Aside from a robust plan to take the fight to them, I would also mount a psy ops campaign to confuse, delay, detour, disrupt, detain and occupy would be fighters to prevent their wanting to return to the Jihad or to join ISIS at all.
But there are plenty of non-extremist Islamists throughout the world, so are you suggesting that we purge Islam from them as well? Because there are 1.57 billion followers of Islam, so good luck with that.
The faction of ISIS created in Syria. You're taking the term too literally. The actual ISIS formed in Syria. However, technically, you are correct.
Both wrong, it started in Jordan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jama'at_al-Tawhid_wal-Jihad This group was one of dozens of similar groups that sprang up all the time in that region. The vast majority exist for a few years, and are either absorbed, broken up, or fade away. al-Zarqawi operated in many countries, including Jordan, Afghanistan, Iraq (before and after invasion), and others. After his death the group was forced out of Iraq into Syria (much like the PLO in the 1980's was forced from Israel-Palestine into Lebanon), and then set up operations there against the Syrian government. With the withdrawl of US forces they moved back into Iraq. So the real lesson should be that the US should not have left until the region and country were secure and ready to defend themselves. The problem with ISIS is not that the US invaded, it is that the US left to soon.
As for the OP, that should be quite simple. First, get the UN to get off of it's collective assets and actually do something to earn their pay. Declare ISIS a terrorist threat and guilty of genocide. Then create a Middle Eastern coalition of nations to put them down once and for all. Give US support as requested in the form of aviation and logistical assets, but let the primary work be conducted by primarily Muslim forces. Myself, I am about done with the UN. The last 20 years have shown they are incapable of doing anything to promote peace, and I am thinking that the entire organization should simply be disbanded as another failed experiment (League of Nations II).
It begs the question of whether it needs to be fought, and also the question of whether I or my country should be involved in such a fight. I'm not convinced of a positive answer to either at this point, just as I was never convinced of America's justness in invading any of the African or Middle Eastern countries that it has done to date. In fact, we wouldn't be targeted by anyone abroad today if we weren't involved in their affairs as we are. That began with our imperialism, shared with the British, in the Middle East that started during and after WWII.
That depends on what the goals are or what one is trying to accomplish. Long wars or not going in with the idea to win them and win them now with whatever means available will in the long run cause more deaths and misery than a quick and decisive thrust at the beginning. Probably the most important thing is to have the will to win. To concentrate on the battlefield and winning while blocking out everything else. If you do not have this type of will, stay home and don't get involved.
Seem's Delta Force just kicked the S#!# out of a Syrian Based ISIS Leadership Site. It even came down to HAND TO HAND COMBAT. News updated: 5/16/2015 2:23 PMDelta Force raids ISIS Syria camp, kills commander, frees hostage .. A Syrian flag flies over the capital, Damascus, Syria. U.S. commandos mounted a rare raid into eastern Syria overnight, killing a senior Islamic State commander in a firefight, capturing his wife and rescuing a Yazidi woman held as a slave, the Pentagon said Saturday, Associated Press . Associated Press BEIRUT -- In a rare ground attack deep into Syria, U.S. Army commandos killed a man described as the Islamic State's head of oil operations, captured his wife and rescued a woman whom American officials said was enslaved. A team of Delta Force commandos slipped across the border from Iraq under cover of darkness Saturday aboard Black Hawk helicopters and V-22 Osprey aircraft, according to a U.S. defense official knowledgeable about details of the raid. The official was not authorized to discuss the operation publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity. .The Americans intended to capture a militant identified by U.S. officials as Abu Sayyaf. When they arrived at his location, a multi-story building, they met stiff resistance, the U.S. official said, and a firefight ensued, resulting in bullet-hole damage to the U.S. aircraft. Abu Sayyaf was killed, along with an estimated dozen IS fighters, U.S. officials said. No American was killed or wounded. Before the sun had risen, the commandos flew back to Iraq where Abu Sayyaf's wife, Umm Sayyaf, was being questioned in U.S. custody, officials said. Abu Sayyaf was described by one official as the IS "emir of oil and gas," although he also was targeted for his known association with the group's leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. U.S. officials said it was likely, given Abu Sayyaf's position, that he knew about more than just the financial side of the group's operations. Despite the U.S. claims, much about the IS figure was in question. The name Abu Sayyaf has rarely been mentioned in Western reports about the extremist group and he is not known to be among terrorists for whom the U.S. has offered a bounty. The name was not known to counterterrorism officials who study IS and does not appear in reports compiled by think tanks and others examining the group's hierarchy. The U.S. official said Abu Sayyaf's death probably has temporarily halted IS oil-revenue operations, critical to the group's ability to carry out military operations in Syria and Iraq and to govern the population centers it controls. But U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, cautioned against exaggerating the long-term gain from killing Abu Sayyaf. He said IS, like al-Qaida, "has proven adept at replacing its commanders and we will need to keep up the pressure on its leadership and financing." A U.S. Treasury official told Congress in October that IS militants were earning about $1 million a day from black market oil sales alone, and getting several million dollars a month from wealthy donors, extortion rackets and other criminal activities, such as robbing banks. Kidnappings were another large source of cash. U.S. airstrikes in Syria since September have frequently targeted IS oil-collection facilities in an effort to undermine the group's finances. IS controls much of northern and eastern Syria as well as northern and western Iraq, despite months of U.S. and coalition airstrikes and efforts by the U.S.-backed Iraqi army to retake territory. IS holds most of the oil fields in Syria and has declared a caliphate governed by a harsh version of Islamic law. Also Saturday, activists said IS fighters pushed into the Syrian town of Palmyra, home to famed 2,000-year-old ruins. The U.S. Army raid occurred one day after the U.S.-led campaign to roll back IS gains in Iraq suffered a significant setback in Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province. IS fighters are reported to have captured a key government building in Ramadi and have established control over a substantial portion of the city, officials have said. U.S. House Speaker John Boehner, in a written statement Saturday praising the raid into Syria, said he was "gravely concerned" by the IS assault on Ramadi and that it threatened the stability and sovereignty of Iraq. IS has made major inroads at Iraq's Beiji oil refinery complex in recent days. Reports vary, but U.S. officials have said IS is largely in control of the refinery, as well as the nearby town of Beiji. It's on the main route from Baghdad to Mosul, the main IS stronghold in northern Iraq. U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter in Washington announced the raid, followed soon after by word from the White House. Bernadette Meehan, spokeswoman for the U.S. National Security Council, said in a statement that the woman who was freed, a Yazidi, "appears to have been held as a slave" by Abu Sayyaf and his wife. She said the U.S. intends to return her to her family. IS militants captured hundreds of members of the Yazidi religious minority in northern Iraq during their rampage across the country last summer. A senior Obama administration official said Umm Sayyaf was being debriefed at an undisclosed location in Iraq to obtain intelligence about IS operations. The official was not authorized to discuss details of the operation by name and spoke on condition of anonymity. The raid was the first known U.S. ground operation targeting IS militants in Syria. A U.S.-led coalition has been striking the extremists from the air for months, but the only previous time American troops set foot on the ground in Syria was in an unsuccessful commando mission to recover hostages last summer. Syrian state TV earlier reported that Syrian government forces killed at least 40 IS fighters, including a senior commander in charge of oil fields, in an attack Saturday on the Omar field -- where the U.S. raid was said to have taken place. The Syrian report, which appeared as an urgent news bar on state TV, was not repeated by the state news agency. State TV didn't repeat the urgent news or elaborate on it. U.S. officials said they had no knowledge of a Syrian raid and that the U.S. did not coordinate its operation with the Syrian government. Meehan said the Syrian government was not informed in advance of the raid. The U.S. has said it is not cooperating with President Bashar Assad's government in the battle against IS. "We have warned the Assad regime not to interfere with our ongoing efforts against ISIL inside of Syria," Meehan said, using another acronym for IS. "As we have said before, the Assad regime is not and cannot be a partner in the fight against ISIL. In fact, the brutal actions of the regime have aided and abetted the rise of ISIL and other extremists in Syria." An NSC statement said President Barack Obama authorized the raid upon the "unanimous recommendation" of his national security team. The administration clearly is concerned by the resilience of IS even as officials publicly express confidence that the extremists cannot sustain their territorial gains and ultimately will be defeated. Saturday's raid came as IS fighters have advanced in central and northeastern Syria. Activists said IS fighters pushed into Palmyra, home to famed 2,000-year-old ruins, after seizing an oil field and taking control of the water company on the outskirts. IS said fighters took full control of Saker Island in the Euphrates River near Deir el-Zour, a provincial capital in eastern Syria split between IS and government forces. LINK....http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20150516/news/150518980/ AboveAlpha
I'm pretty sure that is the exact plan in place, except that the only ME nation willing to take the fight to IS is Iran, and we won't let them do it.
Militarily, obviously, but I'd also fight IS's state-sponsors politically, economically and geo-strategically, with regime-change to prevent them sponsoring a replacement terror-army after we have shed our nations' precious blood and spent our precious treasure crushing the so-called "Islamic State". STRATEGY TO DEFEAT Islamic State / ISIL / ISIS / Daesh 1) Overall strategy - the West needs to apply the Bush Doctrine to all state-sponsors of terrorism - Saudi Arabia & other Gulf monarchies, Pakistan, Yemen, Egypt, Sudan, Iran and other dictator states - regime change them all. 2) Use stand off techniques more robustly - such as seizing control over state-sponsor-of-terrorism satellite-TV broadcasting (often supplied to Arab and North African state broadcasters by European satellite TV companies) and turning that propaganda weapon around and using it to promote democratic revolution through-out the region. 3) Impose the West as sole agents for all oil tanker export sales out of the Gulf. Seize all oil tankers exporting oil and sell the oil, depriving regimes of oil profits. 4) Now once you have an overall strategy in place, then you can look at specific military actions. Bombing prestige regime targets or threatening to if Al Baghdadi's head is not a spike within 48 hours. 5) Partition Iraq. Looks like it has to go three ways - Shia, Sunni & Kurds. If the 3 new states all want to join up together in an Iraq confederacy or union of some kind of their own free will, that's fine too. 6) Establish Western military bases in Iraq for training up the local armies. Better if we can supply them by sea or air rather than by long land routes which can have supply routes attacked by road side bombs and ambushes. _______ So that's my plan but whom to trust to carry it through? Well I don't trust anyone with my plan except myself, so I volunteer to be appointed NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe (or Deputy SACEUR) to carry my plan through to victory in short order. For my political superior, I want to report to Condoleezza Rice. So please appoint Condi as NATO Secretary General (I don't know if she will accept this office or similar but NATO governments could ask her). Anyway we need Condi, that's clear. So long as I report through Condi to the NATO North Atlantic Council, no problem. I note all the posts before mine in this thread and I acknowledge that there are implicitly a lot of points and questions to be replied to, so I'll make an effort to reply to some of them in time but if you want me to focus a reply about my strategy more urgently simply post and I'll prioritize answering any questions directed at me.
Like we did the first time - thousands more US troops dead and tens of thousands injured fighting in Iraq, more if we are fighting in Syria too? That would not deter because IS was not "not deterred because we showed reluctance to go in to clear them out". IS are under orders to entice the US into a ground war, especially fighting street-to-street, suffering ambushes and mines/IEDs, where the enemy's advantage in numbers of volunteers counts for more than our advantage in military and other technology. So we'd end up "clear, transition, failing-to-deter" again and again, thousands more US troops dead and tens of thousands injured fighting each time. And it would be only US troops because no ally would be daft enough to follow that foolish course of action, twice. Well it would be US forces who would get demoralized.
Well there's no guarantee that the next president would be a lot better in fighting the Islamic State. US competence in the military sphere depends a lot on who the President appoints as Defense Secretary and President Obama initially retained President Bush's Defense Secretary, Bob Gates, so would you have impeached President Bush for appointing Gates in the first place? Or is it that you were OK with Bob Gates, would not have impeached Obama for so long as he kept Gates on? Would you have waited until Obama appointed Leon Panetta and then impeached Obama for appointing Panetta as Defense Secretary? Would you have waited until Obama appointed Chuck Hagel and then impeached Obama for appointing Hagel as Defense Secretary? Or no, you just loved what Hagel did with Iraq and it's really the new guy, Ash Carter who just won't do? Or do you think, no, it's really that Obama keeps overruling his Defense Secretaries, can't get the guy out of the Pentagon for one minute to let the Defense Secretary get on with the job? Reinstate General Mattis as what? NATO Supreme Allied Commander (Transformation)? I don't really need any other "Supreme Commander" at NATO, belaying my orders or getting in my way as SACEUR at NATO HQ. How can we have two "Supreme Commanders"? Which one is "supreme"? It doesn't make sense. I want a 5-star command as NATO SACEUR, just to let all those 4-star generals, serving and retired, know who is in command. No I want to be put in charge of dealing with ISIS, even if I am only appointed Deputy SACEUR, with special responsibility for the war on terror and only get 4-stars, nevertheless, I want to be left in charge of dealing with the ISIS situation. If flag officers can follow my orders, I can use them; otherwise, not. Iraq's soldiers were already demoralize by the time our ground forces had invaded Iraq because our pilots had been knocking out all their tanks with expensive missiles. Well the Muslims who you can't "grab by the balls" will not be following you, quite the reverse. This is not a war against Islam but against terrorists. Well our military forces shouldn't be trying to police foreign lands with civilians in them - that's really a job for local forces - and prior to military operations we ought to give civilians a fair opportunity to flee the battleground or target areas. Wikipedia "Mattis is known for his military legacy, including implementing the COIN strategy." Wasn't the "COIN" strategy about holding areas with civilians with our troops and for us somehow to police those areas, winning hearts and minds etc? Seems to me you are arguing against the approach taken by General Mattis? Fair enough but why reinstate him? So are you for COIN or against?
To your credit, Mike, point 1 of your plan was right on the money - "1) That leaves limited forces that are worthwhile to train; mainly the Kurdish Peshmerga and the Iraqi Army. Of the two, the Peshmerga is the more motivated and reliable force, but they could really benefit from advanced weaponry, and intelligence assistance." - Mike Street Station, September 15, 2014 The Kurds had been calling for more international military aid but what they got from the Pentagon instead was Chuck Hagel's warm words. August 26, 2014 - Statement by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel on Kurdish Resupply Effort Whereas it was the Germans who provided the Kurds with some of the type of anti-tank weapons they particularly needed to counter the ISIS threat of Vehicle-borne Improvised Explosive Devices. MILAN anti-tank weapon September 1, 2014 - BBC: Germany to supply arms to Kurds fighting IS in Iraq The President visited the Pentagon on July 6, 2015, to encourage his military leadership team, to order them as Commander-in-Chief to accelerate delivery of the President's objectives and I'm supporting the President's lead with practical suggestions. I hope the President is demanding rather more acceleration than Chuck Hagel demanded, accelerating the Pentagon from "dead slow" all the way up to "slow", maybe? Video: President Barack Obama's Statement to Press but ... SPIN: Trainers and advisors sent to Kurdistan REALITY: Fox News reports American special forces required to transit to Kurdistan via Baghdad when they are not allowed to take their heavy weapons and must leave them in Baghdad. SPIN: ($350 million in equipment to be provided as part of training) REALITY: New American reports ISIS Seized $1 Billion of U.S. Military Aid. Christian Post reports ISIS Budget Exceeds $2 Billion in 2015 SPIN: Anti-ISIS coalition airstrikes coordinated with Kurdish forces REALITY: Fox News reports DELTA and other U.S. special forces currently on the ground are not allowed to participate in the war against ISIS and fight with the Kurds, preventing the most effective coordination of air-strikes with Forward Air Controllers (FAC) / Joint Terminal Attack Controllers (JTAC) on the ground. SPIN: 1,000 anti-tank missiles & 40 mine-resistant vehicles sent to Kurdish forces REALITY: Fox News reports the Kurds dispute those numbers, insisting a lot of those weapons were never transferred to them after being given to Baghdad. SPIN: $15 million in airlift support, transporting supplies from the U.S. and other coalition partners REALITY: Huff Post reports Kurds cannot receive US arms directly though Kurds want weapons delivered directly AT-4 anti-tank weapons US troops using AT-4 anti-tank weapon Range - 300 metres. Cost - $1,500 Design Purpose - It is intended to give infantry units a means to destroy or disable armoured vehicles and fortifications although it is not generally sufficient to defeat a modern main battle tank (MBT). Why the Kurdish army, the Peshmerga need them - useful against ISIS seized HUMVEEs looted from the Iraqi army which have been packed with high explosive and are been driven at high-speed by an ISIS suicide bomber towards the Peshmerga's front lines How many the Kurds need - Stocks of about 20 per mile of defended front line. 2,000 per 100 miles of front line. Kurds front line with ISIS estimated at 600 miles, so they require to hold stocks of about 12,000 total cost $18 million How many promised - 1,000 How many received - unknown because the Kurds complain of difficulties in receiving deliveries sent via Baghdad BGM-71 TOW anti-tank weapons [video=youtube;-tuifgYa-Io]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tuifgYa-Io[/video] Range - 4,500 metres. Cost - $60,000 Design Purpose - The Raytheon BGM-71 TOW is a heavy anti-armor/assault missile used by the U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps. Why the Kurdish army, the Peshmerga need them - useful against as many as 40 ISIS seized Abrams M1A1 Main Battle Tanks looted from the Iraqi army plus other main battle tanks. How many the Kurds need - 1 per mile of defended front lines. 600 miles of front line requires stocks of about 600, total cost $36 million How many promised - None. How many received - None. M2 Heavy Machine Gun [video=youtube;U_md7brawJY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=50&v=U_md7brawJY[/video] Range - 6,800 metres. Cost - $14,000 Design Purpose - The Browning M2 .50 caliber (12.7mm) Machine Gun, is a World War II era automatic, belt-fed, recoil operated, air-cooled, crew-operated machine gun. Why the Kurdish army, the Peshmerga need them - useful against attacking ISIS fighters in anything but armoured vehicles. How many the Kurds need - about 8 per mile of defended front line. 600 miles of front line requires about 4,800, total cost $67 million How many promised - None. How many received - None. Total cost of this request $18 million (AT-4s) + $38 million (BGM-71 TOWs) + $67 million (M2s) = $123 million GOOD VALUE TO STOP ISIS in their tracks at Kurdish front lines! These are the type of weapons you need to hold off the full-frontal charging attack that ISIS specialize in, which is not militarily sophisticated but does require a defending army to be generously supplied with weapons which can deliver a high-intensity of direct-fire, because there is simply no time to call for reinforcements if your front-line soldiers don't have such weapons to hand. This next quote gives a broader picture of what other types of military aid the Kurds need. July 5, 2015 - To defeat Islamic State arm the Kurds retired general says "Give the Kurds — who are mostly armed only with rocket propelled grenades and AK-47 rifles — more lethal weapons. Give them vehicles. Deploy A-10 Thunderbolt IIs and Apache attack helicopters specifically to provide rapid close air support to help the Kurds maintain their long and tenuous front against the Islamic State and to continue their advances toward Raqqa in Syria and Mosul in Iraq. “The Kurds have lost close to 5,000 troops if not more,” says Garner. “I don’t know how many have been injured. Probably many thousands. Most of that is because they don’t have the weapons they need. Most of the casualties would have been averted had they been supplied correctly.” A retired Army three-star and former Army Asst. Vice Chief of Staff, Garner first got to know the Kurds during his stint as Commanding General, Joint Task Force Bravo during Operation Provide Comfort in northern Iraq after Desert Storm. Specifically, Garner believes that the Kurds should be directly armed with Javelin and TOW anti-tank weapons, 81 mm mortars and M113 armored personnel carriers and uparmored Humvees. “They have over 600 miles of frontage,” says Garner. “They have to guard the whole front and all that they have is light infantry. The anti-tank weapons would give the Kurds the ability to stop the truck bombs the Islamic State has used to devastating effect by adding three plates of armor that stops RPGs. The armor thus allows semis packed with thousands of pounds of explosives to be used to blast through defenses. The vehicles would allow the Kurds to create rapid reaction forces that can respond to incursions along the front or offensive opportunities. “But they can’t put a rapid reaction force together right now because they don’t have mobility,” says Garner. “They need mobility. We are carving up vehicles in Afghanistan. Why not send them to the Kurds?” Though close air support aircraft like the A-10s and Apaches would be “an overwhelming game changer,” Garner says he knows none of his suggestions will likely ever come to fruition. So far, the U.S. has insisted on going through the Shia Baghdad central government for most of the weapons earmarked for the Kurds. And that, says Garner, has been a recipe for failure. Using a few words I can’t print, Garner says there are three not-so-good reasons why. “Number one, there is a policy in the State Department that says you can only give stuff to recognized governments,” says Garner, adding that the rationale is bunk given past realities. “We gave tons of stuff to the Contras. Charlie Wilson gave more Stingers than we had in the inventory to the rebels in Afghanistan back in the ‘80s. We’ve done that before for our convenience, but we are overlooking that now.” Secondly, says Garner, “the Baghdad government does not want the Kurds armed. They know a conflict between them and the Kurds is highly possible.” And thirdly, “the Iranians have told the administration not to arm the Kurds,” says Garner. “They back the government in Baghdad, which is a puppet government to Iran. Our administration is so immersed in this nuclear deal (with Iran) that I think they will do anything the Iranians tell them to do.” That's sound advice from a military man who should know.
As an American, I know fully well that this is NOT our war. Therefore, I will stay out of it and allow these peoples to sort out their own problems. Mind you it was never a problem until idiot Bush invaded knowing fully well it would cause instability in that region. Dictators have arisen there to deal with these problems and they are the ones to deal with it. Not us. Nobody would allow any foreign power to invade the USA in order to stop police terrorism against minorities or other injustices. Troubling as these problems are, they are not the concern of any foreign power. Same with the troubles overseas. It is of no concern to us.
Gates and Panetta are highly respected career government administrators who are known as "yes men." Neither are military strategist or understand military tactics. But then again it's not the job of the civilian branch of the military services to be military strategist they are suppose over see the military not micromanage the military. This was the problem we saw with SECDEF Rumsfeld and McNamara they micromanaged the military and micromanaged wars. Unless the President as CnC is a General or flag officer he shouldn't be micromanaging wars. This is what LBJ did during the Vietnam War and what Obama has been doing since 2009. In fact Obama completely ignores the National Security Act of 1947 and the Goldwater–Nichols Act in layman terms Obama breaks the law by ignoring the military chain of command. Both Gates and Panetta have written books about their experience with the Obama administration and it's not pretty. Obama doesn't trust the military, refuses to listen to his military advisers and rarely meets with his Joint Chiefs of Staff. It's been Valerie Jarrett, Susan Rice and a few other progressives with no military experience who have been running our military and wars. Obama said he was going to change the face of the U.S. military and that means social engineering of our military. Obama's first Secretary of the Air Force only qualifications was that he was gay. The current Secretary of the Air Force during Senate confirmation hearings she seemed to have been clueless what an A-10 Warthog was. Her real job is social engineering of the Air Force, Valerie Jarrett's "yes girl." One of Obama's appointed Assistant Secretary of the Navy while on an inspection tour of San Diego's naval facilities sees a LHD amphibious ship and asked "Is that the Ronald Reagan ? " Thinking that the amphibious ship was a nuclear Nimitz class aircraft carrier. "To change the culture, customs, traditions and regulations of the U.S. military in the name of political correctness." That's our Commander in Chief Barack Obama. General Mattis was next in line to be the Commandant of the Marine Corps. Gen. Mattis was purged from the Marine Corps for political reasons because he wasn't a yes man but a warrior who knew how to win battles of the battlefield and would oppose Obama using the Marine Corps for liberal social engineering. The U.S. Army during the Philippine Insurrection (1899–1913) while fighting Muslim Moros in the P.I.'s successfully used pork to defeat the Moros. It may not have been politically correct but war isn't about being politically correct, it's a serious deadly job. Islam only respects the sword and those who know how to use it. Grab them by the balls like we did during the Philippine Insurrection and their minds will follow. Winning hearts and minds isn't the job of grunts, that's why we have Army Special Forces (Green Berets) that's their job to win hearts and minds not Marines, Navy SEAL's, Delta Force or Army grunts. "COIN" is a military acronym "coined" (no pun intended) by the Rand Corporation during the early 1960's for "counter insurgency" to sell a failed strategy to JFK that you could win a war below the 17th parallel in the RVN by winning hearts and minds with Special Forces. Now it wasn't a complete failure, the U.S. Marine Corps had it's CAP's (Combined Action Platoons) up in I Corps that was some what successful while the Army's winning hearts and minds was not so successful. Ask me why and I'll be glad to tell you why.
Although I agree with the facts you state...sending American Marine's or Forces in the Middle East is not the answer. The ISIS without it's Money Lines and Leadership would just disolve. We need to destroy the Money Suppliers and Leadership. I was in Iraq when they crossed over the boarder and the Shia Officers who replaced the Sunni's RAN BACK TO BAGHDAD. I was not there for the ISIS....my Team and I were there for another JOB. We were already there and asked to deal with the ISIS trapped 40,000 members of the Yazidi sect, many of them women and children, have taken refuge in nine locations on Mount Sinjar. We quickly realized after grabbing a few members of the ISIS that they were either former Criminals or Insane who had been gived AK-47's and RPG's by their creators and let loose on the people. The ABABS MUST LEARN TO HANDLE SUCH THINGS!! We can help them out with Drone and Air Strikes but there is absolutely no reason to send any Marines in the area. AboveAlpha
Of course, Iran also claims that ISIS was created by the United States in order to thwart their ambitions in the Middle East by creating a competing power block for the purposes of Jihad. And of course you are also conviently ignoring the nations that are also fighting ISIS, like Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, UAE, Egypt, Iraq, Morocco, Bahrain, Qatar, and others. Sorry, but you are very wrong. And the UN is content to do absolutely nothing about ISIS. Other then of course issuing proclamations against them and their behavior. Other then that, they have done nothing.
Your right in that Bush never should have invaded Iraq. His father Bush Sr. knew that Saddam while a Brutal Dictator was the ONLY thing preventing an all out Sunni/Shia Iraqi Civil War and that is why in Desert Storm we did not go all the way to Baghdad. The Invasion of Iraq was done for one purpose and one purpose only and I was against invading. It was thought that the war in Afghanistan was too remote and too far away for WORLDWIDE MEDIA COVERAGE in that it would display American Military Force. Thus the Invasion of Iraq was planned and decided upon as the war could be sen on TV WORLDWIDE as U.S. Military Forces cut through Soviet Weapon supplied Iraqi Military Divisions as if they were warm butter and the U.S. Military being a RED HOT KNIFE!! The U.S. Military completed the fastest conquest of such a vast teritory in HISTORY. But some IDIOTS IN WASHINGTON decided to go NATION BUILDING while using the U.S. Military as a POLICE FORCE! The U.S. Military should not ever be used in such a role and unlike Japan and Germany that were conquered nations after WWII and who's people worked with the U.S. Military Corps. of Engineers and other U.S. Companies to help REBUILD THEIR NATION as fast as possible......the Sunni's and the Shiite's in Iraq saw the aftermath of the war and the removal of Saddam TO FORCE THEIR OWN AGENDAS!! You can't help a Nation rebuild itself when there is a CIVIL WAR ONGOING!!! We should never have attempted any Nation Building in Afghanistan either as those people are STILL LIVING IN THE STONE AGE outside of KABAL!! AboveAlpha
OK, so your hatred of all Gulf States is hereby noted. You are aware that quite a few of the countries you listed are not only allies of the US, but either fighting their own ISIS insurgents and/or actively conducting strikes on ISIS, are you not? Trying to toss Saudi Arabia and "other Gulf monarchies" is very ignorant. And BTW, Iran is not a "Dictator State", it is a Theocratic Republic. And ironically, the "Monarchies" in the region have long been the most peaceful and stable countries in the region, aside from the one Democratic Republic in the region. It is generally only when those Monarchies fell that the countries went to hell in a handbasket. Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, and others. Yemen is the one strong contradiction, of course they also never formed a strong Monarchy when it along witht he majority of the region were given independence. Since it's founding that state has suffered from long civil wars between waring factions. As with most of this point, I have absolutely no idea where you are going. You throw together a bunch of almost random facts (often incorrect), with nothing really to pull it together. Come on now, "about 8 per mile of defended front line"? Are we talking about a force capable of conducting offensive actions, or some kind of Middle Eastern Maginot Line for goodness sakes? To support that, you are essentially talking about what in the US would be a Heavy Machinegun Platoon for an Infantry Division for every mile of territory! In fact, you would be bogging down this border patrol - army (not sure what it is really) with so many heavy weapons they would need 2 years to be trained up in their use and so horribly slow with a weak logistical train that they would be unable to take over an orphanage. BTW, the "Ma Deuce" is not a "World War II era automatic". It is an inter-war era (1933) selective fire weapon (yes, it can indeed be placed in a single shot mode). And even the "Inter-war" date is open to debate. It is basically an improved variation of the M1921, which was an improvement of the M1918, an improvement of the M1917. So calling it "WWII era" is wrong in many ways. Kind of like calling the M4 a "21st century weapon", as if all of the other variants of the M16 (including the CAR15) had never existed. And BTW, actually the M2 would be effective against almost all ISIS armored vehicles as well. The majority of their tactical vehicled are "Technicals", with thin home-made armor designed to be effective against small arms. The M2 with AP or APIT rounds can penetrate almost an inch of hardened armor plating, or 2 inches of non-hardened steel.
I'd do nothing, except make sure security is optimal to thwart attacks against us. If a second 9/11 were to occur (and it was in response to our activities in the middle east, not just because they "hate freedom"), we could do what we did to Afghanistan except LEAVE after we win. Winning does not mean we make them our super best friends - it means we dismantle terrorist infrastructure and kill anybody who gets in the way.
[video=youtube;ldlN1Zo--6c]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldlN1Zo--6c[/video] August 2014 - Iraq: Raw footage of Yazidis helicopter rescue from Mount Sinjar. Thanks AboveAlpha and to all those who saved those innocents or who saved some other innocents some other time, thank you and bless you.
Wikipedia - State-sponsored terrorism - Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabia is said to be the world's largest source of funds and promoter of Salafist jihadism,[95] which forms the ideological basis of terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda, Taliban, ISIS and others. Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide, according to Hillary Clinton.[96] According to a secret December 2009 paper signed by the US secretary of state, "Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaida, the Taliban, LeT and other terrorist groups."[97] The violence in Afghanistan and Pakistan is partly bankrolled by wealthy, conservative donors across the Arabian Sea whose governments do little to stop them.[96] Three other Arab countries which are listed as sources of militant money are Qatar, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates, all neighbors of Saudi Arabia. Taliban and their militant partners the Haqqani network earn "significant funds" through UAE-based businesses. Kuwait is described as a "source of funds and a key transit point" for al-Qaida and other militant groups.[96][98] The Pakistani militant outfit Lashkar-e-Taiba, which carried out the 2008 Mumbai attacks, used a Saudi-based front company to fund its activities in 2005.[96][99] According to studies, most of suicide bombers in Iraq are Saudis.[100][101][102] 15 of the 19 hijackers of the four airliners who were responsible for 9/11 originated from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt, and one from Lebanon.[103] Osama bin Laden was a Saudi by birth. His family is a wealthy one intimately connected with the innermost circles of the Saudi royal family. The Kurds have defensive lines to hold versus ISIS - 600 miles of front-line they say. The Kurds have asked for heavy machine guns as a priority and why wouldn't they? It doesn't take 2 years for militia fighters to learn how to use a HMG. 8 HMGs per mile is one HMG position per 200 metres - a maximum distance of 100 metres between HMG positions and the mid-points between positions where the enemy might try to sneak or charge past. It's not the Maginot line but with AT-4s at each position to defend versus armoured vehicle VBIEDs, it's sufficient, it's simple enough for citizen-soldiers to implement and it doesn't cost a fortune. I wasn't attempting to put forward a complete battleplan for the Kurds to wipe out ISIS, no. These weapons are good for holding the line while the enemy gets picked off by air-strikes, starved out by siege and attacked with any offensive actions the Kurds want to put together using their full range of weapons, and they have quite a varied selection of equipment which they have acquired from one source or another over the years. So the Kurds have quite a lot of armour and artillery etc. already and no doubt would love a whole load of brand new main battle tanks and attack helicopters for their offensive forces. Well my guess is that neither the US nor NATO allies are going to pay for all that, so let's give them what we can afford and what they need to hold their ground. Like I said earlier - "These are the type of weapons you need to hold off the full-frontal charging attack that ISIS specialize in, which is not militarily sophisticated but does require a defending army to be generously supplied with weapons which can deliver a high-intensity of direct-fire, because there is simply no time to call for reinforcements if your front-line soldiers don't have such weapons to hand." Thanks for that information but ISIS seized a huge number of up-armoured HUMVEES and MRAPs, looted from Iraqi army, when ISIS took Mosul and other places over the last year or so. ISIS even got hold of about 40 or so Abrams M1A1 main battle tanks. So thanks to the incompetence of the Iraqi army, the Kurds are facing a lot more heavy armour than just technicals.
No, you put a couple of machine guns and anti-tank weapons in strategic places, and use terrain and barriers to channel any enemy forces. That is how you conduct military actions, you do not spread them across the border at set distances like you are trying to keep out illegal aliens. And yes, it does take generally 2 years to properly train a force to effectively conduct combat operations. It is so much more then just teaching somebody how to pull a trigger. Less then 2 years, you get lots of cannon fodder and casualties. Trust me, this is not Call of Duty here. You are bringing up stats and thinking that is what matters. You are talking weapon range and fet per second and the like. I am talking actual strategy, tactics, and logistics. I am talking about making an effective army, you are talking about protecting a border from smugglers.
we created the conditions when we left not because we invaded the same thing would have happened in Germany and Japan if we wouldn't have occupied them after WW2 as a matter of fact it did happen in Germany after WW1 the reason Nazi came to power in Germany because we didn't occupy them and help them recover from the war after WW1
I trust the Kurds when they say they need Heavy Machine Guns and I don't trust misers that only want to send a few machine guns that are no use in flat territory, because the enemy won't be channelled in the way you hope they will oblige. It boils down should we, the people, trust someone who says "Don't send the Heavy Machine Guns the Kurds ask for, trust me Mushroom to leave them without guns". I say no, we, the people, should not trust you. You should not be followed. My request for 4,800 Heavy Machine Guns and the anti-tank weapons I ask for should be granted and the weapons sent as soon as possible. No, I don't trust you and neither should anyone else.
