The US Military only has a 7% chance of defeating ISIS!

Discussion in 'Terrorism' started by Derideo_Te, Nov 18, 2015.

  1. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    41,683
    Likes Received:
    32,790
    Trophy Points:
    113
    http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9351/index1.html

    How Terrorist Groups End


    A recent RAND research effort sheds light on this issue by investigating how terrorist groups have ended in the past. By analyzing a comprehensive roster of terrorist groups that existed worldwide between 1968 and 2006, the authors found that most groups ended because of operations carried out by local police or intelligence agencies or because they negotiated a settlement with their governments. Military force was rarely the primary reason a terrorist group ended, and few groups within this time frame achieved victory.

    figure1.gif

    In 10 percent of cases, terrorist groups ended because they achieved victory. Military force led to the end of terrorist groups in 7 percent of cases. The authors found that militaries tended to be most effective when used against terrorist groups engaged in insurgencies in which the groups were large, well armed, and well organized. But against most terrorist groups, military force was usually too blunt an instrument.

    The analysis also found that

    • religiously motivated terrorist groups took longer to eliminate than other groups but rarely achieved their objectives; no religiously motivated group achieved victory during the period studied.
    • size significantly determined a group's fate. Groups exceeding 10,000 members were victorious more than 25 percent of the time, while victory was rare for groups below 1,000 members.
    Its goal of a pan-Islamic caliphate leaves little room for a negotiated political settlement with governments in the Middle East. A more effective U.S. approach would involve a two-front strategy:

    • Make policing and intelligence the backbone of U.S. efforts. Al Qa'ida consists of a network of individuals who need to be tracked and arrested. This requires careful involvement of the Central Intelligence Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation, as well as their cooperation with foreign police and intelligence agencies.
    • Minimize the use of U.S. military force. In most operations against al Qa'ida, local military forces frequently have more legitimacy to operate and a better understanding of the operating environment than U.S. forces have. This means a light U.S. military footprint or none at all.
    Key to this strategy is replacing the war-on-terrorism orientation with the kind of counterterrorism approach that is employed by most governments facing significant terrorist threats today. Calling the efforts a war on terrorism raises public expectations — both in the United States and elsewhere — that there is a battlefield solution. It also tends to legitimize the terrorists' view that they are conducting a jihad (holy war) against the United States and elevates them to the status of holy warriors. Terrorists should be perceived as criminals, not holy warriors. [​IMG]

    ========================================

    Given that it will be just another massive waste of taxpayer dollars to give in to ISIS demands by putting boots on the ground there is no point in waging the failed "war on terror" any longer. The odds of defeating terrorism via military means are slim and none.

    Instead let's use what actually worked in the past. Find diplomatic, political and policing solutions to bring an end to terrorism because they are actually just criminals with guns and need to be found, caught and brought to justice in the most effective means possible.

    Pouring a hundred billion of the massive DoD budget into state and local police departments will effectively reduce terrorism here in the USA and keep them at bay. Use another hundred billion for InterPol specifically to track down and bring terrorists to justice will reduce their numbers elsewhere.

    When the terrorists figure out that they are just being treated like common criminals and that no one wants them around they will look for other alternatives to guns and bombs.






     
    Sallyally and ARDY like this.
  2. clarisse150

    clarisse150 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2012
    Messages:
    415
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    18
    It depend what kind of strategy does the USA need to use...
    It would be a real disaster to come at that point, but, they don't have nuclears weapons at ISIS...
     
  3. waltky

    waltky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    Messages:
    30,073
    Likes Received:
    1,196
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Granny says, "Dat's right - dem jihadis want to kill us...
    :grandma:
    ‘Radical Islamist Terrorism’ Is the Greatest Threat to U.S. and Civilization
    December 18, 2015 | Former Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said the “most significant threat” facing the United States and all of the civilized world is “radical Islamist terrorism.”
    See also:

    DHS Secretary: 'What We Are Concerned About Here in the Homeland Are Copy-Cat Like Attacks'
    December 16, 2015 | When asked whether or not the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, is operating in the United States, Homeland Security Secretary (DHS) Jeh Johnson did not directly answer the question.
    Related:

    New Federal Terrorism Advisory System Doesn’t Name Threats, Including Radical Islam or ISIS
    December 18, 2015 | In the new National Terrorism Advisory System unveiled by Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson on Wednesday in Washington, D.C., no mention is made of specific terrorist threats, radical Islam or the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
     
  4. tidbit

    tidbit New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2015
    Messages:
    3,752
    Likes Received:
    50
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Dirty bombs are probably not outside ISIS's reach. I often spend time wondering which city they are going to choose to nuke.
     
  5. tidbit

    tidbit New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2015
    Messages:
    3,752
    Likes Received:
    50
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Did Sarkozy tell you that ISIS couldn't get their hands on nukes? He would!
     
  6. clarisse150

    clarisse150 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2012
    Messages:
    415
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I've got the same fear... If one day, they succeed to have the atomic bomb, it would be a real disaster.... The only one "good" thing about that would be that the word would really move to destroy ISIS... Because now, there isn't a lot of things who have been done!...
     
  7. Jackster

    Jackster New Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2012
    Messages:
    3,276
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ISIS can be defeated easily 100% - those statistics are idiotic and totally fail to understand what ISIS is.

    Once they're hit hard they'll hide like little (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)es, without any land holding they have no caliphate with no caliphate there can be no ISIS. Yes some of the same slimy goat herders will turn up with other organisations but ISIS will be gone.
     
  8. Ddyad

    Ddyad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Messages:
    37,966
    Likes Received:
    15,330
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Victory is impossible and illegal under current leadership and rules of engagement.
     
    Sallyally likes this.
  9. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    41,683
    Likes Received:
    32,790
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Assuming that they could build and transport a dirty bomb into the US they would probably choose the same targets that they always go for.

    ISIS is looking to pick a "boots on the ground" fight with America. Giving them what they want is a tactical mistake. Far better to keep them on the defensive with bombing and increase intelligence funding to identify what they are up and where they will strike next.
     
    VietVet, Sallyally and DennisTate like this.
  10. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    41,683
    Likes Received:
    32,790
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You can't destroy an idea with the military. That is a complete and utter waste of manpower and taxpayer dollars.

    If you really want to destroy ISIS you need to cut off their supplies of new recruits.

    That is not the task of the military.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Define "victory" against ISIS.
     
  11. JakeJ

    JakeJ Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    26,395
    Likes Received:
    7,275
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The commitment to not putting troops in the field is a commitment to not defeating ISIS.
     
  12. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    41,683
    Likes Received:
    32,790
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ISIS cannot be defeated by troops on the ground because ISIS is a concept.
     
    Sallyally likes this.
  13. Ddyad

    Ddyad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Messages:
    37,966
    Likes Received:
    15,330
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The remaining elements of ISIS are persuaded to seek peace through surrender.

    See WW II 1945 for the last example of what real victory looks like.
     
  14. Ddyad

    Ddyad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Messages:
    37,966
    Likes Received:
    15,330
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Jihads stop just as soon as victory is seen to be impossible. There has been a long history of it.

    Jihadi leaders are always very rational in their conduct of war.
     
  15. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    34,443
    Likes Received:
    7,475
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Terrorism is minimized when the population opposes it.

    When governments such as Iraq, Syria, UK, South Africa, Israel and others disenfranchise those they dominate, opposition will grow more extreme.

    Guessing that more force will end violent opposition by those being repressed goes against ALL experience.
     
  16. Ddyad

    Ddyad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Messages:
    37,966
    Likes Received:
    15,330
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am trying to think of an example of unambiguous decisive victory in war that did not result from the application of overwhelming military, followed by surrender and occupation. Can you think of any?

    Was there any significant resistance after the surrender of Germany and Japan?

    Tribal warfare has often involved long drawn out low level wars of attrition that can result in 100% battle casualties and the elimination of enemies. No examples of that in civilized war.
     
  17. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    15,212
    Likes Received:
    2,344
    Trophy Points:
    113

    There is a fundamental error in applying the RAND report to ISIS. The RAND report focuses on small groups, its maximum size metric is 10,000 members. The report mentions AQ, which was a small group, it does not mention ISIS, which is much larger and falls well outside the definition of a simple terrorist group.

    Is ISIS a terrorist group lurking in the shadows, or is it a nascent nation-state with a fielded army with defined territory and infrastructure? Your report does not apply to ISIS.
     
  18. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    34,443
    Likes Received:
    7,475
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Fighting terrorism is not even slightly similar to WWII.

    Think IRA v UK, or Mandela v South Africa, or US v AQI during our peak troop count in Iraq.

    Terrorism is not capable of surrender.

    Terrorism goes away when the underlying motivation goes away - when those in Ireland no longer feel disenfranchised, when blacks get representation in South Africa, when Sunnis in Iraq think there is hope for representation in the government we created there (which caused the "awakening" that allowed US+Sunnis to make progress against AQI, and then evaporated when Maliki proved to be lethal to them).
     
  19. Ddyad

    Ddyad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Messages:
    37,966
    Likes Received:
    15,330
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Scotch Irish entirely suppressed the Irish for 400 years. The Brits chose to send their troops to "save" the IRA from those awful Orangemen. Result: IRA wins.

    When one side does not want to win it loses. Review the American campaign against the Barbary Jihadis/"pirates". When we decided we really wanted to win - we won.

    A nation that does not want to win should not go to war - it is a waste of time, treasure, blood and lives.

    And people often hate being trifled with more than they hate being defeated.
     
  20. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    34,443
    Likes Received:
    7,475
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Being on the outer limits of that analysis does not mean you can disregard it.

    ISIL still has fundamental aspects in common with other terrorist groups as opposed to nations.

    Assad's policies of disenfranchisement and lethal assault on civilians will cause the continuation of terrotism.
     
  21. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    15,212
    Likes Received:
    2,344
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ISIS isn't on the outer limits, its far, far beyond that study. They use terror as one tool in their arsenal, but have grown far beyond the definitions used in the RAND study. ISIS has broken out of being a mere revolution and is now state-on-state international war. ISIS controls land, natural resources, banking, it has international trade deals including agreements for oil.

    The reason a terrorist group like those RAND mentions are so difficult to defeat is because they are small groups, difficult to infiltrate, have support of some of the local population. They become visible when they strike, then melt back into the population. They have to be fought locally, outside forces are at a disadvantage.

    That's not ISIS.
     
  22. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    34,443
    Likes Received:
    7,475
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The IRA won greater representation for those in Ireland - not for themselves. The greater representation is what resulted in the total marginalization of Sinn Fein and related groups we don't hear about anymore. If UK decided to repress Ireland or disenfranchise them, terrorism would arise (given the failure of diplomacy). Reducing the terrorism in this case had little to nothing to do with military victory. UK tried that several times, and it did not make a lasting difference.

    The pirates were not terrorists. They had no political agenda. They went to battle for loot. So, that is another unrelated case.
     
  23. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    34,443
    Likes Received:
    7,475
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ISIL does have local support and I have known no cases of meaningful infiltration.

    ISIL has lost cities and gained cities. Look at today's NYT maps. It is still a highly flexible entity. The fact that it controls regions is simply a measure of its success including the acceptance and support of local populations. In Iraq they provided government that included the locals, as opposed to Maliki, who used his power to drive them out of politics and employment, and assaulted them with his military. That is not a weakness of ISIL - it is a strength most terrorists do not offer the population.

    If progress were to be made against ISIL, they would shrink to be like those in the Rand analysis. Expecting them to surrender like some WWII country is preposterous.

    So, we can only hope to face the issues Rand describes.
     
  24. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    15,212
    Likes Received:
    2,344
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Its not an either/or war regarding tools. ISIS will be fought with multiple methods, including those RAND indicates. ISIS is also identifiable, look at the maps, ISIS follows roads, they have transportation and communication and command & control hubs, they have headquarters buildings, oil facilities, vehicles, they mass troops. Conventional methods can be employed and very effectively. These methods alone won't destroy ISIS, but they will knock them down hard, and other tactics will also be in play.
     
  25. JakeJ

    JakeJ Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    26,395
    Likes Received:
    7,275
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So was Nazism, other than NEITHER were ONLY a concept. The Confederacy was not ONLY a concept. Slavery was not ONLY a concept.

    In fact, ISIS is a government and military force no recognized as legitimate by the UN or most of the rest of the world. Governments, militaries and the people of them can be destroyed.

    The religions of Islam and Christianity spread so greatly because they were more than a concept. Most people will accept any concept if the alternative is torture and death.
     

Share This Page