Just how would you defeat ISIS?

[Paul Thompson]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Richard T. Eger

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/EnvirGeo...eDisasters.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_o...ncerning_Syria .

Regards,

Paul

[Paul Thompson]

Originally Posted by Richard T. Eger

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-...ria/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/worl...e-problem.html .

Regards,

Paul

[Richard T. Eger]

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]

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]

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]

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.