War against Isis?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-02-2015, 02:49 PM (This post was last modified: 12-02-2015 02:56 PM by yakherder.)
RE: War against Isis?
Somewhere between the catch and release standard of freeing detainees who were actively engaged in combat against us after two weeks due to lack of evidence so we can fight them over and over and over and over and over again and the eye for an eye strategy of burning them alive, there has to be some middle ground Tongue

I'm not one for vengeance. My choice would be to give them a warrior's death on the battlefield not out of hatred or as a form of retribution, but simply in the name of removing them from the game. If we do capture them, then let it be as prisoners of war who remain in relatively isolated confinement until the end of hostilities (if that happens to be the rest of their lives, so be it), and not as inmates who then go through a civilianish court process that is ill equipped to aid in the winning of a war.

And yes, I realize that any time we push someone is gonna push back. There is no golden solution here. Whether we stick our thumbs up our asses and let them do whatever they want uncontested, hoping they leave us alone, or go completely imperialistic on them, one way or another we're gonna end up in a scrap. And as a matter of personal preference, I tend to take the warrior route. I may or may not have made that clear in my posts in other threads.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes yakherder's post
12-02-2015, 03:58 PM
RE: War against Isis?
(12-02-2015 02:49 PM)yakherder Wrote:  My choice would be to give them a warrior's death on the battlefield not out of hatred or as a form of retribution, but simply in the name of removing them from the game.
IMO a "warrior's death" is silly talk.
The "Grunts" of war are merely obedient pawns doing what they are told, fighting a war they don't necessarily understand, fighting a battle they have no idea as to the strategic purpose of, killing people who are (just like them) grunts of war doing what they are told.
These ground to ground skirmishes are an outdated model (especially in combating terrosim) as there is no country to invade, no clear delineation between those you are fighting and their fellow countrymen who have no interest in the skirmish.
You go in under these circumstances and it appears that you (USA/West) are invading a Muslim country. You drop your bombs and many civilians are killed, women, children etc. And the terrorists laugh as more Muslims agree to set aside their differences and sign up to fight together against the invading West.
These wars, aren't wars, they are terrosism vs counter terrorism, they are a concerted effort to thwart terrorit attacks, to break down the supply chain. Supply chain of (funds, information, leadership, weapons, ammunitions supply, meeting places, food, shelter, foot soldiers, and sympathisers).
"Grunts" doing what they are told have no use in this day and age.
(12-02-2015 02:49 PM)yakherder Wrote:  And yes, I realize that any time we push someone is gonna push back.
Not just "someone" will push back, but many civilians will become motivated to join those that are pushing back, will be motivated to support those that are pushing back, will help conceal them, will provision them with food and clothes and shelter, will give them money, will give them information betraying the Western forces...
An invasion by the West will "create" an enemy to fight against. Will turn civilians into jihad warriors.
(12-02-2015 02:49 PM)yakherder Wrote:  There is no golden solution here. Whether we stick our thumbs up our asses and let them do whatever they want uncontested, hoping they leave us alone, or go completely imperialistic on them, one way or another we're gonna end up in a scrap. And as a matter of personal preference, I tend to take the warrior route.
I prefer the smart route, use of intelligence, strategic use of cutting them down from their leadership and their supply chains. A collaborative support role in working with the Arab nations, supporting them to address this issue rather than taking a selfrighteous, arrogant, military approach of leading an invasion with a goal to conquer.

Anyway, with Obama leading USA you have a smart thinking man in charge of the USA response. If you get a red blooded Texan such as Bush, or Bush Jr, or Bush Jr Jr, you will get a bullish war. Which will create more wars to come for decades to come.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
13-02-2015, 05:57 AM
RE: War against Isis?
I think Obama is handling this correctly on several levels. Firstly, I love the way he involves other nations. The days of one country going it alone are over, gone with the days of eye to eye combat. Let's hope that doesn't ever come back.

Secondly, he is not afraid of taking abuse because he "is doing nothing". If you are going to effectively deal with terrorists, you can't be announcing your plans. Any plans he does announce serve to detract the terrorist's focus from the actual plan.

Thirdly, he is a cool cookie, not very emotional.

And last not least, he did take out the brain behind 9/11. Nice and quietly. So he's got some good people working for him. A president is only as good as the people who work for him.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Dom's post
13-02-2015, 09:15 AM
RE: War against Isis?
(13-02-2015 05:57 AM)Dom Wrote:  I think Obama is handling this correctly on several levels. Firstly, I love the way he involves other nations. The days of one country going it alone are over, gone with the days of eye to eye combat. Let's hope that doesn't ever come back.

Secondly, he is not afraid of taking abuse because he "is doing nothing". If you are going to effectively deal with terrorists, you can't be announcing your plans. Any plans he does announce serve to detract the terrorist's focus from the actual plan.

Thirdly, he is a cool cookie, not very emotional.

And last not least, he did take out the brain behind 9/11. Nice and quietly. So he's got some good people working for him. A president is only as good as the people who work for him.

Walk softly, and carry a big stick.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
13-02-2015, 09:22 AM
RE: War against Isis?
It's important to remember -- "terrorism" is NOT an ideology - but a battlefield tactic.

It's nearly ALWAYS used by an group that has little or no hard leadership, supplies or any supporting infrastructure. They simply use what's on hand. Rocks and sticks being the last tool of resort.

You can't "Take out their supply lines" - because they don't really have one. Improvisation is their key.

All you can do - is take out the individuals involved, and try to dissuade anyone else from joining the cause.

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2015, 09:51 AM
RE: War against Isis?
(12-02-2015 02:36 PM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  
(12-02-2015 11:53 AM)claywise Wrote:  Well, count me as one of those Americans who can't "stomach" the idea that our strategy should include kidnapping, mutilating and killing non-combatants.

I think it's not really a matter of just "pissing people off." I understand the impulse to fight fire with fire, but matching a brutal enemy's worst instincts would not seem to bode well for the long run for any party. Call me a pussy, just IMO.

I guess, in the end, that I don't think my life or "way of life" worth stooping to such atrocities in my name. Not that I think the IS has any chance of actually endangering the United States in a significant way; harm, certainly, but not an existential threat.

I'm in agreement, and you're not a pussy. We don't stoop to their level of being monsters to stop them because that would make us monsters and no better than them.

I'm partial to some form of military action against them to stop them, but not kidnapping them.

I don't think these fuckers are a direct threat to me but if it comes down to it I'd rather be a monster who protected mine than a headless body.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Drunkin Druid's post
13-02-2015, 11:58 AM (This post was last modified: 13-02-2015 12:03 PM by yakherder.)
RE: War against Isis?
(12-02-2015 03:58 PM)Stevil Wrote:  The "Grunts" of war are merely obedient pawns doing what they are told, fighting a war they don't necessarily understand, fighting a battle they have no idea as to the strategic purpose of, killing people who are (just like them) grunts of war doing what they are told.
The grunts have had more face to face contact with the population than the couch strategists trying to convince themselves that they understand the situation better than we do because they read a book or a blog about it, or because they have a college friend who immigrated from there.

(12-02-2015 03:58 PM)Stevil Wrote:  These ground to ground skirmishes are an outdated model (especially in combating terrosim) as there is no country to invade, no clear delineation between those you are fighting and their fellow countrymen who have no interest in the skirmish.
The typical front line supported by masses of poorly trained cannon fodder is, indeed, an outdated model. The ground to ground skirmish is not. It has changed, but it is still at the root of all operations.

(12-02-2015 03:58 PM)Stevil Wrote:  You go in under these circumstances and it appears that you (USA/West) are invading a Muslim country. You drop your bombs and many civilians are killed, women, children etc.
All the more reason to do it face to face and be less reliant on randomly lobbing in "smart" weapons.

(12-02-2015 03:58 PM)Stevil Wrote:  And the terrorists laugh as more Muslims agree to set aside their differences and sign up to fight together against the invading West.
That goes both ways. Do you have any idea of what is happening as a result of the lack of an international response? This war is being fought by volunteers and mercenaries. The Christians that were attacked by ISIS are forming their own militia groups. Hezbollah is now using drones it got from Russia/China. The First North American Expeditionary Force is matching up Canadian veterans who want to fight ISIS alongside the Peshmerga as volunteers. There is even a Norwegian biker gang that has gone to Syria to do the same. All governments involved are heavily recruiting mercenaries/contractors, and with global military cutbacks, there are plenty of unemployed soldiers with combat experience to go around. Heck as a U.S. citizen with 13 years in the military, I can go to sites like shooterjobs.com and find military contractor work in Iraq easier than I could find a job making minimum wage on indeed.com. This predominantly ground fight is happening whether the U.S. or any other country chooses to be a part of it or not, and when ISIS is defeated not by a nation or a coalition with a predefined agenda, but by a gathering of unaligned paramilitary groups whose only common ground is their immediate desire to defeat ISIS, what happens next is anybody's guess. It goes without saying that there will be a power vacuum, and without a government presence managing the conflict, it will not be a government that fills that vacuum.

(12-02-2015 03:58 PM)Stevil Wrote:  These wars, aren't wars, they are terrosism vs counter terrorism, they are a concerted effort to thwart terrorit attacks, to break down the supply chain. Supply chain of (funds, information, leadership, weapons, ammunitions supply, meeting places, food, shelter, foot soldiers, and sympathisers).
"Grunts" doing what they are told have no use in this day and age.
These terrorists are occupying territory and infrastructure and controlling its flow of resources. What would you propose in place of grunts? Publicly condemning their actions and asking them to please stop?

(12-02-2015 03:58 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Not just "someone" will push back, but many civilians will become motivated to join those that are pushing back, will be motivated to support those that are pushing back, will help conceal them, will provision them with food and clothes and shelter, will give them money, will give them information betraying the Western forces...
An invasion by the West will "create" an enemy to fight against. Will turn civilians into jihad warriors.
As mentioned above, that works both ways. If government forces do not get involved, citizens will do so on their own accord. So long as we have a vested interest in the outcome of the conflict, it is counterproductive to not control that outcome.

(12-02-2015 03:58 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I prefer the smart route, use of intelligence, strategic use of cutting them down from their leadership and their supply chains. A collaborative support role in working with the Arab nations, supporting them to address this issue rather than taking a selfrighteous, arrogant, military approach of leading an invasion with a goal to conquer.
That sounds marvelous, but completely void of actual substance. When you say intelligence, what exactly are you referring to? As a scout, gathering intelligence alongside grunts is what I do. Without a ground presence, how do you propose we do that? And if your intent is for local forces to do it, that can certainly be debated. It does, however, contradict the point you're trying to make that grunts are not needed. What you instead mean to say is that you just don't want them to be our grunts.

(12-02-2015 03:58 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Anyway, with Obama leading USA you have a smart thinking man in charge of the USA response. If you get a red blooded Texan such as Bush, or Bush Jr, or Bush Jr Jr, you will get a bullish war. Which will create more wars to come for decades to come.
I'm not going to take the black and white conservative (or liberal) side. Obama is, indeed, an intelligent man. He knows absolutely nothing about military strategy, however. Rest assured that anything he presents in regards to winning this conflict was presented to him by someone else, then filtered through a long line of politicians with conflicting agendas before it ended up on the table as an option. Meanwhile, the conflict rages on, on the ground, grunt against grunt.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like yakherder's post
13-02-2015, 12:09 PM
RE: War against Isis?
Just heard that ISIL is on the outskirts of a US military base and they've taken a nearby town.

It may be a hairy weekend. Undecided

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2015, 12:16 PM
RE: War against Isis?
(13-02-2015 12:09 PM)kim Wrote:  Just heard that ISIL is on the outskirts of a US military base and they've taken a nearby town.

It may be a hairy weekend. Undecided

Or the basis of the next "300" movie, as that's about how many marines are at Al Asad Airbase Tongue

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2015, 12:28 PM
RE: War against Isis?
(13-02-2015 09:22 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  It's important to remember -- "terrorism" is NOT an ideology - but a battlefield tactic.

It's nearly ALWAYS used by an group that has little or no hard leadership, supplies or any supporting infrastructure. They simply use what's on hand. Rocks and sticks being the last tool of resort.

You can't "Take out their supply lines" - because they don't really have one. Improvisation is their key.

All you can do - is take out the individuals involved, and try to dissuade anyone else from joining the cause.

You can say you will take out their supply lines and watch for changes in activity or chatter. Statements that are served publicly are almost certainly not what you intend to do - just what you want to learn more about.

They are apparently fairly well funded. That's a supply line - money, for instance.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: