ISIS

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.

**djones520**

LethalShade wrote:
We will not solve anything with airstrikes only.

We're slowly waking up to that realization.

https://gma.yahoo.com/carter-u-special-operations-forces-expanding-iraq-182504093.html

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Like I said, its Iraq all over again. Within a year, the British Parliament will be debating whether to deploy ground troops. We're on a slippery slope, with no end in sight. Before you know it we'll be getting sucked into another decade long conflict.

**CptJake**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Then they capture him again, and send him up the line again.

Or, don't take the prisoner. Why the feth should I send troops on a capture mission when we can't come up with a damned policy for what to do with the detainee?

It is indicative of the lack of coherent policy for the whole mess. Which is why it is ineffective.

**djones520**

CptJake wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Then they capture him again, and send him up the line again.

Or, don't take the prisoner. Why the feth should I send troops on a capture mission when we can't come up with a damned policy for what to do with the detainee?

It is indicative of the lack of coherent policy for the whole mess. Which is why it is ineffective.

Don't ask me how many times we may have caught someone who may have been responsible for maybe IDF'ing a place that may have held US Forces...

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

djones520 wrote:
CptJake wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Then they capture him again, and send him up the line again.

Or, don't take the prisoner. Why the feth should I send troops on a capture mission when we can't come up with a damned policy for what to do with the detainee?

It is indicative of the lack of coherent policy for the whole mess. Which is why it is ineffective.

Don't ask me how many times we may have caught someone who may have been responsible for maybe IDF'ing a place that may have held US Forces...

How many times?

**djones520**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
djones520 wrote:
CptJake wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Then they capture him again, and send him up the line again.

Or, don't take the prisoner. Why the feth should I send troops on a capture mission when we can't come up with a damned policy for what to do with the detainee?

It is indicative of the lack of coherent policy for the whole mess. Which is why it is ineffective.

Don't ask me how many times we may have caught someone who may have been responsible for maybe IDF'ing a place that may have held US Forces...

How many times?

*sighs* Can't you read?

But seriously, I can't say how many times this highly hypothetical situation many have happened. Cause, it's all hypothetical.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

I can. Thats why I asked.

You served right?

In this sort of situation, knowing that any captives you send through proper channels will just end up released, does that increase the temptation to 'take no prisoners'?

**djones520**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I can. Thats why I asked. You served right?

In this sort of situation, knowing that any captives you send through proper channels will just end up released, does that increase the temptation to 'take no prisoners'?

I still serve. Just got home from Afghanistan a couple months ago.

I'm a TOC Jockey, so I can't really answer your question.

**CptJake**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I can. Thats why I asked. You served right?

In this sort of situation, knowing that any captives you send through proper channels will just end up released, does that increase the temptation to 'take no prisoners'?

Yes and no, but let me explain.

Our guys tend to not be cold blooded murderers, especially the types making up the group referenced in the link I sent.

BUT, specifically going to capture is a LOT harder than going in to kill. So the mission entails a lot more risk.

The inclination may be to go in as a kill mission, but bring back casualties that are not dead. Why go through the extra hassle and risk of purposely trying to capture if you know you are gonna have to release (or turn over to someone you know will release).

You'll never get someone on record to admit it, but I strongly suspect the Bin Laden raid was meant as a kill raid from the start, as they know they didn't know WTF to do with him if captured. We STILL can't prosecute his buddies we've had for years because the policies are so fethed up.

To see us asking guys to take the extra risk inherent in a capture mission without having the courtesy at the upper levels to come up with a policy to handle detainees is ludicrous.

May as well just bomb 'em from drones rather than risk our guys lives at that point.

**BaronIveagh**

djones520 wrote:
We're slowly waking up to that realization.

"A modern, autonomous, and thoroughly trained Air Force in being at all times will not alone be sufficient..." Hap Arnold, inventor of the Air Force.

**Kilkrazy**

That Marine chap's newspaper article makes a lot of sense.

**Frazzled**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Then they capture him again, and send him up the line again.

Sure if by up the line you mean opt him out.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Like I said, its Iraq all over again. Within a year, the British Parliament will be debating whether to deploy ground troops. We're on a slippery slope, with no end in sight. Before you know it we'll be getting sucked into another decade long conflict.

This.
Can we smash ISIL there? Of course, roll them like bad bacon.

But what then?

**jasper76**

Kilkrazy wrote:
That Marine chap's newspaper article makes a lot of sense.

I thought so. At this point, I think it has become clear that the threat of allowing ISIS to continue to exist as a "state" outweighs the implications of a sincere campaign for their removal. In any case, I thought it was a well-written and thought-provoking opinion piece.

**LethalShade**

djones520 wrote:
LethalShade wrote:
We will not solve anything with airstrikes only.

We're slowly waking up to that realization.

https://gma.yahoo.com/carter-u-special-operations-forces-expanding-iraq-182504093.html

Great.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Frazzled wrote:

But what then?

We go through public statements, social media support/likes and find anyone who supports the idea that Christianity should be the legal religion (ie, wants to create a Judeo-Christian promulgation department at the federal level, or wants to screen refugees for christians only, etc), and move them there to establish their own theocracy?

In all seriousness we'd probably have to do as we did in Germany: after kicking the gak out of them, we'll stick around to help rebuild and protect, and then stick around because there's strategic value in bases there.

**Frazzled**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

But what then?

We go through public statements, social media support/likes and find anyone who supports the idea that Christianity should be the legal religion (ie, wants to create a Judeo-Christian promulgation department at the federal level, or wants to screen refugees for christians only, etc), and move them there to establish their own theocracy?

In all seriousness we'd probably have to do as we did in Germany: after kicking the gak out of them, we'll stick around to help rebuild and protect, and then stick around because there's strategic value in bases there.

How's that working out in Afghanistan?

We just got out of Iraq. Sorry but sending home a thousand US citizens a year in body bags and maiming tens of thousands every year is not sane. WE JUST TRIED IT AND PAID FOR IT IN BLOOD AND PAIN.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Frazzled wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Then they capture him again, and send him up the line again.

Sure if by up the line you mean opt him out.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Like I said, its Iraq all over again. Within a year, the British Parliament will be debating whether to deploy ground troops. We're on a slippery slope, with no end in sight. Before you know it we'll be getting sucked into another decade long conflict.

This.
Can we smash ISIL there? Of course, roll them like bad bacon.

But what then?

Mission Accomplished.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Frazzled wrote:

How's that working out in Afghanistan? We just got out of Iraq. Sorry but sending home a thousand US citizens a year in body bags and maiming tens of thousands every year is not sane. WE JUST TRIED IT AND PAID FOR IT IN BLOOD AND PAIN.

The problem with the Stan, and Iraq, was that we were trying to "win hearts and minds" which means the training panties were on. I'm saying if we go in, we go in like it's WW2, if it moves and has a gun, it shouldn't be. I mean, it was utterly ridiculous the things we weren't "allowed" to do because of having such a restrictive ROE (and don't get me wrong, the ROE and EOF measures still allowed for self-defense, they were just a bit restrictive for "hearts and minds" reasons)

**Experiment 626**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

How's that working out in Afghanistan? We just got out of Iraq. Sorry but sending home a thousand US citizens a year in body bags and maiming tens of thousands every year is not sane. WE JUST TRIED IT AND PAID FOR IT IN BLOOD AND PAIN.

The problem with the Stan, and Iraq, was that we were trying to "win hearts and minds" which means the training panties were on. I'm saying if we go in, we go in like it's WW2, if it moves and has a gun, it shouldn't be. I mean, it was utterly ridiculous the things we weren't "allowed" to do because of having such a restrictive ROE (and don't get me wrong, the ROE and EOF measures still allowed for self-defense, they were just a bit restrictive for "hearts and minds" reasons)

We can go in 'gloves off', once we grow a pair and stop propping up the main problem states such as the Saudi's, who are the largest cause of all the gak that's currently happening in the ME...

Otherwise, I say build a giant wall around the entire region, and let the morons butcher each other until either none of them are left, or else they wake up and smell the 21st century like the rest of civilisation has.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

An Infographic comparing Saudi Arabia to ISIS:

Spoiler:

Can we please bomb Saudi Arabia instead?

Source: Middle East Eye, via UniLad.

Another one: Peter Brookes:

Peter Brookes Verified account
‏@BrookesTimes

My cartoon Saturday @TheTimes. Isis is a barbaric death cult...what about some of our allies? #syriaairstrikes

Spoiler:

**CptJake**

RAQQA, Iraq — The Islamic State has threatened to sue anyone who claims their court system is different from Saudi Arabia’s, sources report. This announcement comes on the heels of Saudi Arabia threatening to sue anyone who said their justice system is like ISIS.

“I am disappointed in my Saudi brethren,” said Abu Bakr al-Bahgdadi, the leader of ISIS. “To say our system of presuming perpetrators guilty, locking them up, then executing them without trial is any different from theirs is a lie. I hope to find the Saudi official who made this claim and lash him until he agrees.”

Many people criticized Saudi Arabia’s justice system for being “ISIS-like” after the poet Ashraf Fayadh was sentenced to death for renouncing his Islamic faith.

“Their system may be a little more refined because they’ve been around longer,” al-Bahgdadi said. “We haven’t established an Anti-Witchcraft Unit to fight magical crime. However, like Saudi Arabia we have made sorcery punishable by death because we have our priorities straight. Soon the rings of organized magical crime that run rampant in the Caliphate will be shut down.”

“We have not had the chance to force schoolgirls back inside a burning building because they were not wearing a burqa,” al-Bahgdadi added. “We will do our best to burn girls to death instead of allowing them in public uncovered if we get the chance, inshallah. But it will be hard for that scenario to occur because we will never allow girls inside a school for any reason.”

State Department spokesman John Kirby clarified the administration’s position on Saudi Arabia earlier today. “Saudi Arabia is unlike ISIS,” Kirby said. “ISIS is a terrorist network, while Saudi Arabia only funds terror. The Saudis also have oil and are planning to buy the F-35. The poet was only put on trial because he was accused of apostasy by someone who didn’t like him. It’s the kind of misunderstanding you’d see in a sitcom that ends with a publicized execution.”

ISIS leaders say they are also looking forward to replacing Saudi Arabia on a key part of a panel on the United Nations Human Rights Council when the Saudi’s seat is up..

http://www.duffelblog.com/2015/12/isis-threatens-suit-anyone-claims-saudi-difference/

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Thats satire right? Please tell me thats satire...

**Grey Templar**

Yes, Duffleblog is satire.

**CthuluIsSpy**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Thats satire right? Please tell me thats satire...

Yeah, its pretty much the military version of the Onion.

**Breotan**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

How's that working out in Afghanistan? We just got out of Iraq. Sorry but sending home a thousand US citizens a year in body bags and maiming tens of thousands every year is not sane. WE JUST TRIED IT AND PAID FOR IT IN BLOOD AND PAIN.

The problem with the Stan, and Iraq, was that we were trying to "win hearts and minds" which means the training panties were on. I'm saying if we go in, we go in like it's WW2, if it moves and has a gun, it shouldn't be. I mean, it was utterly ridiculous the things we weren't "allowed" to do because of having such a restrictive ROE (and don't get me wrong, the ROE and EOF measures still allowed for self-defense, they were just a bit restrictive for "hearts and minds" reasons)

Can someone tell me the date we pulled out of Germany after WWII? Japan? Trick question in both cases. We are still there in both countries after 70 years. We'll continue to be in both countries for at least another 70. We need to do the same in the middle east. Let WWII be our guide and let the policies that guided our strategy in Korea and Vietnam educate us on what NOT to do.

1. Go in and conquer ISIS and secure Iraq. Declare families accepting martyrdom payments "collaborators" and treat them as such. Radical Imams need to be identified as insurgents and dealt with. Identify and kill infiltrators instead of letting them do whatever the hell they want. None of this "hearts and minds" bovine excrement. None of this "let's use Iraq as a meat grinder". None of this "we don't attack certain targets or fight during certain holidays because it's important to show that we're better than the bad guys."
2. Establish a permanent military base, staff it with an Army Division and Air Wing, then set up a government obedient to the US and allies as was done in Germany and Japan after WWII. Deal with corruption immediately and aggressively. Tribal leaders that refuse to play ball need to be brought to heel or stepped on hard until they comply.
3. Begin nation building as we did in Germany and Japan post WWII. This may even include establishment of a Kurdish nation. Or not. Either way, here is where you start winning "hearts and minds".
4. As infrastructure begins to take hold, ensure western values of honor and decency replace undesired cultural values. Weed out destructive values and beliefs instead of letting them incorporate into society.
5. As the new nation matures, diversify its economy base and assist it in operating as a stabilizing power in the region. Begin transitioning our military presence there from an occupation force to a regional defense and deterrence roll.

It all sounds unpleasant but that's basically how we turned both Japan and Germany into strong allies and ensured no further stupidity can be possible by anyone with "old guard" ideals.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

We tried that. We called it Imperialism. Its not very fashionable nowadays.

**Breotan**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
We tried that. We called it Imperialism. Its not very fashionable nowadays.

What we did with Japan and Germany is imperialism? Seriously? And it failed somehow? Really?

I look at Japan and Germany as thundering successes and I would challenge anyone to prove otherwise.

As for fashionable, if that's what's important then we may as well surrender now.

**CthuluIsSpy**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
We tried that. We called it Imperialism. Its not very fashionable nowadays.

Not really. Japan and Germany were allowed to keep their own governments, with their own laws and policies, no?
At least, West Germany was. East Germany had a puppet government.

**Breotan**

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
We tried that. We called it Imperialism. Its not very fashionable nowadays.

Not really. Japan and Germany were allowed to keep their own governments, with their own laws and policies, no?
At least, West Germany was. East Germany had a puppet government.

Iraq needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. We need to force civilization down the throats of a barbaric culture. We really can't afford to be nice about it.

**CthuluIsSpy**

Actually I was saying that what happened to Japan and Germany wasn't an example of Imperialism.
WW2 is often regarded as the end of Imperialism, as the colonial powers could no longer hold on to their colonies after such heavy damage to infrastructure and loss of life.
The French colonies are an example of this; the French still had their African territories after WW1, but after WW2 they started to gain independence in the 60s.