ISIS - Stronger than Anticipated?
Discussion
AA999 said:
As long as Saddam is not in power then all is good right? Good one Bush 
I.S. seem to be a well organised army that have a strategy and tactics to employ.
Funded initially by the UK, USA and others, and having an interesting array of U.S. military hardware at hand.
Western countries blindly following the USA's foreign policy is not playing out very well is it.
[b]That being said, I think its fair to say that I.S. are in no way a match for any ground conflict with the west. If the west is serious about purging the middle east of I.S. then a large scale swift sweep across their territory removing all military personnel and hardware would see a quick result would it not?
It doesn't have to be a half-arshed long term counter-offensive that would see a huge waste of time and money.[/b]
Who said it would be a "swift sweep across their territory". It would be a quick (ish) victory to occupy the land but followed by a very long and drawn out incursion with many IED's and rocket attacks. We think Iraq/Stan was bad? In the Stan the Talli learnt very quickly they couldn't win a stand up battle without air and arty power so they went for hit and run, IED and sniper attacks. They were/are very effective at it. I.S. seem to be a well organised army that have a strategy and tactics to employ.
Funded initially by the UK, USA and others, and having an interesting array of U.S. military hardware at hand.
Western countries blindly following the USA's foreign policy is not playing out very well is it.
[b]That being said, I think its fair to say that I.S. are in no way a match for any ground conflict with the west. If the west is serious about purging the middle east of I.S. then a large scale swift sweep across their territory removing all military personnel and hardware would see a quick result would it not?
It doesn't have to be a half-arshed long term counter-offensive that would see a huge waste of time and money.[/b]
Other alternative is to defeat them on the ground then pull out only for them or another to fill the vacuum. Exaxctly what has happen after we pulled out of Iraq in the first place (I await the result of the Stan) or are you suggesting we stay for 50 years?
Grumfutock said:
I would also point out that all intelligence points to ISIS wants the west to put boots on the ground so they can portray it as a crusade and add credence to their claim that it is a religious war. Basically what you are seeing is a Shia versus Sunni civil war.
Wasn't that "the plan" all along?
Edited by Mojocvh on Monday 18th May 14:35
Grumfutock said:
In the Stan the Talli learnt very quickly they couldn't win a stand up battle without air and arty power so they went for hit and run, IED and sniper attacks. They were/are very effective at it.
Well that and the Americans equipping them with Stinger Missiles which neutralised Russian Air Superiority totally changing the tactical situation. Timmy40 said:
Grumfutock said:
Timmy40 said:
Yes. I think so far the West is doing exactly the right thing, no boots on the ground, allow the area to act as an idiot sink to draw out the nutters from the West into the open, and into a place where they are unlikely to return from. Basically it's a big, hot, dry empty sandpit that they can be corralled into.
Far more fighters from the Middle East and Africa than the West. As I already stated earlier, try not to beleive all the media scare mongering and hokum. Good luck with that!
Grumfutock said:
Timmy40 said:
Grumfutock said:
Timmy40 said:
Yes. I think so far the West is doing exactly the right thing, no boots on the ground, allow the area to act as an idiot sink to draw out the nutters from the West into the open, and into a place where they are unlikely to return from. Basically it's a big, hot, dry empty sandpit that they can be corralled into.
Far more fighters from the Middle East and Africa than the West. As I already stated earlier, try not to beleive all the media scare mongering and hokum. Good luck with that!
Timmy40 said:
Grumfutock said:
In the Stan the Talli learnt very quickly they couldn't win a stand up battle without air and arty power so they went for hit and run, IED and sniper attacks. They were/are very effective at it.
Well that and the Americans equipping them with Stinger Missiles which neutralised Russian Air Superiority totally changing the tactical situation. Timmy40 said:
They are being picked up at a rate of one a day or so as they try to return, prior to going they were invisible. Not any more. Angry? Maybe if we'd send troops in, but we haven't, I'd say they are more likely to be dejected and depressed. Not so heroic/honorable as they thought getting shot at and torturing civilians.
Hogwash. They will be de-sanitized to the horror and wont give two hoots about barbarous acts here. So we know about the "one a day" being caught? OK what about the other two a day we dont catch?However by all means believe what you wish. Personally I will go with facts, reality and what has happened else where in similar situations. I also can survive in the wild and dig a bloody mean bunker.
Grumfutock said:
Timmy40 said:
They are being picked up at a rate of one a day or so as they try to return, prior to going they were invisible. Not any more. Angry? Maybe if we'd send troops in, but we haven't, I'd say they are more likely to be dejected and depressed. Not so heroic/honorable as they thought getting shot at and torturing civilians.
Hogwash. They will be de-sanitized to the horror and wont give two hoots about barbarous acts here.Chances are the majority were deeply naive numpties who went gambolling off to this season's top warzone with a combination of Call of Duty & some vague religious/political principle in mind, only to discover that war is not only deeply unpleasant but not what they had in mind, and now probably have a cocktail of PTSD and whatever else. You know, like ordinary people would be, not battle hardened super terrorists.
If you want to parade around a living breathing showcase to everyone else of why allowing yourself to be radicalised makes for a really crap cup of tea, you could do worse than letting many of those people come back and having them talk publicly about it.
A small minority will not fit this pattern and are much more dangerous.
trashbat said:
think Timmy has it about right, or at least more than you do.
Chances are the majority were deeply naive numpties who went gambolling off to this season's top warzone with a combination of Call of Duty & some vague religious/political principle in mind, only to discover that war is not only deeply unpleasant but not what they had in mind, and now probably have a cocktail of PTSD and whatever else. You know, like ordinary people would be, not battle hardened super terrorists.
If you want to parade around a living breathing showcase to everyone else of why allowing yourself to be radicalised makes for a really crap cup of tea, you could do worse than letting many of those people come back and having them talk publicly about it.
A small minority will not fit this pattern and are much more dangerous.
Well I have met and fought against the reality of your "Call of Duty" numpties and have to say they seemed VERY motivated to me, didn't appear to be suffering from PTSD in any way and I must of missed the tea drinking. Chances are the majority were deeply naive numpties who went gambolling off to this season's top warzone with a combination of Call of Duty & some vague religious/political principle in mind, only to discover that war is not only deeply unpleasant but not what they had in mind, and now probably have a cocktail of PTSD and whatever else. You know, like ordinary people would be, not battle hardened super terrorists.
If you want to parade around a living breathing showcase to everyone else of why allowing yourself to be radicalised makes for a really crap cup of tea, you could do worse than letting many of those people come back and having them talk publicly about it.
A small minority will not fit this pattern and are much more dangerous.
Whilst they weren't super terrorists they sure as hell learnt their craft quickly and well.
But I would also refer you to my earlier post, for every Westerner there are 10 from Africa and the Middle East.
drivetrain said:
:snip:
One, presumably, just as it would only take one white supremacist nutjob or indeed one homegrown, never-left-the-country radical Islamist nutter to do the same. I'm not sure where that gets you.trashbat said:
A small minority will not fit this pattern and are much more dangerous.
So how many would it take to cause a major incident with huge casualties in, say, an airport or on the tube?If you can use the tales of battered and dejected ISIS failures to discourage at least one of the above, then it's probably wise to get on and do that, rather than trying to preach to or punish that audience from a very far removed position.
Grumfutock said:
I would also point out that all intelligence points to ISIS wants the west to put boots on the ground so they can portray it as a crusade and add credence to their claim that it is a religious war. Basically what you are seeing is a Shia versus Sunni civil war.
As accurate a summary as you will find. A proxy war between the Saudi and co. Sunni Salafists / Wahhabists and affliates like al Nusra, al Qaeda, ISIS versus the Shia Iranians and affiliates like Hezbollah. You can also throw in some tribal bits and pieces and you have a lovely little mess on the go. You then have the CIA, Qatar and Co. arming and training the nebulous moderate groups, funding from oil and hey presto, a foreign policy success in true technicolour glory.
Grumfutock said:
Well I have met and fought against the reality of your "Call of Duty" numpties and have to say they seemed VERY motivated to me, didn't appear to be suffering from PTSD in any way and I must of missed the tea drinking.
Whilst they weren't super terrorists they sure as hell learnt their craft quickly and well.
But I would also refer you to my earlier post, for every Westerner there are 10 from Africa and the Middle East.
I'm not sure that we're not talking at cross purposes, but can you elaborate? I assume you were in the military, so were you for example fighting Afghan nationals in their homeland, or were you fighting indulgent British nationals on their paramilitary gap year? There's literally a world of difference, and I'm only talking about the latter, and even of those, specifically the collared returnees.Whilst they weren't super terrorists they sure as hell learnt their craft quickly and well.
But I would also refer you to my earlier post, for every Westerner there are 10 from Africa and the Middle East.
Indeed there are many more from elsewhere, but unless whatever victory you're hoping for is utterly comprehensive, it's most likely to merely create more of the same to fill the void. Such are the lessons of Afghanistan & elsewhere for the last hundred years or so.
trashbat said:
You say 'military personnel' like you expect them to have uniforms. They don't.
I have seen them on the news, and you have observed as well as I in that they don't have uniforms, but this doesn't remove them from the fact they are military does it? Not sure why 'uniforms' are relevant in your reply but I think many people call them "militia" or "terrorists", implying that they are unorganized, sporadic and the like. They are seemingly very much an organised army. (Albeit no match for a modern western equivalent).
Agreed, its never going to be an easy job. But I always think that a half-arshed attempt on a budget by doing it town by town for example as a tactic never works in that part of the world. But a large scale ground sweep cornering in from different directions could have a better result.
Obviously total speculation, but if western attempts use the same tactics as previous middle-east campaigns then they will get nowhere.
AA999 said:
I have seen them on the news, and you have observed as well as I in that they don't have uniforms, but this doesn't remove them from the fact they are military does it?
Not sure why 'uniforms' are relevant in your reply but I think many people call them "militia" or "terrorists", implying that they are unorganized, sporadic and the like. They are seemingly very much an organised army. (Albeit no match for a modern western equivalent)
The significance is they blend in, and I don't mean just visually like some hardcore Where's Wally, I mean if you follow the accounts of the Kurdish Peshmerga etc, they merge into & live amongst civilian populations as necessary, somewhat thwarting your plans to round them all up, or indeed fight them on a modern military basis of symmetrical warfare.Not sure why 'uniforms' are relevant in your reply but I think many people call them "militia" or "terrorists", implying that they are unorganized, sporadic and the like. They are seemingly very much an organised army. (Albeit no match for a modern western equivalent)
Edited by trashbat on Monday 18th May 16:05
i hope im wrong but i dont think any country in the middle east except Israel has an army capable of defeating ISIS, after all this time of US airstrikes, fighting Hezbollah, Kurdish fighters, Syrian and Iraq army ISIS still control large parts of Iraq and Syria. Add the fact they have a huge amount of money and new fighters wanting to join them wiping out ISIS is going to be almost impossible
kers have even got Netto
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff