Iraq and ISIS Discussion

[Diamondback 2/2]

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.

ISIS, doesn't control the dam, the Iraqi forces have already secured it. ISIS does however, control a few oil wells, and those should be secured IMO. Geographically its a bit difficult without deploying large amounts of forces on the ground, with follow on support and opening up lines of communication (I.e. secure traveling routes for resupply and transport of oil). It would take a lot of troops and would cost alot of lives and equipment.

ISIS, is not necessarily providing an infrastructure to local populations, they are bringing a government structure that is inline with that areas tribal and religious belief's.

The only way to make ISIS look as the bad option would be to make those areas somewhat autonyms government regions or allow them to break away from Iraq/Syrian governments and form their own government and or state. Iraq and Syria will most likely not do this, due to the oil rich areas and nationality. It would be like Texas saying we no longer want to be part of the US, so we're breaking away and keeping all our oil, just ain't gonna fly.

Going forward, those area's as Freefalling alluded to, will have to become tired of ISIS and seek outside help in overthrowing and removing ISIS (Your classic SF mission).

The kill them all, or at least kill them there instead of here strategy, is a counterterrorism strategy. No, we cannot kill every single ISIS fighter, but we can kill as much of them as possible, and make it undesirable to join and or continue fighting for ISIS. Keep them busy there vs giving them time and space to plan and attack here.

Another option is a scorched earth, where we just destroy everything and everyone (this will probably be the Russian strategy) and although it will work in many aspects, the residuals effect's will be a follow on generation that will have a deep burning hate for the west/russia and the cycle will continue down the road.

The last option is genocide, kill their children's, children's, children. Remove that particular sect of Islam from humanity permanently. I imagine at some point the world as a whole will have to come to terms with this and accept it, if we want to move forward and out of the Islamic Terrorism age.

So no there really are no good options or golden bb options in dealing with this problem. If there was, we would've done it long ago.

 

[Centermass]

Looks like good ol Willy P is back and raining on someone's parade........

 

[R.Caerbannog]

Another option is a scorched earth, where we just destroy everything and everyone (this will probably be the Russian strategy) and although it will work in many aspects, the residuals effect's will be a follow on generation that will have a deep burning hate for the west/russia and the cycle will continue down the road.

The last option is genocide, kill their children's, children's, children. Remove that particular sect of Islam from humanity permanently. I imagine at some point the world as a whole will have to come to terms with this and accept it, if we want to move forward and out of the Islamic Terrorism age.

How about targeting the families of their officers? Both low and high level, that and any of their people involved in administrative niches that provide support to IS should also be prime targets. One could essentially torch the weed and its seeds before they spread.

The families of these shitheads always think that they are immune, they act as if they are untouchable. I wonder how much of their smugness will dissipate when they realize that they are fair game. What kills me is how everyone is looking at the militant arm of IS and ignoring the support element. Their families are the main support element, I don't understand why they are not treated as such.

At worst it could be a disincentive for lower level jihadis vying for leadership positions. At best it could cause a breakdown in and among low/high level managers. Also by killing off their admin/support personnel I'm willing to bet it will make running their territory more difficult. Doubt that they have an excess of admin/support people that can easily be replaced.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

How about targeting the families of their officers? Both low and high level, that and any of their people involved in administrative niches that provide support to IS should also be prime targets. One could essentially torch the weed and its seeds before they spread.

The families of these shitheads always think that they are immune, they act as if they are untouchable. I wonder how much of their smugness will dissipate when they realize that they are fair game. What kills me is how everyone is looking at the militant arm of IS and ignoring the support element. Their families are the main support element, I don't understand why they are not treated as such.

At worst it could be a disincentive for lower level jihadis vying for leadership positions. At best it could cause a breakdown in and among low/high level managers. Also by killing off their admin/support personnel I'm willing to bet it will make running their territory more difficult. Doubt that they have an excess of admin/support people that can easily be replaced.

Sounds good in theory, but what would you do if your wife, kids or family was targeted and killed? Or say it happened to you best friend, or maybe someone you really cared for? Me, that would send me over the top, make my mission in life destroying whoever was involved.

And just b/c you don't hear it on the news, doesn't necessarily mean it hasn't been done.

 

[Ooh-Rah]

How about targeting the families of their officers? Both low and high level, that and any of their people involved in administrative niches that provide support to IS should also be prime targets. One could essentially torch the weed and its seeds before they spread.

"Target the families" Really? REALLY? <<closing my eyes tight>> Aside from that fact that "THAT'S NOT WHAT WE DO", what do you think the long term repercussions would be in regards to cooperation from area villages, not to mention the rest of the world? Have you seen how the peace-niks react when a frustrated Marine pisses on a dead body? Read up on how well "wiping out the families and villages" went over in Vietnam...really, read up on it.

 

[Centermass]

Confirmed:

Suspected mastermind of Paris attacks Abaaoud died in police raid.

Bagged his cousin as well. Well, she bagged herself.

Link

 

[CDG]

Targeting families is a horrible idea on every level. How many moderate Muslims do you think all of a sudden decide to take up arms against us if we start doing that? This isn't a fucking movie where we get the leadership on the phone and tell them we have their wives and kids, and they decide to order the whole team to surrender, and everyone goes home. What the fuck dude?

Total war, as Diamondback 2/2 mentioned, is one thing. That is a recognized strategy and I've even seen several discussions on it generated in college International Relations courses. The deliberate and specific targeting of families is a completely different ball of wax. As someone who drops bombs for a living, I would absolutely refuse a commander who attempted to get me to target a family.

 

[Grunt]

I live by my signature line. I don't attack families just because. Kids can't pick their parents, if they choose later in life to come after us, then they become a target. We don't become "third world" to beat a foe, we beat them because we are better than they are.

Like @CDG said, total war is one thing, acting like the clowns is another.

 

[Totentanz]

Targeting families is a horrible idea on every level. How many moderate Muslims do you think all of a sudden decide to take up arms against us if we start doing that? This isn't a fucking movie where we get the leadership on the phone and tell them we have their wives and kids, and they decide to order the whole team to surrender, and everyone goes home. What the fuck dude?

Forget the Muslims (just for a moment, to make the point) - what happens if the strategy works but you lose every last bit of support you enjoy from the entire western world? Or even domestically?

I'm not one to make decisions driven by some Utopian idealistic view of our role in the world, but genocide isn't in my playbook.

 

[R.Caerbannog]

The way I see things is that the families are a viable target. They cloth, feed, and take care of the needs of the fighters and their officers. From what I've seen online there is quite a bit of IS propaganda that outlines the importance/duties of families to their fighters. I doubt that these guys can govern/rule as easily without their wives/kids acting in a support role. By taking territory and occupying it they are out in the open, why not hammer them and everything they love?

I know it sounds crass but I'm not talking about holding anyone hostage. Just saying to add their compounds to the approved target list and flatten them. No warning and no negotiation. Heck the pilot doesn't even have to know. We firebombed Dresden and dropped nukes on Japan, why are these people any different? They are actively trying to drag humanity back to the darkness of faith based ignorance.

As for the social outcry why worry, in their eyes we are all guilty just for existing. Where was the public outcry when IS started to slaughter civilians and dump their bodies in mass graves? At some point we as a country have to come to terms that we can't always take the moral high ground.

 

[AWP]

I watched some pred pr0n one day of a strike on your typical Afghan compound. The first bit of ordnance or two goes in and then you see squirters run out of a building, through the new hole in the wall, and 100 or so meters into a field where they pulled a 360. We brought in a Hellfire or two and broke up that party.

The next we're being briefed on the strike and everyone's cheering the squirter obliteration until we're told that was a group of women and children. We have young servicemembers crying. I shit you not. None of the O's or NCO's said a word. Being the asshole AWP I reminded everyone about the no-notice on the Twin Towers and that we don't order strikes on a whim. Some ISR platform (more likely multiple platforms) and possibly some SOF guys sat on top of this guy for days until we hit him. His family was unfortunate enough to be there. Given that a JAG approves probably approves every strike do we really think we'd drop/ shoot on that compound with non-combatants present?

JSOC has obliterated cells and organizations in various countries. While their efforts were undermined by the big picture, the fact remains we can "cha-cha-cha-cha kill-kill-kill-kill" if we want to and without going after their families.

We firebombed Dresden and dropped nukes on Japan, why are these people any different? They are actively trying to drag humanity back to the darkness of faith based ignorance.

Regarding that. From the US Strategic Bombing Survey:

4. The mental reaction of the German people to air attack is significant. Under ruthless Nazi control they showed surprising resistance to the terror and hardships of repeated air attack, to the destruction of their homes and belongings, and to the conditions under which they were reduced to live. Their morale, their belief in ultimate victory or satisfactory compromise, and their confidence in their leaders declined, but they continued to work efficiently as long as the physical means of production remained. The power of a police state over its people cannot be underestimated.

United States Strategic Bombing Survey: Summary Report (European War)

ETA: Regarding the Japanese, it is a bit more nuanced. The USSBS considers bombing but ignores the role of submarines in reducing the caloric intake and subsequent effects on morale.

United States Strategic Bombing Survey: Summary Report (Pacific War)

Progressively lowered morale was characterized by loss of faith in both military and civilian leaders, loss of confidence in Japan's military might and increasing distrust of government news releases and propaganda. People became short-tempered and more outspoken in their criticism of the government, the war and affairs in general. Until the end, however, national traditions of obedience and conformity, reinforced by the police organization, remained effective in controlling the behavior of the population. The Emperor largely escaped the criticism which was directed at other leaders, and retained the people's faith in him. It is probable that most Japanese would have passively faced death in a continuation of the hopeless struggle, had the Emperor so ordered. When the Emperor announced the unconditional surrender the first reaction of the people was one of regret and surprise, followed shortly by relief.

If we think an attack on civilians will do us any great good then we are sadly mistaken.

 

[Grunt]

The outcry is tremendous when we have "accidental collateral damage." Imagine what it would be if we started carpet bombing families because they are families.

I hear what you are saying in regards to the families being targets, but it isn't how we do business. Even in a support role, they aren't seen as combatants by the majority of the world -- except those that "practice terrorism."

 

[AWP]

An excellent book on strategic bombing during WWII:

Richard Overy - The Bombers and the Bombed

He looked at a number of factors including the German bombing of English cities. The effects on morale and production in England mirrored those of Germany.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

So how much blood, money and time do we spend fighting these people?

We know what we have done in the past hasn't worked. We know that no matter how much we try to pacify and or bring that region into the modern era, they fall back to their barbaric ways. So how long does the rest if the modern world put up with these assholes. How long do we allow them to dictate the pace of how we evolve and or progress on a global scale.

I'm by no means a globalist or progressive for that matter. But damn, even my dumb redneck ass, can see that barbaric people don't belong on this planet at this time and age.

 

[DA SWO]

1. Let the Russians target families (they have in the past, and I have no doubt Putin will do it again).

2. D 2/2: We are in a holding, retrograde at the moment. That's the best we can do until we get a President who doesn't think importing 100,000 jihadis annually is a good idea.
Hate to say it, but Cruz may be the only candidate that actually understands the immigration issue.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

Took this off of SAWMAN's facebook, paints the picture pretty clear for the naysayers on stopping these refugees from coming in.

 

[The Accountant]

Didn't read this specific article, browsed a couple from social media. The guy wants to buy an island, create an independent entity and keep the refugees busy building their own new nation. Not sure on the actual possibility of it occurring.


Egyptian Billionaire Naguib Sawiris Offers To Buy Mediterranean Island For Refugees

 

[AWP]

We're letting our humanity and thirst for the high road get in the way of dispassionate decision making. These guys can come in but the Iraq and Afghan interpreters who gave us so much, at great risk to they and their families, are turned away?

To paraphrase Doc Holliday from Tombstone, "Our hypocrisy knows no bounds."

 

[pardus]

The way I see things is that the families are a viable target. They cloth, feed, and take care of the needs of the fighters and their officers. From what I've seen online there is quite a bit of IS propaganda that outlines the importance/duties of families to their fighters. I doubt that these guys can govern/rule as easily without their wives/kids acting in a support role. By taking territory and occupying it they are out in the open, why not hammer them and everything they love?

I know it sounds crass but I'm not talking about holding anyone hostage. Just saying to add their compounds to the approved target list and flatten them. No warning and no negotiation. Heck the pilot doesn't even have to know. We firebombed Dresden and dropped nukes on Japan, why are these people any different? They are actively trying to drag humanity back to the darkness of faith based ignorance.

As for the social outcry why worry, in their eyes we are all guilty just for existing. Where was the public outcry when IS started to slaughter civilians and dump their bodies in mass graves? At some point we as a country have to come to terms that we can't always take the moral high ground.

So you're also cool with the families of service members becoming legitimate targets? Like your family?
I think even Al Qaeda has a ruling banning that now...

It's just a bad idea.

 

[Frank S.]

Looks like good ol Willy P is back and raining on someone's parade........

They say "Allah Akhbar" (sp? Oh who cares?) as often as I say "fuck".

I'm beginning to wonder if it means what I think it means....