and minds". I lived through the riots of the 60's here in the U.S. As far as I can tell, we are on the verge of repeating that, which is very depressing to me.

Today, the temperature in a small town in Kuwait tied the all time record at 129.2° F. This happens to be the only habitable planet we have. If we don't stop playing "king of the hill", we will rather soon be fighting over an ash heap. It boggles my mind just how stupid we can be. Ten lives have been lost in the last 24 hours in Munich, just the latest in a series of meaningless acts of terrorism.

Regards,
Richard