ISIS - Stronger than Anticipated?

[Timmy40]

AJS- said:

V8 Fettler said:

The West could subdue and subjugate ISIS within one week of Western troops arriving in the battlefield(s) if the political will was there. The current situation has primarily arisen from the lack of long term political objectives.

Political will to what though?
It's all very well to repel an ISIS insurgency but then what? You either have to occupy it for decades and root it out by building a functioning society, or somehow make sure that it doesn't come back.

Surely containment is the answer. ISIS wants a Western army to invade, they want their end of the world/ apocalypse battle with the "army of Rome". They are a bunch of nutters who are literally implementing the Koran as written. Hence the medieval behaviour. I think they are best left to get on with removing all traces of modern technology from the areas they control, implementing their weird medieval world and ultimately bringing about there own downfall.

[Grumfutock]

V8 Fettler said:

The West could subdue and subjugate ISIS within one week of Western troops arriving in the battlefield(s) if the political will was there. The current situation has primarily arisen from the lack of long term political objectives.

Sorry mate but that is the biggest load of crap I have read on PH this week!

So for a few years now we have had the Syrian Army, Kurdish forces, Iraqi army and a mass of Iranian backed militia have failed to achieve anything, all with air power added by the West and others.

The best we could hope for is to get drawn into a massive guerrilla war, taking large casualties from hit and run, sniper, rocket and most of all IED attacks.

A week? We couldn't even mass in a week.

Edited by Grumfutock on Friday 22 May 11:22

[AJS-]

Timmy40 said:

AJS- said:

V8 Fettler said:

The West could subdue and subjugate ISIS within one week of Western troops arriving in the battlefield(s) if the political will was there. The current situation has primarily arisen from the lack of long term political objectives.

Political will to what though?
It's all very well to repel an ISIS insurgency but then what? You either have to occupy it for decades and root it out by building a functioning society, or somehow make sure that it doesn't come back.

Surely containment is the answer. ISIS wants a Western army to invade, they want their end of the world/ apocalypse battle with the "army of Rome". They are a bunch of nutters who are literally implementing the Koran as written. Hence the medieval behaviour. I think they are best left to get on with removing all traces of modern technology from the areas they control, implementing their weird medieval world and ultimately bringing about there own downfall.

I'm inclined to agree, but that was basically the policy in Afghanistan up until 2001.

I'm coming round to the idea of some sort of long term occupation and basically imposing a secular society on them long enough for it to take root. Not easy and no guarantee of success but this constant half hearted backing of one group against another certainly isn't working.

[TEKNOPUG]

AJS- said:

I'm inclined to agree, but that was basically the policy in Afghanistan up until 2001.

I'm coming round to the idea of some sort of long term occupation and basically imposing a secular society on them long enough for it to take root. Not easy and no guarantee of success but this constant half hearted backing of one group against another certainly isn't working.

When you say "not working", that depends upon what your goals are. I can certainly think of lots of people with vested interests in a de-stabilised ME, with Iran being dragged further into the wider conflict.

[scherzkeks]

Timmy40 said:

Surely containment is the answer. ISIS wants a Western army to invade, they want their end of the world/ apocalypse battle with the "army of Rome". They are a bunch of nutters who are literally implementing the Koran as written. Hence the medieval behaviour. I think they are best left to get on with removing all traces of modern technology from the areas they control, implementing their weird medieval world and ultimately bringing about there own downfall.

There are others who suggest that ISIS is being covertly supplied by certain Western interests in order to destabilize the region further and weaken Iran. "Controlled chaos" if you will.

Not saying this idea necessarily has merit, but the military strength of this group (both in terms of tactics and hardware) is somewhat hard to comprehend.

[Timmy40]

scherzkeks said:

Timmy40 said:

Surely containment is the answer. ISIS wants a Western army to invade, they want their end of the world/ apocalypse battle with the "army of Rome". They are a bunch of nutters who are literally implementing the Koran as written. Hence the medieval behaviour. I think they are best left to get on with removing all traces of modern technology from the areas they control, implementing their weird medieval world and ultimately bringing about there own downfall.

There are others who suggest that ISIS is being covertly supplied by certain Western interests in order to destabilize the region further and weaken Iran. "Controlled chaos" if you will.

Not saying this idea necessarily has merit, but the military strength of this group (both in terms of tactics and hardware) is somewhat hard to comprehend.

Either that or the tactics of most Middle Eastern armies are based on the battle scenes in 'Monty Python in Search of the Holy Grail'......

[V8 Fettler]

Grumfutock said:

V8 Fettler said:

The West could subdue and subjugate ISIS within one week of Western troops arriving in the battlefield(s) if the political will was there. The current situation has primarily arisen from the lack of long term political objectives.

Sorry mate but that is the biggest load of crap I have read on PH this week!

So for a few years now we have had the Syrian Army, Kurdish forces, Iraqi army and a mass of Iranian backed militia have failed to achieve anything, all with air power added by the West and others.

The best we could hope for is to get drawn into a massive guerrilla war, taking large casualties from hit and run, sniper, rocket and most of all IED attacks.

A week? We couldn't even mass in a week.

Edited by Grumfutock on Friday 22 May 11:22

One week of fighting will quell ISIS, see Western action in Afghanistan 2001 for similar. Regular US troops arrived in numbers in Afghanistan late November, the Taliban had already fled Kabul, the Taliban surrendered Kandahar early December.

There may well be a guerilla war, there will certainly be casualties. The world is a nasty place.

The US are more than capable of bringing long term peace to the warring factions, see US occupation of Western Europe and the Marshall plan 1945 onwards. However, if the US can prosper without Arab oil then - understandably - the US will probably follow a policy of containment. However, the attacks on the World Trade Centre demonstrate that isolationism doesn't work.

[rich1231]

V8 Fettler said:

One week of fighting will quell ISIS, see Western action in Afghanistan 2001 for similar. Regular US troops arrived in numbers in Afghanistan late November, the Taliban had already fled Kabul, the Taliban surrendered Kandahar early December.

There may well be a guerilla war, there will certainly be casualties. The world is a nasty place.

The US are more than capable of bringing long term peace to the warring factions, see US occupation of Western Europe and the Marshall plan 1945 onwards. However, if the US can prosper without Arab oil then - understandably - the US will probably follow a policy of containment. However, the attacks on the World Trade Centre demonstrate that isolationism doesn't work.

You cannot compare establishing peace in Europe to the Middle East

[AJS-]

TEKNOPUG said:

AJS- said:

I'm inclined to agree, but that was basically the policy in Afghanistan up until 2001.

I'm coming round to the idea of some sort of long term occupation and basically imposing a secular society on them long enough for it to take root. Not easy and no guarantee of success but this constant half hearted backing of one group against another certainly isn't working.

When you say "not working", that depends upon what your goals are. I can certainly think of lots of people with vested interests in a de-stabilised ME, with Iran being dragged further into the wider conflict.

Not working on the stated objectives of a stable middle east and tackling the threat of Islamic terrorism.

You're quite right though, many reasons to believe that the stated objectives and the actual objectives are two quite different things.

[scherzkeks]

Timmy40 said:

Either that or the tactics of most Middle Eastern armies are based on the battle scenes in 'Monty Python in Search of the Holy Grail'......

It is quite interesting. Some prominent Iraqi politicans and military brass (Brigadier General Mohammed Reza Naqdi) have stated that the US appears to be airdropping supplies to ISIS. Naqdi's statements are particularly interesting. Videos exist, but don't really confirm anything.

Also, when one considers how easy ISIS targets should be to pick out and destroy in that terrain with current tech., it seems rather hard to believe that they are able to simply plow through territory at the rate they do. Their ability to operate high-tech US military hardware with no training is also quite impressive...

[V8 Fettler]

rich1231 said:

V8 Fettler said:

One week of fighting will quell ISIS, see Western action in Afghanistan 2001 for similar. Regular US troops arrived in numbers in Afghanistan late November, the Taliban had already fled Kabul, the Taliban surrendered Kandahar early December.

There may well be a guerilla war, there will certainly be casualties. The world is a nasty place.

The US are more than capable of bringing long term peace to the warring factions, see US occupation of Western Europe and the Marshall plan 1945 onwards. However, if the US can prosper without Arab oil then - understandably - the US will probably follow a policy of containment. However, the attacks on the World Trade Centre demonstrate that isolationism doesn't work.

You cannot compare establishing peace in Europe to the Middle East

The principles remain the same: political will. The US was dragged into WW1, they attempted to avoid being dragged into WW2 but could not avoid the conflict. There was a political will in the US 1945 onwards to prevent further major conflict in Europe, the US succeeded in achieving this.

[AreOut]

scherzkeks said:

It is quite interesting. Some prominent Iraqi politicans and military brass (Brigadier General Mohammed Reza Naqdi) have stated that the US appears to be airdropping supplies to ISIS. Naqdi's statements are particularly interesting. Videos exist, but don't really confirm anything.

Also, when one considers how easy ISIS targets should be to pick out and destroy in that terrain with current tech., it seems rather hard to believe that they are able to simply plow through territory at the rate they do. Their ability to operate high-tech US military hardware with no training is also quite impressive...

some say that ISIS is trojan horse for removing Assad and it shows to be more and more true...here and there they get serious beating from USAF when they attack someone they shouldn't (like in Kobane) but I haven't seen a single coalition air raid on Palmyra and its surroundings (and some other cities where Assad troops had to back off), it's like US is directing them where to go using the bombs, just like guiding a bunch of lemmings (which have similar IQ to ISIS fighters)

[scherzkeks]

V8 Fettler said:

However, the attacks on the World Trade Centre demonstrate that isolationism doesn't work.

You belive Arabs wanted to kill Americans on account of their lack of meddling in the ME? You may want to rethink that.

[Timmy40]

AreOut said:

scherzkeks said:

It is quite interesting. Some prominent Iraqi politicans and military brass (Brigadier General Mohammed Reza Naqdi) have stated that the US appears to be airdropping supplies to ISIS. Naqdi's statements are particularly interesting. Videos exist, but don't really confirm anything.

Also, when one considers how easy ISIS targets should be to pick out and destroy in that terrain with current tech., it seems rather hard to believe that they are able to simply plow through territory at the rate they do. Their ability to operate high-tech US military hardware with no training is also quite impressive...

some say that ISIS is trojan horse for removing Assad and it shows to be more and more true...here and there they get serious beating from USAF when they attack someone they shouldn't (like in Kobane) but I haven't seen a single coalition air raid on Palmyra and its surroundings (and some other cities where Assad troops had to back off), it's like US is directing them where to go using the bombs, just like guiding a bunch of lemmings (which have similar IQ to ISIS fighters)

Interesting idea, a war by proxy against Putins man in the ME.

[Transmitter Man]

TEKNOPUG said:

When you say "not working", that depends upon what your goals are. I can certainly think of lots of people with vested interests in a de-stabilised ME, with Iran being dragged further into the wider conflict.

I don't think Iran has to be dragged anywhere.

It is in Iran's interest to have a destabilized ME increasing their influence over both Iraq and Syria the latter being their arms route to Hezbollah.

If Hezbollah cannot get resupplied their reason for being no longer exists.

Lebanon would of course be better without them but that's just my opinion.

Phil

[scherzkeks]

Transmitter Man said:

I don't think Iran has to be dragged anywhere.

It is in Iran's interest to have a destabilized ME increasing their influence over both Iraq and Syria the latter being their arms route to Hezbollah.


Phil

Iran is part of the coalition fighting to avoid further destabilization of the region.

[Transmitter Man]

I don't believe that.

Iran has a large military, just like Turkey.

They are in complete control of what is left of Assad's war machine together with their own mil personnel operating in Syria.

Phil

[QuantumTokoloshi]

scherzkeks said:

Also, when one considers how easy ISIS targets should be to pick out and destroy in that terrain with current tech., it seems rather hard to believe that they are able to simply plow through territory at the rate they do. Their ability to operate high-tech US military hardware with no training is also quite impressive...

The US / CIA / Qatar have only been training and arming the moderately Jihadi fundamentalist Islamist groups of course.

I suspect a good number of ISIS cadre are ex Iraqi military in any case.

[Grumfutock]

V8 Fettler said:

One week of fighting will quell ISIS, see Western action in Afghanistan 2001 for similar. Regular US troops arrived in numbers in Afghanistan late November, the Taliban had already fled Kabul, the Taliban surrendered Kandahar early December.

There may well be a guerilla war, there will certainly be casualties. The world is a nasty place.

The US are more than capable of bringing long term peace to the warring factions, see US occupation of Western Europe and the Marshall plan 1945 onwards. However, if the US can prosper without Arab oil then - understandably - the US will probably follow a policy of containment. However, the attacks on the World Trade Centre demonstrate that isolationism doesn't work.

Sorry V8 but again that's rollox.

You can not compare the Marshall plan and 1945 Europe to 2015 Syria/Iraq.

Also the US forces may well of defeated the Taliban in a set piece battle in 2001 but they sure as hell NEVER defeated them or contained them as a fighting force in over 10 years of pitched battle.
In 2003 we took Iraq in 6 weeks but again we never defeated the opposition.

Germany/Italy 1945 complete defeat and unconditional surrender. MASSIVE difference, sorry.

[Transmitter Man]

I don't believe that.

Iran has a large military, just like Turkey.

They are in complete control of what is left of Assad's war machine together with their own mil personnel operating in Syria.

Phil