Iraq and ISIS Discussion

[AWP]

Why can't we kill our way out of this?

Iraq and Afghanistan worked out well.

We're fighting an ideology. We need to put a boot on their necks but we're kidding ourselves if we think that's the only solution.

Climate and economics may contribute to the conditions that lead to terrorism, but the one most obvious contributor is Islamic terrorism is the one no one wants to talk about: the cultural influences that drive people to those groups and to commit those acts, namely, the religion of Islam.

Which is what I'm saying. The "soft" issues are contributing to the rise of Islamic terrorism. They aren't the sole cause and I'm not so blind as to think that. Social or physical issues are making the Islamic world more open, for lack of a better word, to terrorism.

Adverse conditions will see humanity reduced to basic levels and they will choose good vs. evil. The Siege of Leningrad is a great example. People stuck together or they resorted to cannibalism, there was little middle ground. History is littered with people who reached the end of their ropes and decided to get the kill on. To kill our way out of the Middle East would involve killing damn near every Muslim in the ME and that is impractical. We need to drop bodies but a long term solution will require more. We simply can't (we need to be realistic here. All of the talk of nuking this or that is just stupid) kill enough to bring about peace.

 

[DA SWO]

Iraq and Afghanistan worked out well.

We're fighting an ideology. We need to put a boot on their necks but we're kidding ourselves if we think that's the only solution.



Which is what I'm saying. The "soft" issues are contributing to the rise of Islamic terrorism. They aren't the sole cause and I'm not so blind as to think that. Social or physical issues are making the Islamic world more open, for lack of a better word, to terrorism.

Adverse conditions will see humanity reduced to basic levels and they will choose good vs. evil. The Siege of Leningrad is a great example. People stuck together or they resorted to cannibalism, there was little middle ground. History is littered with people who reached the end of their ropes and decided to get the kill on. To kill our way out of the Middle East would involve killing damn near every Muslim in the ME and that is impractical. We need to drop bodies but a long term solution will require more. We simply can't (we need to be realistic here. All of the talk of nuking this or that is just stupid) kill enough to bring about peace.

Or isolate them, and a forced repatriation to their home countries.
Some will leak out, but it should be very telling that Islamic countries are not accepting these "refugees", Islamic countries don't rush billion dollar aid packages when another Islamic country suffers a natural disaster.
Why should we.

 

[Red-Dot]

Why not have Iran or the Saudis carve out a "new home" for their down-trodden Muslim brothers? Plenty of land there.

 

[Ooh-Rah]

So "this" just happened-

Russia hits ISIS ‘capital’ with 34 cruise missile strikes

 

[AWP]

So "this" just happened-

Russia hits ISIS ‘capital’ with 34 cruise missile strikes

They are obliterating us in the PR war.

Their cruise missile strikes from the Caspian are "neat." They fly right over Iraq. So do the Iranians, but they use Russian aircraft for that, not cruise missiles.

 

[Dienekes]

I find it strange that our airstrikes and offensive campaigns are often mired by someone decrying civilian casualties at every turn, but Russia has been bombing the shit out of everything, and I find nothing about civilian casualties even considered along with it.

 

[TH15]

I understand hitting "command centers" and such are important, but why are we, the Russians, the French, etc. hitting targets that cripple IS economically? For instance, I would imagine taking out the hydroelectric dam in Mosul would essentially shut down that region in terms of energy for them.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

I understand hitting "command centers" and such are important, but why are we, the Russians, the French, etc. hitting targets that cripple IS economically? For instance, I would imagine taking out the hydroelectric dam in Mosul would essentially shut down that region in terms of energy for them.

And also destroy the entire agricultural water system for southern Iraq.

 

[DA SWO]

Meh, I have to ask why? with all the smarts Military guys/gals running the show we haven't taken ISIL's (or DAESH) money machine (AKA refineries, and pumping stations) out?

Limit their ability to generate revenue and you start to limit their ability to function.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

Also, many don't understand or fail to acknowledge that that portion of Iraq and Syria (primarily the Shia area's) have a black market or more realistic a side market economic system. Kind of like a farmers market here in the states, but on a much grander scale. That area is not tapped into the host countries economy as one would imagine. It's also a key factor with regards to centralized government control, and regional areas not being represented at the national levels.

But yeah, hard to control or destabilize a economy that is based on hundreds of years old trading and bartering, that is pretty well absent of the global systems.

 

[TH15]

I agree @DA SWO , and that's the point I was trying to make by using the Mosul Dam as an example.

 

[Red-Dot]

I always thought we should have taken over the oilfields and crude refineries in Iraq and I think we still should. Not only as financial repayment but it would have also taken them away from ISIS control. Hey! that could be a good contractor gig!

Just saw Obama talking about Syrian refugees on FOX. Every time he talks it's like green diarrhea spewing from his pie hole.

 

[The Accountant]

Just saw Obama talking about Syrian refugees on FOX. Every time he talks it's like green diarrhea spewing from his pie hole.

Thanks, I just stopped eating my salad.

 

[Red-Dot]

Thanks, I just stopped eating my salad.

Glad I could assist with my visual cues!

 

[Dienekes]

I understand hitting "command centers" and such are important, but why are we, the Russians, the French, etc. hitting targets that cripple IS economically? For instance, I would imagine taking out the hydroelectric dam in Mosul would essentially shut down that region in terms of energy for them.

And also destroy the entire agricultural water system for southern Iraq.

Interesting question that can be posed from this. How do you attack critical infrastructure to starve the occupying beast without being completely detrimental to the innocent society at large?

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

Interesting question that can be posed from this. How do you attack critical infrastructure to starve the occupying beast without being completely detrimental to the innocent society at large?

This is where boots on the ground become necessary. You have to go in seize those assets and secure them. Then you dictate how they are utilized. The idea we can just drop a few bombs, kill a few head honchos and accomplish some sort of military victory, is completely insane. Those types of ideas generally come from jackasses with little to no understanding of conflict in a military sense, but seem to think they do, and push their uneducated opinions off as gold nuggets of wisdom.

Reality is you cannot conduct a successful military campaign without holding the ground, or more specifically the infrastructural assets on the ground. Why do you think we secured that dam, along with the oil refineries when we invaded the first time? Why do you think ISIS secured those assets as they advanced into Iraq? Why do you think Iraq was so quick to retake the dam?

Here is something to think about; agriculture makes up some 30% of Iraq's GDP, The rest being in Oil +/- a few other things. That one dam in Mosul, controls all of southern Iraq's agricultural waters. Which is its most significant agricultural area in Iraq. Saddam Hussein knew this, and used it as a weapon to control southern Iraqi territories.

But anyway, yeah boots on the ground controlling the infrastructure assets, is how you ensure proper control and use (well at least how you pick which side will get to use it).

 

[DA SWO]

Interesting question that can be posed from this. How do you attack critical infrastructure to starve the occupying beast without being completely detrimental to the innocent society at large?

Sometimes the population needs to suffer, watch those animals cheering and clapping at the executions and tell me they deserve mercy.

 

[Brill]

I understand hitting "command centers" and such are important, but why are we, the Russians, the French, etc. hitting targets that cripple IS economically?

Zero tolerance for collateral damage.

 

[Dienekes]

You have to go in seize those assets and secure them.

Sure, you can seize the damn, but if you cut off the water, the entire population suffers. ISIS, who still has the cities and ears of the people and farmers, blames you. Farmers listen to the propaganda and now hate you. You're now worse off than when you started because now people expect ISIS to retaliate and the farmers are inclined to help them because they want their water back.

ISIS has been somewhat successful in holding ground because they seem to be providing some sort shaky of infrastructure to the people. My question is on how to cutoff ISIS' ability to provide that infrastructure without generating the ill will of the people because now they have to suffer. Essentially, I believe the only answer would be covert sabotage, such as rendering the dam ineffective but not destroying it, combined with solid information operations to blame it on ISIS' incompetency. Although the people have to suffer due to lack of infrastructure, ISIS takes the heat, not you.

Anyone that wants to chime in, please do. I'm just trying to generate ideas on effectively defeating ISIS other than the "kill em all" approach.

 

[AWP]

ISIS has been somewhat successful in holding ground because they seem to be providing some sort shaky of infrastructure to the people. My question is on how to cutoff ISIS' ability to provide that infrastructure without generating the ill will of the people because now they have to suffer.

You are basically describing Afghanistan circa 2002. People tolerated them until they saw what the TB were about, but by then it was too late. Enter America and the people thought life would change.

It did, for about 12 years.

We can bomb whatever and whoever we want, but the people need to see real change, not Afghan temporary change.