Like Fallujah before it....

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**44Ronin**

As I explained earlier KRG situation is good trading scenario for Turkey.

No, Turkey will not cede land.

**Jihadin**

BAGHDAD, Iraq — Desperate to stem the tide of ISIS militants overrunning the country, an Iraqi general has put forth a radical proposal of telling his soldiers and fellow officers they should try to defend themselves, and — most shockingly — in some instances, actually counterattack, Questionable Media has learned.

“We have a quarter of a million troops, while ISIS only has 7,000,” Brig. Gen. Haddad said, trying to plead his case. “We also have tanks, artillery, and air power while they do not. We can put 35 soldiers up to every one of theirs. We would win a crushing victory even with just a half-assed plan of attack.”

While making an interesting case, Brig. Gen. Gabar Haddad has come up against stiff resistance from his fellow generals, who prefer to keep surrendering until American troops come in and fight for them. His suggestion flies in the face of the Iraqi Army’s established doctrine of Flee, Surrender, or Do Both.

“Fight back?” Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki asked amidst shock and laughter. “That’s a good one! We haven’t done that since 1988!”

The numerically-superior Iraqi Army was defeated in Mosul, the country’s second-largest city, in what one general said would be remembered as “a glorious moment for Iraq.”

For now, the strategy of the Iraqi Army is to follow established doctrine of stripping off their uniforms and fleeing in terror, then once the Americans return to implement counterinsurgency doctrine, Iraqi soldiers are to implement insurgency doctrine and bomb them.

“Once they defeat ISIS we will bomb them again,” Gen. Qanbar said of his “friends” the Americans. “It’ll just be like old times. So for now, any Iraqi soldier holding a weapon and wearing a uniform is in violation of a direct order. Our men will give every inch of ground until they reach the sea, and then they will swim.”

In a related story, the Kurdish Peshmerga has vowed to fight ISIS to the death, has taken ground from them, and still cannot be recognized as an actual country.

Read more: http://www.duffelblog.com/2014/06/unorthodox-iraqi-general/#ixzz35nFRdq2q

**CptJake**

I love Duffle Blog.

**sebster**

whembly wrote:
I first came aware of this concept back in the '90s during the Bosian War where the Clinton administration was roundly criticized for using disportionate responses. It's an asinine concept...and still is.

In war, if you have the tools... use it, ruthlessly. Because at the end of the day, the victors makes the rules.

Which is great if the only concern is winning and telling everyone how awesome you are. In the real world there are tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands dead bodies on the ground. Functional human beings, and I'm sure you are one, recognise that's a really bad thing. And so we take it as completely fething obvious that you should avoid giant piles of corpses wherever possible.

This means that if you can win a war without creating giant piles of bodies then you should do so. And if the only way to win is by creating giant piles of corpses, you should first ask if this is a war that is really worth fighting. That's proportionality, and I simply don't believe that you don't agree with that basic set of concepts.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
How so?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the concept... do you have any resources on that?

I'm not advocating that we'd use an entire armored division, fighter wing, nukes on small scale wars like the War on Terror™. I'm talking about in the case of WW2, we had just cause to drop those bombs on Japan (and I do realize that's another debate in itself).

Proportionate means the methods you use are proportionate to the threat faced and the capability of the enemy. So when you're talking about Japan, then the bomb is justified if you believe there is no means other than mass bombing or an incredibly costly invasion to force the war to an end. Whereas if we're talking about a few thousand soldiers who are fairly lightly armed, then the suggestions of mass bombing campaigns just aren't proportionate.

**Ketara**

There's something mildly entertaining about the fact that as the fighting in Tikrit continues, the ISIL fighters have taken to flying helicopters over the city and lobbing hand grenades out of it. It's that sort of low tech/high tech innovation that you only get in the Middle-East/Africa.

Meanwhile, ISIL are declaring themselves an independent Caliphate already. I really don't see them lasting beyond however long it takes to get Maliki to concede he's lost that end of the country though. They only have 5,000 fighters. The Sunni militias will have them for breakfast the second the fighting lets up.

I also like that Israel have become the first country now to officially call for an independent Kurdistan to be established. Meanwhile, William Hague is still prattling on about Iraqi unity.

**Wyrmalla**

Do the Israelis actually have any support from the Kurds or are they just looking for an opportunity to make a new friend (as they sure as hell have enough enemies in the region)?

You'd think the guys chucking grenades out of helicopters would spend the time making some barrel bombs. That just seems like a waste of resources, but I suppose they have their reasons (either it be a lack of training or just laziness).

**CptJake**

Ketara wrote:
There's something mildly entertaining about the fact that as the fighting in Tikrit continues, the ISIL fighters have taken to flying helicopters over the city and lobbing hand grenades out of it. It's that sort of low tech/high tech innovation that you only get in the Middle-East/Africa.

Do you have a source (not originating with ISIS/ISIL) of them flying helicopters over Iraq? I've looked and can't find anything looking credible at all.

And, I've read accounts of OH6 and OH58 pilots (cav guys) chucking grenades out of their birds in Vietnam.

Jake

**Jihadin**

CptJake wrote:
Ketara wrote:
There's something mildly entertaining about the fact that as the fighting in Tikrit continues, the ISIL fighters have taken to flying helicopters over the city and lobbing hand grenades out of it. It's that sort of low tech/high tech innovation that you only get in the Middle-East/Africa.

Do you have a source (not originating with ISIS/ISIL) of them flying helicopters over Iraq? I've looked and can't find anything looking credible at all.

And, I've read accounts of OH6 and OH58 pilots (cav guys) chucking grenades out of their birds in Vietnam.

Jake

When I use to crew Hawks. We had a smoke grenade go off on us in the rear packs. One of the grunts smoke grenade pin was pulled. Dang thing ended up under the seat sprouting out green smoke.

i to would like a link to them (ISIS/ISIL) chucking grenades out

**Ketara**

CptJake wrote:
Ketara wrote:
There's something mildly entertaining about the fact that as the fighting in Tikrit continues, the ISIL fighters have taken to flying helicopters over the city and lobbing hand grenades out of it. It's that sort of low tech/high tech innovation that you only get in the Middle-East/Africa.

Do you have a source (not originating with ISIS/ISIL) of them flying helicopters over Iraq? I've looked and can't find anything looking credible at all.

And, I've read accounts of OH6 and OH58 pilots (cav guys) chucking grenades out of their birds in Vietnam.

Jake

It was on Reuters/BBC a day or two back, sent in from some civilians sheltering at the University. ISIL captured two helicopters from the retreating Iraqi army, along with about 50 T-55's, & 1,500 motor vehicles, so there's no reason to disbelieve its veracity as of yet.

**Jihadin**

Ketara wrote:
CptJake wrote:
Ketara wrote:
There's something mildly entertaining about the fact that as the fighting in Tikrit continues, the ISIL fighters have taken to flying helicopters over the city and lobbing hand grenades out of it. It's that sort of low tech/high tech innovation that you only get in the Middle-East/Africa.

Do you have a source (not originating with ISIS/ISIL) of them flying helicopters over Iraq? I've looked and can't find anything looking credible at all.

And, I've read accounts of OH6 and OH58 pilots (cav guys) chucking grenades out of their birds in Vietnam.

Jake

It was on Reuters/BBC a day or two back, sent in from some civilians sheltering at the University. ISIL captured two helicopters from the retreating Iraqi army, along with about 50 T-55's, & 1,500 motor vehicles, so there's no reason to disbelieve its veracity as of yet.

Means they had pilots that flipped allegiance more likely.

**Ketara**

Jihadin wrote:
Ketara wrote:
CptJake wrote:
Ketara wrote:
There's something mildly entertaining about the fact that as the fighting in Tikrit continues, the ISIL fighters have taken to flying helicopters over the city and lobbing hand grenades out of it. It's that sort of low tech/high tech innovation that you only get in the Middle-East/Africa.

Do you have a source (not originating with ISIS/ISIL) of them flying helicopters over Iraq? I've looked and can't find anything looking credible at all.

And, I've read accounts of OH6 and OH58 pilots (cav guys) chucking grenades out of their birds in Vietnam.

Jake

It was on Reuters/BBC a day or two back, sent in from some civilians sheltering at the University. ISIL captured two helicopters from the retreating Iraqi army, along with about 50 T-55's, & 1,500 motor vehicles, so there's no reason to disbelieve its veracity as of yet.

Means they had pilots that flipped allegiance more likely.

The Sunni militias are working with ISIL, and a good chunk of them were in the military under good old Saddam. There's plenty of technical expertise floating around out there without needing turncoats.

**reds8n**

We're saved !

http://motherboard.vice.com/en_uk/read/anonymous-declared-war-on-the-islamic-state -- note one or two small but grim/NWS images contained in this link

Odd times indeed.

**djones520**

Doesn't anonymous declare war on everyone? And do they ever really do anything?

**chaos0xomega**

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2674736/ISIS-militants-declare-formation-caliphate-Syria-Iraq-demand-Muslims-world-swear-allegiance.html

ISIS has formally declared the establishment of a caliphate, or Islamic state, in the vast stretches of the Middle East that have fallen under its control, and has outlined a vision to expand into Europe.

The announcement was described as the 'most significant development in international jihadism since 9/11'.

Upon declaring a caliphate, the Sunni militants - whose brutality in attempting to establish control in Iraq and Syria has been branded too extreme even by Al Qaeda - demanded allegiance from Muslims around the world.

With brutal efficiency, ISIS has carved out a large chunk of territory that has effectively erased the border between Iraq and Syria and laid the foundations of its proto-state.

The announcement, made on the first day of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, could trigger a wave of infighting among Sunni extremist factions that have until now formed a loose rebel alliance.
A spokesman for ISIS declared the group's chief, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, as the leader of the new caliphate, or Islamic state, and called on Muslims everywhere, not just those in areas under the organization's control, to swear loyalty to him.

'The legality of all emirates, groups, states and organizations becomes null by the expansion of the caliph's authority and the arrival of its troops to their areas,' said Abu Mohammed al-Adnani.
'Listen to your caliph and obey him. Support your state, which grows every day,' he added in an audio statement posted online.
Charles Lister, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution, said the announcement was likely the 'most significant development in international jihadism since 9/11'.
Al-Adnani loosely defined the state territory as running from northern Syria to the Iraqi province of Diyala - a vast stretch of land straddling the border that is already largely under ISIS control.
He also said that with the establishment of the caliphate, the group was changing its name to just the Islamic State, dropping the mention of Iraq, Sham and the Levant.
However, in a map widely-shared by ISIS supporters on social networks, the Islamist group outlined a five-year plan for how they would like to expand their boundaries beyond Muslim-majority countries.
As well as plans to expand the caliphate throughout the Middle East, North Africa, and large parts of western Asia, the map also marks out an expansion in parts of Europe.
Spain, which was ruled by Muslims for 700 years until 1492, is marked out as a territory the caliphate plans to have under its control by 2020.
Elsewhere, ISIS plans to take control of the the Balkan states - including Greece, Romania and Bulgaria - extending its territories in eastern Europe as far as Austria, which appears to be based on a pre-First World War borders of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
ISIS regularly makes statements and releases propaganda calling for the return of the geographical boundaries in place before the Great War .
The group insist the carving up of the Ottoman Empire by Allied forces after the conflict - commonly known as the Sykes-Picot Agreement - was a deliberate attempt to divide Muslims and restrict the likelihood of another caliphate being established.
Muslim extremists have long dreamed of recreating the Islamic state, or caliphate, that ruled over the Middle East, North Africa and beyond in various forms over the course of Islam's 1,400-year history.

It was unclear what immediate impact the declaration would have on the ground in Syria and Iraq, though experts predicted it could herald infighting among Sunni militants who have joined forces with the Islamic State in its fight against Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his Shiite-led government.
'Now the insurgents in Iraq have no excuse for working with ISIS if they were hoping to share power with ISIS,' said Aymenn al-Tamimi, an analyst who specializes in Islamic militants in Iraq and Syria. 'The prospect of infighting in Iraq is increased for sure,' he added.
The greatest impact, however, could be on the broader international jihadist movement, in particular on the future of Al Qaeda.
Founded by Osama Bin Laden, the group that carried out the September 11 attacks on the U.S. has long carried the mantle of the international jihadi cause.
But the Islamic State has managed to do in Syria and Iraq what Al Qaeda never has - carve out a large swath of territory in the heart of the Arab world and control it.
'This announcement poses a huge threat to al-Qaida and its long-time position of leadership of the international jihadist cause,' said Charles Lister, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Doha Center.
'Taken globally, the younger generation of the jihadist community is becoming more and more supportive of [ISIS] largely out of fealty to its slick and proven capacity for attaining rapid results through brutality,' he added.
Al-Baghdadi, an ambitious Iraqi militant who has a $10 million U.S. bounty on his head, took the reins of ISIS in 2010 when it was still an Al Qaeda affiliate based in Iraq.
Since then, he has transformed what had been an umbrella organization focused mainly on Iraq into a transnational military force.
Al-Baghdadi has long been at odds with Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahri, and the two had a very public falling out after al-Baghdadi ignored al-Zawahiri's demands that the Islamic State leave Syria.
Fed up with al-Baghdadi and unable to control him, al-Zawahiri formally disavowed ISIS in February.
But al-Baghdadi's stature has only grown since then, as his fighters strengthened their grip on much of Syria, and have now overrun large swathes of Iraq.
Following his appointment as head of the caliphate, ISIS demanded al-Baghdadi be referred to as Caliph Ibrahim - using the name given to the son of the Prophet Muhammad in order to strengthen the claim that he is now the leader of the Muslims and a direct successor to the prophet himself.
The Islamic State's declaration comes as the Iraqi government tries to wrest back some of the territory it has lost to the jihadi group and its Sunni militant allies in recent weeks.
On Sunday, Iraqi helicopter gunships struck suspected insurgent positions for a second consecutive day in Tikrit - the predominantly Sunni hometown of former dictator Saddam Hussein.
The Iraqi military launched its push to wrest back Tikrit - a hotbed of antipathy toward Iraq's Shiite-led government - on Saturday with a multi-pronged assault spearheaded by ground troops backed by tanks and helicopters.

**whembly**

That's World War 3 stuff there dude...

**Medium of Death**

Drone strikes in 3... 2...

**Frazzled**

Thats nothing. You should see my map of Greater Texas. It encompasses all the Americas...

Australia is marked "here be dragons"

**chaos0xomega**

I'd say its unrealistic... but the truth is we have a jihadist group that is effectively in control of a significant chunk of Iraqi and Syrian territory, which is growing in size and strength almost daily, has significant wealth and resources available to it, etc. and they basically just called for the various smaller less threatening groups across a huge region to fall in line behind them. Some, no doubt, will, further fueling their strength and rise unless someone steps in to block them. Even if this never becomes 'a thing' this action could have a huge impact on destabilizing an already unstable region, and if (somehow) they do succeed in uniting even half that territory, lord help us all.

**Frazzled**

Well lets play devil's advocate. They won't retake Central Europe. Lets assume no for Spain as well.

So what?

**chaos0xomega**

Not without one hell of a fight at least, but if we're assuming they have somehow taken the rest of the territory indicated, they would most certainly have the resources available to put up one hell of a good fight for said territories.

Realize at that point we're talking about a partial chokehold on naval movements (effectively cutting the Mediterranean off from the Indian Ocean and the potential to do the same to the Atlantic), as well as an effective monopoly on a significant chunk of global oil production, access to a not insignificant nuclear arsenal and associated technology, space launch access, and I have no doubt that along the way to getting that point they would be able to lay claim to a rather substantial amount of western military hardware, like all the F-15s, F-16s, Abrams tanks, etc. that are in use by the various gulf states, etc. Even if they opt out of challenging NATO/the west for Spain and Eastern Europe, we're still dealing with a nuclear armed jihadist state encompassing about 1/3rd of the worlds population and perhaps the most significant resource wealth on the planet....

**PhantomViper**

Frazzled wrote:
Well lets play devil's advocate. They won't retake Central Europe. Lets assume no for Spain as well.

So what?

Hei! We kicked them out of our part of the peninsula well before the Spaniards ever did! How come Spain gets to remain independent but Portugal doesn't?

**Frazzled**

*I'm sorry, who in that region has nukes?
*They have 30 year old tanks. And? Tanks can't swim.
F15s/16s need parts.
*There is no significant navy in the region outside of Europe.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

PhantomViper wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Well lets play devil's advocate. They won't retake Central Europe. Lets assume no for Spain as well.

So what?

Hei! We kicked them out of our part of the peninsula well before the Spaniards ever did! How come Spain gets to remain independent but Portugal doesn't?

Sorry I overlooked Portugal there. Lets assume they remain un caliphated as well.

Not seeing how these guys survive a war with Iran or Turkey, or Syria, or Egypt, or Israel, or well, almost anyone with two guns and a walky talkie.

I'm too old a bunny not to have seen this scarey movie before.

**chaos0xomega**

Frazzled wrote:
*I'm sorry, who in that region has nukes?
*They have 30 year old tanks. And? Tanks can't swim.
F15s/16s need parts.
*There is no significant navy in the region outside of Europe.

*Pakistan and India? Lets not forget that Syria, Iraq, and Iran all have access to some level of nuclear know-how as well.*
*A lot of the M1s in the region are old, a lot of them aren't. The Saudis and Iraqis have some pretty new ones, and Egypt is in the process of acquiring new ones. Besides that, Tanks don't need to swim, when you're covering that large an area, with that much coastline, you're at some point going to begin shipbuilding... besides that, the existing Navy's in the region all have some capacity for sealift, even if its only minor. Crossing into Eastern Europe wouldn't be terribly difficult, while crossing into Spain would probably be relatively impossible barring a major naval expansion. Besides that, considering the sheer quantity of armor they may end up having access to between Soviet and NATO-Israeli equipment, quantity would take on a whole new level of quality*
*We're not talking about Iran here, the F15 and F16 operators in the region all have considerable parts stockpiles already, the Israelis (also covered by that territory) have the capacity to produce their own (and I believe some of the Gulf states might have limited capacity for this as well). While I doubt they would capture that capacity intact, I dont doubt their ability to eventually reverse engineer a solution to the parts issues. Lets also not forget that both Iran and Turkey (and again, Israel/India) have their own domestic arms industriess. While they might not be on-par with the US or even Russia, they are certainly capable of producing *something* and at the point where you're proposing a united Caliphate, I would think that they would see a significant upswing in capability and quality with the influx of new resources available to them as well as the increased cooperation that would result from it.*
*You don't really need a significant Navy in this case, but besides that, the potential materiel and technological gains to be had from conquering Iraq, Israel, the Black/Caspian Seas, and an effective monopolization of the Mediterranean could result in a new regional naval power that while it isn't necessarily able to challenge American naval supremacy, could become a 'big fish in a small pond' relative to most European and Asian/African nations.*

Not seeing how these guys survive a war with Iran or Turkey, or Syria, or Egypt, or Israel, or well, almost anyone with two guns and a walky talkie.

If they're smart, they won't challenge most of those nations until they've consolidated their gains, but here's the scary thing: there are already people high up within the governments and the militaries of many of the nations within this supposed Caliphate that would very much go along with this, and for the most part, even in those territories where they might not have 'inside men' there are most certainly Islamist extremists that will gladly fall into line behind ISIS and destabilize those areas from within.

**Frazzled**

Sorry didn't see Pakistan and India as well.

So now they pick a fight with China and Mother Russia and get obliterated.

Any fool can draw a map. So what? So far its 500 guys with AKs taking over areas that didn't want to be in Iraq in the first place. So far all they've done is actually had Iran, the US, and Russia be on the same side.

The argument is just stupid. Frankly people suddenly hyperventilating about this need to step back and consider a longer term view of the situation. Maybe the view, that if we didn't constantly stick our noses into these brush wars it wouldn't be an issue for us in the first place.

**Easy E**

We might see a Jihadist "civil" war as Al-Qaeda has to battle ISIS politically, militarily, and financially for control of the Jihadist movement. A full-fledged middle-eastern shadow war.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Easy E wrote:
We might see a Jihadist "civil" war as Al-Qaeda has to battle ISIS politically, militarily, and financially for control of the Jihadist movement. A full-fledged middle-eastern shadow war.

Sounds like a job for Solid Snake

these sorts of proxy wars are his specialty

(well, that and destroying bipedal nuclear armed machines)

**chaos0xomega**

Frazzled wrote:
Sorry didn't see Pakistan and India as well.

So now they pick a fight with China and Mother Russia and get obliterated.

Any fool can draw a map. So what? So far its 500 guys with AKs taking over areas that didn't want to be in Iraq in the first place. So far all they've done is actually had Iran, the US, and Russia be on the same side.

Its a lot more than 500 guys (tack another zero on there and it'd be more accurate, but the fact that so few can effectively control such a large area as they do already should give you cause for pause), and they're steadily gaining in size and resources. I suggest you do your homework on ISIS because they actually do present a serious potential threat to us and the rest of the world, Caliphate or no Caliphate. And despite getting the three of us on the same side, we're still no closer to actually doing anything about the situation.

Maybe the view, that if we didn't constantly stick our noses into these brush wars it wouldn't be an issue for us in the first place.

This part I agree with.

The argument is just stupid. Frankly people suddenly hyperventilating about this need to step back and consider a longer term view of the situation.

This part I do not. The longer term view, to me, implies that in the long term there will be an increasingly strong international jihadist movement unless ISIS is entirely dismantled.

We might see a Jihadist "civil" war as Al-Qaeda has to battle ISIS politically, militarily, and financially for control of the Jihadist movement. A full-fledged middle-eastern shadow war.

This seems likely, however my understanding of present circumstances is such that Al Qaeda at this point is an entity in name only. ISIS has already battled several other militant jihadist organizations for control and succeeded in destroying the elements that wouldn't fall into line, and absorbing those who would. While they and Al Qaeda are enemies, it seems that Al Qaeda doesn't really have the means to challenge them at this point. I think the fact that the intelligence community, the DOD, and the state department increasingly regard ISIS as a military organization rather than a terrorist or paramilitary one should be telling.

**Frazzled**

If they are a threat nuke them, if not leave us out of it.

We have an open border here. We need to deal with that first then the rest of the world's problems. The people in those countries wil settle it themselves. The thought that we can influence that is clearly in error. How have we psoitively influenced anything in the ME?

**chaos0xomega**

Given Barry O's desire to go nuclear free, we aren't nuking anyone for a few years at least... and again, while I agree with you that we should worry about our problems at home, the reality is that what happens over there could easily lead to a whole new host of problems over here.

**Frazzled**

Like what?

-Oil? Dictators and jihadis all need those petrodollars. Here's the dirty little secret...the oil is going to run out over there...
-Terrorism? Close the border. We already are at extreme risk until that occurs.

What else?