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.

 Psienesis wrote:
Obama could present a strategy that would make Creed weep with the brilliance of it, but the Republicans will refuse to support it, because they don't like Obama.

So, he should go ahead and present it.

Sadly I very strongly suspect neither he nor his favorite advisors could actually come up with a brilliant plan to deal with DaIsh. None of their past performance would indicate any real level of competence in strategic planning.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
DaIsh put down a rebellion in Sirte (Libya):

http://time.com/4003049/isis-sirte-rebellion/

This would be an example of the Obama Administration's 'strategic planning' results in Libya...

Ouze wrote:
What's the justification for attacking ISIL that doesn't apply to North Korea? It's a pretty selective morality, isn't it?

Well, for one, ISIS has been invading and conquering swathes of other sovereign nations who are supposed to be our allies (Iraq). They are also capturing and executing US citizens and citizens of countries that are closely allied to us.

I'm not saying that that is justification for a ground invasion, but since you asked what doesn't apply to North Korea, last time I checked North Korea wasn't doing any of that. North Korea makes a lot of threats and noise, and doesn't follow through, except for tossing a few artillery rounds every great once in awhile, that usually don't kill anyone.

 Frazzled wrote:
You are correct. I apologize. I am just tired of the pundits on TV saying we should invade, should fight, when they have no skin in the game. I don't want my son to die for them. I do not want any father's son to die for them.

Enough dying in foreign lands. We have been at war for decades now and it has brought us NOTHING. NO MORE.

You are right - I would not be the one at risk. Be sure to thank your son for his service.

 CptJake wrote:
Sadly I very strongly suspect neither he nor his favorite advisors could actually come up with a brilliant plan to deal with DaIsh. None of their past performance would indicate any real level of competence in strategic planning..

So what specifically should we do? Are we invading the middle east in a multi-country, multi-decade campaign?

 Hordini wrote:
I'm not saying that that is justification for a ground invasion, but since you asked what doesn't apply to North Korea, last time I checked North Korea wasn't doing any of that. North Korea makes a lot of threats and noise, and doesn't follow through, except for tossing a few artillery rounds every great once in awhile, that usually don't kill anyone.

Yeah, it wasn't the best analogy. However, what they are doing to their own people could be described as a slower-moving holocaust. Yet no one seriously talks about military intervention to shut down their death camps.

Well, i think the first step to fix the ISIS situation is to revert to fundamentals - how to declare war, and how to win it. The current mantra we've had has been self-defeating and unjust... to the American people.

If a sovereignty is harboring terrorists, and/or enabling them, we go into to conquer the region or obliterate it. I think the more humane thing to do when a country like Iran openly declares war, and supports terrorism, is to not put boots on the ground, but drop tactical nukes until we think they've had enough - then drop a few more for good measure.

Let's just move on without revisiting the genocide argument for the 20th time. I know it's hard to resist, but we can do it guys.

 motyak wrote:
Let's just move on without revisiting the genocide argument for the 20th time. I know it's hard to resist, but we can do it guys.

I have a bingo square that says we can't.

Ouze wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Sadly I very strongly suspect neither he nor his favorite advisors could actually come up with a brilliant plan to deal with DaIsh. None of their past performance would indicate any real level of competence in strategic planning..

So what specifically should we do? Are we invading the middle east in a multi-country, multi-decade campaign?

1st: Decide what the actual objective is.
2nd: Figure out how to bring all elements of national power (not just the M) into the various lines of effort/lines of operation that will define how the campaign can achieve the objective.
3rd: Figure out the extent of effort it will take to implement, and start building the case to the people as to why we should expend that much

If you are not willing to expend the resources, don't do half assed stuff that wastes the resources you are willing to expend. That is what is going on.

What exactly is our objective for Syria, and how does Assad fit/not fit into it, and how are we going about achieving that objective? What is our objective for Iraq? How do Sunni/Shia/Kurds fit into it? How does Iran fit into it? Take it up a bit in scope, what is our objective for the region, and how do the various countries and non-state entities (like DaIsh) fit into it?

Right now the admin won't/can't answer these let alone craft plans to work towards achievement.

Give me objectives and I can suggest specific steps which may fit into a larger campaign plan. 'Defeat DaIsh' is a gakky objective and reeks of a massive lack of analysis/understanding, and if that really is the objective we are not allocating resources that have any chance of achieving it, let alone have we crafted plans/campaigns to effectively use the resources we have allocated. Perhaps it really is the objective and we have decided it is such a low priority that we will not allocate the necessary resources. If that is the case, the administration should explain this to us.

For the US?

Pull out all support, stop bombings, stop all military actions including the funding of the Turks/Kurds. Abandon Iraq to its fate and then let them figure out their own BS. Not our job nor our place.

For the World? Find a way to Ban Islam until they can figure out how to stop murdering thousands every year in the name of their religion.

And meanwhile, the Iraqi/coalition effort to take back Anbar Province is going swimmingly well.

The Islamic State overran an Iraqi military base and killed dozens of soldiers and policemen in an attack near Fallujah in Anbar province, where the government has been trying to dislodge the group for the past year.

In a newly released video, the Islamic State showcases its forces overrunning a military outpost near the city. The video shows jihadists attacking the base with armored personnel carriers packed with explosives and a ground assault team. The Islamic State seized tanks, armored personnel carriers, Humvees, and other vehicles. The bodies of dozens of dead Iraqi security personnel are displayed.

The exact date the assault occurred is unclear, but it likely took place earlier this week. The Associated Press reported that the Islamic State attacked Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) positions outside of Fallujah on Aug 16. According to the AP, “four suicide attackers drove explosives-laden military vehicles into government forces’ barricades.” Four suicide bombers driving US-made M113 armored personnel carriers are shown in the jihadist group’s video, which confirms the AP report.

The AP, quoting Iraqi officials, said that 17 Iraqi personnel were killed in the assault. The video released by the Islamic State shows at least 30 dead bodies of soldiers and police officers, but the number may be higher.

The jihadist group took over Fallujah in January of 2014, nearly six months before it overran large portions of Iraq. Last month, Iraqi forces and their Iranian-backed Shiite militia allies started an offensive to try and retake the city as well as Ramadi, the provincial capital of Anbar. The Iraqi offensive has made little gains in the past two months.

The US military is providing air support for the Iraqi military and the Iranian-backed militias. In the last week, US Central Command said it executed seven airstrikes in and around Fallujah. On Aug 16, four airstrikes “destroyed two ISIL [the dated acronym for the Islamic State] buildings, an ISIL VBIED, two ISIL heavy machine guns and an ISIL obstruction,” while another airstrike near Habbaniyah in the Fallujah-Ramadi corridor “struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed three ISIL vehicles and an ISIL fighting position.” In addition, two airstrikes “destroyed two ISIL mortar firing positions and an ISIL vehicle” near Habbaniyah yesterday.

Good thing we are so effectively bring air power to bear. Destroying those two machine guns and the foxhole are clearly major strikes against the DaIsh center of gravity.

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2015/08/islamic-state-overruns-iraqi-base-near-fallujah.php


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Good article on fighting in the 'Gray Zone'. Not DaIsh specific but still relevant.

http://www.armymagazine.org/2015/08/17/shedding-light-on-the-gray-zone/


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Good article on fighting in the 'Gray Zone'. Not DaIsh specific but still relevant.

http://www.armymagazine.org/2015/08/17/shedding-light-on-the-gray-zone/

 Psienesis wrote:
Obama could present a strategy that would make Creed weep with the brilliance of it, but the Republicans will refuse to support it, because they don't like Obama.

So? Not worrying about Congress hasn't stopped himbefore.

CptJake wrote:Sadly I very strongly suspect neither he nor his favorite advisors could actually come up with a brilliant plan to deal with DaIsh. None of their past performance would indicate any real level of competence in strategic planning.

CptJake wrote:

Ouze wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Sadly I very strongly suspect neither he nor his favorite advisors could actually come up with a brilliant plan to deal with DaIsh. None of their past performance would indicate any real level of competence in strategic planning..

So what specifically should we do? Are we invading the middle east in a multi-country, multi-decade campaign?

1st: Decide what the actual objective is.
2nd: Figure out how to bring all elements of national power (not just the M) into the various lines of effort/lines of operation that will define how the campaign can achieve the objective.
3rd: Figure out the extent of effort it will take to implement, and start building the case to the people as to why we should expend that much

If you are not willing to expend the resources, don't do half assed stuff that wastes the resources you are willing to expend. That is what is going on.

What exactly is our objective for Syria, and how does Assad fit/not fit into it, and how are we going about achieving that objective? What is our objective for Iraq? How do Sunni/Shia/Kurds fit into it? How does Iran fit into it? Take it up a bit in scope, what is our objective for the region, and how do the various countries and non-state entities (like DaIsh) fit into it?

Right now the admin won't/can't answer these let alone craft plans to work towards achievement.

Give me objectives and I can suggest specific steps which may fit into a larger campaign plan. 'Defeat DaIsh' is a gakky objective and reeks of a massive lack of analysis/understanding, and if that really is the objective we are not allocating resources that have any chance of achieving it, let alone have we crafted plans/campaigns to effectively use the resources we have allocated. Perhaps it really is the objective and we have decided it is such a low priority that we will not allocate the necessary resources. If that is the case, the administration should explain this to us.

Your plan is pretty light on specifics. You seem to indicate that there IS "a brilliant plan for dealing with them" and that the administration simply can't think of it or is too weak to use it or what have you, so why not fill in some of those blank spots you have and let us know what to do? You're saying "defeat them" is a gakky objective, what's a better one?

Because otherwise, it feels a lot like the GOP plans to "replace Obamacare", which all seem to be heavy on "something better" and blank on what that might be.

Ouze wrote:

CptJake wrote:Sadly I very strongly suspect neither he nor his favorite advisors could actually come up with a brilliant plan to deal with DaIsh. None of their past performance would indicate any real level of competence in strategic planning.

CptJake wrote:

Ouze wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Sadly I very strongly suspect neither he nor his favorite advisors could actually come up with a brilliant plan to deal with DaIsh. None of their past performance would indicate any real level of competence in strategic planning..

So what specifically should we do? Are we invading the middle east in a multi-country, multi-decade campaign?

1st: Decide what the actual objective is.
2nd: Figure out how to bring all elements of national power (not just the M) into the various lines of effort/lines of operation that will define how the campaign can achieve the objective.
3rd: Figure out the extent of effort it will take to implement, and start building the case to the people as to why we should expend that much

If you are not willing to expend the resources, don't do half assed stuff that wastes the resources you are willing to expend. That is what is going on.

What exactly is our objective for Syria, and how does Assad fit/not fit into it, and how are we going about achieving that objective? What is our objective for Iraq? How do Sunni/Shia/Kurds fit into it? How does Iran fit into it? Take it up a bit in scope, what is our objective for the region, and how do the various countries and non-state entities (like DaIsh) fit into it?

Right now the admin won't/can't answer these let alone craft plans to work towards achievement.

Give me objectives and I can suggest specific steps which may fit into a larger campaign plan. 'Defeat DaIsh' is a gakky objective and reeks of a massive lack of analysis/understanding, and if that really is the objective we are not allocating resources that have any chance of achieving it, let alone have we crafted plans/campaigns to effectively use the resources we have allocated. Perhaps it really is the objective and we have decided it is such a low priority that we will not allocate the necessary resources. If that is the case, the administration should explain this to us.

Your plan is pretty light on specifics. You seem to indicate that IS "a brilliant plan for dealing with them", so why not fill in some of those blank spots you have and let us know what to do? You're saying "defeat them" is a gakky objective, what's a better one?

This is starting to feel a lot like the GOP plans to "replace Obamacare", which all seem to be heavy on something better and blank on what that might be.

See the highlighted portion and the rest of that paragraph. I do not claim mine is a brilliant plan (because there are no objectives which to set a plan). I claim right now our 'plan' sucks ass in industrial quantities.

So our plan sucks, but you can't suggest have a better one? Go ahead and fill in whatever the objectives are on your own, with whatever you think is practically and politically possible. You suggested initially we "defeat them" is a terrible objective. What should the objective be?

Hand to heart, I would read it with an open mind. Although not until much later tonight.

 Psienesis wrote:
Obama could present a strategy that would make Creed weep with the brilliance of it, but the Republicans will refuse to support it, because they don't like Obama.

Obama's Iraq strategy, grab credit for getting U.S. out of Iraq, then whine like a bitch saying it was 't his decision when things go bad:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KFqrBJ_1rro

Relapse wrote:
Obama's Iraq strategy, grab credit for getting U.S. out of Iraq, then whine like a bitch saying it was 't his decision when things go bad:

George W. Bush signed the SOFA that agreed all general combat troops would leave by 2009, and all US forces would leave Iraq by 2011. The Iraqi government refused to sign a new one. President Obama pushed for a residual peacekeeping force. The Iraqi government refused.

We had no legal authority to stay, short of re-invading what is now an allied country.

I'm sorry that reality does not line up with your narrative.

Also, what does this have to do with ISIS? You need to try to resist the incredible urge to thrust your Obama hate-boner everywhere.

Because in the middle of Obama taking credit for the Iraq withdrawal, Isis began gaining ground and kicking ass all over the place. It was at that point he started saying it was 't his idea to get us out.
He was the one forging the narrative he withdrew the U.S. Up to that point.
Your Obama can do no wrong feelings are blinding you to that fact.

Ouze wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Obama's Iraq strategy, grab credit for getting U.S. out of Iraq, then whine like a bitch saying it was 't his decision when things go bad:

George W. Bush signed the SOFA that agreed all general combat troops would leave by 2009, and all US forces would leave Iraq by 2011. The Iraqi government refused to sign a new one. President Obama pushed for a residual peacekeeping force. The Iraqi government refused.

We had no legal authority to stay, short of re-invading what is now an allied country.

I'm sorry that reality does not line up with your narrative.

Also, what does this have to do with ISIS? You need to try to resist the incredible urge to thrust your Obama hate-boner everywhere.

Oh c'mon now Ouze. Use your famous Google-skillz. There were every indication that Iraq would've signed a new SOFA had we pushed for it.

However, in fairness Relapse, Obama campaigned for this... so, he did exactly what the voters wanted him to do.

As to how this relates to ISIS... its just another example of the disasterous Obama's foreign policy.

Relapse wrote:
Your Obama can do no wrong feelings are blinding you to that fact.

Please. I think he's an average, at best, President and there is no shortage of things I'd be happy to call him out for, such as caving on the public option, expanding warrantless wiretapping, keeping guantanamo bay open, refusing to try terrorists in criminal trials, refusing to investigate detainee tortures, vacillating on gay marriage until it was politically useful to back it, operation fast & furious, claiming the executive has the authority to kill American citizens without any due process in violation of EO12333, violations of the War Power resolution in Libya and against ISIL, and any number of other things. I have been utterly consistent on all of these topics.

 whembly wrote:
Oh c'mon now Ouze. Use your famous Google-skillz. There were every indication that Iraq would've signed a new SOFA had we pushed for it

Actually it does, since it opened the door for them to come through.

Ouze wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Your Obama can do no wrong feelings are blinding you to that fact.

Please. I think he's an average, at best, President and there is no shortage of things I'd be happy to call him out for, such as caving on the public option, expanding warrantless wiretapping, keeping guantanamo bay open, refusing to try terrorists in criminal trials, refusing to investigate detainee tortures, vacillating on gay marriage until it was politically useful to back it, operation fast & furious, claiming the executive has the authority to kill American citizens without any due process in violation of EO12333, violations of the War Power resolution in Libya and against ISIL, and any number of other things. I have been utterly consistent on all of these topics.

I'll back you up on these... you've been fairly vocal and consistent in those aspects.

Ouze wrote:
snip quotes got goober'ed

I don't want to get into the Iraq war quagmire here.... suffice to say, as a foreign policy matters, Obama dropped the ball getting that SOFA agreement. He simply was doing what he promised to do during the campaign. But, in regards to ISIL.... they're were largely formed because Obama's lack of policy and general apathy. Even some of his generals said as much:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/26/us-troop-withdrawal-let-islamic-state-enter-iraq-m/?page=all

 whembly wrote:

I don't want to get into the Iraq war quagmire here.... suffice to say, as a foreign policy matters, Obama dropped the ball getting that SOFA agreement. He simply was doing what he promised to do during the campaign. But, in regards to ISIL.... they're were largely formed because Obama's lack of policy and general apathy. Even some of his generals said as much:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/26/us-troop-withdrawal-let-islamic-state-enter-iraq-m/?page=all

IMO, it's both Iraqi leadership (at the time) and Obama's fault... Obama followed with Bush's SOFA, as his campaign promised, but I think once he was in office, and was appraised of the actual situation, he woulda/coulda/shoulda tried to keep us there in some manner to prevent ISIS/ISIL. On top of a "failure" to sell something for the greater good, al Maliki refused to really negotiate any kind of new deals, when he probably should have realized his position was tenuous at best.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Who are you going to fight? How are you going to identify them? What happens when a continuous stream of volunteers joins them? What happens when you start firebombing villages to save the village?

I've been asking conservatives this question and receiving no answer in return since ISIL's eminence last year.

Is there any pro-boots-on-the-ground individual on this site who can provide an answer to this question? Anyone?

I have two answers, one flippant, one not. (Sorry, but 'If they're shooting at you, they're the enemy' was my very first thought reading it.)

1) ISIL have a uniform, and are an army, despite the media still calling them an insurgency. Look for men in enemy uniforms, and they're probably the enemy. They've made no bones about being an enemy of the West in general and the US in specific.
2) To prevent the continuous stream of volunteers joining them, we have to underline they butcher fellow Muslims, they break the laws of Islam, and they're none too shy about either of the above. Ironically, the Presidents work with Iran over nuclear issues may bare unexpected dividends in the area of Syria. We also have to reign Turkey and Israel in. Offer to remove Assad in exchange for support against ISIL and the US will start getting some of that stream of volunteers.

I hate to point this out, but the villages have already been bombed, gassed, raped, and left with blood running in the streets. Your concerns about public perception of casualties by the Syria might have had merit a year or two back, but they really don't anymore. At this point, it's passed the Godzilla Threshold. This is a civil war that's been going on for some time now. Many civilians have already fled, and damage to infrastructure, homes, etc etc is extensive already. Parts of Damascus and Aleppo look like Stalingrad.

The real problem is that casualties will be high and the opposition unlikely to surrender. I can't see this one well. It's hazy. It reminds me of Okinawa and Iwo Jima,. They've been using a combination of Modern Terrorist and Japanese Imperial tactics. Suicide bombers followed up by human wave assaults.

Many branches, all go to dark places now. Left alone, it's a cancer in the middle east that will grow worse until it's cut out one way or another. Again as before, the longer it goes on, the worse it will be. I said this when it was an insurgency and asked it you wanted to wait until it's an army and poses a real threat to the region. You all told me that I was a war mongering idiot for suggesting such a thing was even possible and they would never be that army. Now it is that army.

Will you wait until it's a true Jihad? Suleiman's invasion was a bloodbath in Europe, I hesitate to imagine it's modern sequel.

ATM the US allies fight each other almost as much as they fight the enemy. It's only a matter of time before some bright bulb in ISIL figures out a way to use that.

Many branches, all go to dark places now. Left alone, it's a cancer in the middle east that will grow worse until it's cut out one way or another. Again as before, the longer it goes on, the worse it will be. I said this when it was an insurgency and asked it you wanted to wait until it's an army and poses a real threat to the region. You all told me that I was a war mongering idiot for suggesting such a thing was even possible and they would never be that army. Now it is that army.

Its not a cancer. This is a reform back to how it was in the beginning.

 Frazzled wrote:

Many branches, all go to dark places now. Left alone, it's a cancer in the middle east that will grow worse until it's cut out one way or another. Again as before, the longer it goes on, the worse it will be. I said this when it was an insurgency and asked it you wanted to wait until it's an army and poses a real threat to the region. You all told me that I was a war mongering idiot for suggesting such a thing was even possible and they would never be that army. Now it is that army.

Its not a cancer. This is a reform back to how it was in the beginning.

You know how Muhammed didn't knock the ruins of Palmyra down, but ISIS is (wow, that's a lot of "is")? They're not consistent with anything but their own desires.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Many branches, all go to dark places now. Left alone, it's a cancer in the middle east that will grow worse until it's cut out one way or another. Again as before, the longer it goes on, the worse it will be. I said this when it was an insurgency and asked it you wanted to wait until it's an army and poses a real threat to the region. You all told me that I was a war mongering idiot for suggesting such a thing was even possible and they would never be that army. Now it is that army.

Its not a cancer. This is a reform back to how it was in the beginning.

You know how Muhammed didn't knock the ruins of Palmyra down, but ISIS is (wow, that's a lot of "is")? They're not consistent with anything but their own desires.

I don't think you really want to go there.

 kveldulf wrote:
Well, i think the first step to fix the ISIS situation is to revert to fundamentals - how to declare war, and how to win it. The current mantra we've had has been self-defeating and unjust... to the American people.

If a sovereignty is harboring terrorists, and/or enabling them, we go into to conquer the region or obliterate it. I think the more humane thing to do when a country like Iran openly declares war, and supports terrorism, is to not put boots on the ground, but drop tactical nukes until we think they've had enough - then drop a few more for good measure.

So we first invade Texas?

 Psienesis wrote:

 kveldulf wrote:
Well, i think the first step to fix the ISIS situation is to revert to fundamentals - how to declare war, and how to win it. The current mantra we've had has been self-defeating and unjust... to the American people.

If a sovereignty is harboring terrorists, and/or enabling them, we go into to conquer the region or obliterate it. I think the more humane thing to do when a country like Iran openly declares war, and supports terrorism, is to not put boots on the ground, but drop tactical nukes until we think they've had enough - then drop a few more for good measure.

So we first invade Texas?

(Rips shirt sleeves off-revealing spring loaded wiener dog launchers). Bring it, sunshine!

"Dog created Texas to train the Faithful"
-Ancient Fremen saying

 Frazzled wrote:

Many branches, all go to dark places now. Left alone, it's a cancer in the middle east that will grow worse until it's cut out one way or another. Again as before, the longer it goes on, the worse it will be. I said this when it was an insurgency and asked it you wanted to wait until it's an army and poses a real threat to the region. You all told me that I was a war mongering idiot for suggesting such a thing was even possible and they would never be that army. Now it is that army.

Its not a cancer. This is a reform back to how it was in the beginning.

Except that the rest of civilized humanity has moved on from claiming "God wills it!" as their reasoning for murdering & raping their way across entire countries...

There's no reasonable excuse for Islamic State. They're nothing except a bunch of psychotic savages using religion as an excuse for committing mass genocide against everything & everyone who doesn't submit to their medieval BS.

Experiment 626 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Many branches, all go to dark places now. Left alone, it's a cancer in the middle east that will grow worse until it's cut out one way or another. Again as before, the longer it goes on, the worse it will be. I said this when it was an insurgency and asked it you wanted to wait until it's an army and poses a real threat to the region. You all told me that I was a war mongering idiot for suggesting such a thing was even possible and they would never be that army. Now it is that army.

Its not a cancer. This is a reform back to how it was in the beginning.

Except that the rest of civilized humanity has moved on from claiming "God wills it!" as their reasoning for murdering & raping their way across entire countries...

There's no reasonable excuse for Islamic State. They're nothing except a bunch of psychotic savages using religion as an excuse for committing mass genocide against everything & everyone who doesn't submit to their medieval BS.

While I agree to the second (no excuse for ISIL), I disagree that humanity has moved on. People kill other people over...sports.