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.

 sebster wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Thanks for showing it so clearly. "one of the more powerful economic regions" is not the same as "one of the richest regions", now is it?
So please, stop attacking this straw man. He has done nothing to you. Engage with my actual arguments instead.

So you're really going to try and make the argument that Crimea is economically powerful, but not rich. This is getting more and more absurd.

Yeah. I said "one of the more powerful". So if you divide Ukrainian regions into more and less powerful economic regions, Crimea falls into the more powerful half. Rich would mean that a significant majority of its citizens would be relatively rich. That is something totally else.

 sebster wrote:
I also look forward to you trying to explain how you never said "we simply can not know what happens or happened... there is no way for us to check what they are saying" and "I never said it can't be done at all".

Sorry to disappoint you Seb, but as far as I recall I did say those things. And though I fail to see the point in pulling these statements out of context here, I do not fail to see you once again avoiding the central point of our discussion.

While I do enjoy reading Seb overturn delusional arguments, this discussion is supposed to be about ISIS...

On that front, as far as I am aware Trump delegated more descision making power to generals who are actually in the Middle East, and the fight against ISIS took a positive turn around the same time. Am I at all accurate in this? I haven't been paying particular attention to this issue as compared to others so I'm not well informed.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
While I do enjoy reading Seb overturn delusional arguments, this discussion is supposed to be about ISIS...

On that front, as far as I am aware Trump delegated more descision making power to generals who are actually in the Middle East, and the fight against ISIS took a positive turn around the same time. Am I at all accurate in this? I haven't been paying particular attention to this issue as compared to others so I'm not well informed.

While he made many mistakes this a very very good choice.

Letting the men and women with the best knowledge of the situation and the objectives make the key choices is very wise. they know the practicalities on the ground, best assets and best methods to employ to achieve those objectives.

This makes good sense, and is a wise move.
They are professionals and giving them the trust to do there jobs.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Long as you got a fair trial,.

We both know THAT will never happen. If nothing else, their home countries will go out of their way to ensure they hang, and if they somehow escape the noose, mysteriously they will get murdered. Regardless of anything they might actually have done.

While I would agree Iraq might not be the best place to get a fair trial, in this case its highly unlikely that anybody will be fabricating evidence or getting false witnesses. If you're caught while fighting under ISIS colors thats pretty much all the evidence you need.

The issue is that lots of people hauled in as "IS fighters"...aren't. In lots of instances basically any male Sunni over middle school age found is being detained as a potential IS fighter.

 Vaktathi wrote:
The issue is that lots of people hauled in as "IS fighters"...aren't. In lots of instances basically any male Sunni over middle school age found is being detained as a potential IS fighter.

Many might also have been forced to join. It's a thing thugs like these often do for various reasons. Gather some local kids, threaten to kill their families or them if they don't join, then use them as soldiers. It's easy for keyboard generals to say "joining instead of dying immediately means they wanted to join, hang them" but how many would actually pick instant execution instead of continued life? Anyone who says they'd accept death for themself and their family rather than join, well, I hope you never have to face that decision.

And ofc, if there's no option to surrender and keep your life - why would anyone? Better go down fighting then, take as many with you as you can.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

On that front, as far as I am aware Trump delegated more descision making power to generals who are actually in the Middle East, and the fight against ISIS took a positive turn around the same time. Am I at all accurate in this? I haven't been paying particular attention to this issue as compared to others so I'm not well informed.

Its not very accurate for a few reasons. The IS offensive was already blunted and a counter offensive to retake areas such as Mosul were already started under the Obama administration. Perhaps you could say it went slightly slower, but the positive results were already showing or ripe for the taking by the next admin, either Clinton or Trump.

What happened when the Trump admin took over was a heavier emphasis on getting results soon, partly tied to certain decisions at the end of the Obama presidency. This also led to an increase in civilian casualties by US airstrikes. Of course this is tied to offensives into urban areas, but the increase was so significant organisations like Airwars started to only have time for US casualties as they were too busy with those to handle other cases iirc. So the critique has been that the effort took on a negative turn under the Trump admin because the need for results led to more (unnessecary) deaths.

"Civilian deaths from US-led strikes on Isis surge under Trump administration"
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/06/us-syria-iraq-isis-islamic-state-strikes-death-toll

Spetulhu wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The issue is that lots of people hauled in as "IS fighters"...aren't. In lots of instances basically any male Sunni over middle school age found is being detained as a potential IS fighter.

Many might also have been forced to join. It's a thing thugs like these often do for various reasons. Gather some local kids, threaten to kill their families or them if they don't join, then use them as soldiers. It's easy for keyboard generals to say "joining instead of dying immediately means they wanted to join, hang them" but how many would actually pick instant execution instead of continued life? Anyone who says they'd accept death for themself and their family rather than join, well, I hope you never have to face that decision.

And ofc, if there's no option to surrender and keep your life - why would anyone? Better go down fighting then, take as many with you as you can.

Local fighters yre but western fighters who traveled thousands of miles to join them and where true volunteers.

Screw those lot. They deliberately enlisted with the enemy, made deliberate efforts to join them deliberately joined a enemy force who actively waged war against the West.

The western volunteers have no defense.

 jhe90 wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The issue is that lots of people hauled in as "IS fighters"...aren't. In lots of instances basically any male Sunni over middle school age found is being detained as a potential IS fighter.

Many might also have been forced to join. It's a thing thugs like these often do for various reasons. Gather some local kids, threaten to kill their families or them if they don't join, then use them as soldiers. It's easy for keyboard generals to say "joining instead of dying immediately means they wanted to join, hang them" but how many would actually pick instant execution instead of continued life? Anyone who says they'd accept death for themself and their family rather than join, well, I hope you never have to face that decision.

And ofc, if there's no option to surrender and keep your life - why would anyone? Better go down fighting then, take as many with you as you can.

Local fighters yre but western fighters who traveled thousands of miles to join them and where true volunteers.

Screw those lot. They deliberately enlisted with the enemy, made deliberate efforts to join them deliberately joined a enemy force who actively waged war against the West.

The western volunteers have no defense.

True volunteers is a bit of a misleading term. Yes, joining IS is immensely stupid in the first place. But how many joined just to murder others? There are hosts of reasons why, in many cases kids, joined IS. Just plain stupidity, no real future socio-economically, peer/community pressure, racism/lack of connection to their own country possibly tied in to the racism. Not all who go are hardened jihadists hell bend on the destruction of the Western world. Most are just disillusioned, adventurous or misled kids. Just think of the teenage girls who left Europe to join IS just to end up wanting to go home and ending up as locked up housewives. Joining IS really sucked (most people would say well duh) in the experience of many who ended up there, because it wasn't at all what they expected. But at the end of the day, if they haven't killed anyone do they really deserve to die? They are still Western nationals, we need to know why they radicalized/felt the need to join IS. Just letting them get executed won't get us anywhere except provide a false sense of security. More violent extremists will always surface in society, regardless of any connection to Syria.

So yes, you might say stupidity is no defense. But I have encountered enough Western kids in their late teens and early 20's (granted, not technically kids but I call them that because of the following) that for example believe North Korea is the victim in this world. That the US is evil and forces North Korea to do the 'sometimes bad' things they do. One tried to argue how the US prevented the legitimate North Korean state with the elected Il-sung from unifying the country in the 50's, no joke So yes, kids can be really stupid or just plain ignorant, but if those kids travel to North Korea do they deserve the death penalty just for going? Some kids are just really delusional, who knows how many of those ended up with IS because of their delusions.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The issue is that lots of people hauled in as "IS fighters"...aren't. In lots of instances basically any male Sunni over middle school age found is being detained as a potential IS fighter.

Many might also have been forced to join. It's a thing thugs like these often do for various reasons. Gather some local kids, threaten to kill their families or them if they don't join, then use them as soldiers. It's easy for keyboard generals to say "joining instead of dying immediately means they wanted to join, hang them" but how many would actually pick instant execution instead of continued life? Anyone who says they'd accept death for themself and their family rather than join, well, I hope you never have to face that decision.

And ofc, if there's no option to surrender and keep your life - why would anyone? Better go down fighting then, take as many with you as you can.

Local fighters yre but western fighters who traveled thousands of miles to join them and where true volunteers.

Screw those lot. They deliberately enlisted with the enemy, made deliberate efforts to join them deliberately joined a enemy force who actively waged war against the West.

The western volunteers have no defense.

True volunteers is a bit of a misleading term. Yes, joining IS is immensely stupid in the first place. But how many joined just to murder others? There are hosts of reasons why, in many cases kids, joined IS. Just plain stupidity, no real future socio-economically, peer/community pressure, racism/lack of connection to their own country possibly tied in to the racism. Not all who go are hardened jihadists hell bend on the destruction of the Western world. Most are just disillusioned, adventurous or misled kids. Just think of the teenage girls who left Europe to join IS just to end up wanting to go home and ending up as locked up housewives. Joining IS really sucked (most people would say well duh) in the experience of many who ended up there, because it wasn't at all what they expected. But at the end of the day, if they haven't killed anyone do they really deserve to die? They are still Western nationals, we need to know why they radicalized/felt the need to join IS. Just letting them get executed won't get us anywhere except provide a false sense of security. More violent extremists will always surface in society, regardless of any connection to Syria.

So yes, you might say stupidity is no defense. But I have encountered enough Western kids in their late teens and early 20's (granted, not technically kids but I call them that because of the following) that for example believe North Korea is the victim in this world. That the US is evil and forces North Korea to do the 'sometimes bad' things they do. One tried to argue how the US prevented the legitimate North Korean state with the elected Il-sung from unifying the country in the 50's, no joke So yes, kids can be really stupid or just plain ignorant, but if those kids travel to North Korea do they deserve the death penalty just for going? Some kids are just really delusional, who knows how many of those ended up with IS because of their delusions.

True. They are stupid and some are not thr ones who killed people. They are victims to some degree but they also where radicalised and they are going to have to answer very very difficult questions however.

Theres gonna be questioning, and they may not get away free of charge.

The foreign fighters are very very different story. If they where in active combat oporations, actively comitted crimes against Syria or Iraq.

Then they can have em. They have to face whatever they did out there. They have to face the crimes they are accused.

Theres a big difference between being a beaten wife and a active and comitted enemy solider.

 jhe90 wrote:

The western volunteers have no defense.

Well, there are these things called the Geneva Conventions. As Great Britain's actions in Syria make them neither neutral nor co-belligerent in the Syrian Civil War (at least not officially) then these guys count as POWs. Now if Great Britain had declared war on Isis (as in an actual declaration of war) then the case could be made. However, due to the somewhat murky involvement, but 'not war', they fall into a bit of a grey area.

The real crux of the matter is 'was ISIS a Country or not' as they clearly had reached the point they were no longer a non-state actor (including things like making laws, holding territory, issuing currency, operating police and fire departments, collecting taxes, etc) they were recognized by other nations, even if some western powers did not.

However, even in the absence of a recognized state, under international law, you cannot be tried for participation in hostilities. Now, if you committed a war crime, that's something different.

 jhe90 wrote:
The foreign fighters are very very different story. If they where in active combat oporations, actively comitted crimes against Syria or Iraq. Then they can have em. They have to face whatever they did out there. They have to face the crimes they are accused.

Yes, if they committed crimes they should face judgement.

But just being there, even if they foolishly volunteered, shouldn't be an automatic death sentence. If we leave them an out where they don't get summarily executed on surrendering some will take it, sparing a lot of lives in the area. Letting them live and tell the story of how they were idiots to think the Caliphate was worth anything will also hopefully show others the error of their ways, stopping new idiots from going off to join.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

The western volunteers have no defense.

Well, there are these things called the Geneva Conventions. As Great Britain's actions in Syria make them neither neutral nor co-belligerent in the Syrian Civil War (at least not officially) then these guys count as POWs. Now if Great Britain had declared war on Isis (as in an actual declaration of war) then the case could be made. However, due to the somewhat murky involvement, but 'not war', they fall into a bit of a grey area.

We defend our country. We defend our citizens. Their life is forfit if it means saving innocent lives. It takes what it takes to defend the UK and its people.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/sas-special-forces-hit-list-iraq-syria-isis-terrorist-attacks-drones-a7400756.html%3famp

Western fighters who joined. There was a article a while ago I cannot find. The US was ordering its proxy fights to not take western fighters alive.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
While I do enjoy reading Seb overturn delusional arguments, this discussion is supposed to be about ISIS...

On that front, as far as I am aware Trump delegated more descision making power to generals who are actually in the Middle East, and the fight against ISIS took a positive turn around the same time. Am I at all accurate in this? I haven't been paying particular attention to this issue as compared to others so I'm not well informed.

You are accurate in that regards... and it's not without it's own controversy.

Trump's admin changed the previous administration's ROE, which was deemed at the time as too onerous to get approval (micro-managed).

Whereas the new ROE some has argued may have swung the pendulum too far the other way.

The outcomes recently seem to reflect that... but, we're probably years away from truly knowing if that's true.

 jhe90 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The issue is that lots of people hauled in as "IS fighters"...aren't. In lots of instances basically any male Sunni over middle school age found is being detained as a potential IS fighter.

Many might also have been forced to join. It's a thing thugs like these often do for various reasons. Gather some local kids, threaten to kill their families or them if they don't join, then use them as soldiers. It's easy for keyboard generals to say "joining instead of dying immediately means they wanted to join, hang them" but how many would actually pick instant execution instead of continued life? Anyone who says they'd accept death for themself and their family rather than join, well, I hope you never have to face that decision.

And ofc, if there's no option to surrender and keep your life - why would anyone? Better go down fighting then, take as many with you as you can.

Local fighters yre but western fighters who traveled thousands of miles to join them and where true volunteers.

Screw those lot. They deliberately enlisted with the enemy, made deliberate efforts to join them deliberately joined a enemy force who actively waged war against the West.

The western volunteers have no defense.

True volunteers is a bit of a misleading term. Yes, joining IS is immensely stupid in the first place. But how many joined just to murder others? There are hosts of reasons why, in many cases kids, joined IS. Just plain stupidity, no real future socio-economically, peer/community pressure, racism/lack of connection to their own country possibly tied in to the racism. Not all who go are hardened jihadists hell bend on the destruction of the Western world. Most are just disillusioned, adventurous or misled kids. Just think of the teenage girls who left Europe to join IS just to end up wanting to go home and ending up as locked up housewives. Joining IS really sucked (most people would say well duh) in the experience of many who ended up there, because it wasn't at all what they expected. But at the end of the day, if they haven't killed anyone do they really deserve to die? They are still Western nationals, we need to know why they radicalized/felt the need to join IS. Just letting them get executed won't get us anywhere except provide a false sense of security. More violent extremists will always surface in society, regardless of any connection to Syria.

So yes, you might say stupidity is no defense. But I have encountered enough Western kids in their late teens and early 20's (granted, not technically kids but I call them that because of the following) that for example believe North Korea is the victim in this world. That the US is evil and forces North Korea to do the 'sometimes bad' things they do. One tried to argue how the US prevented the legitimate North Korean state with the elected Il-sung from unifying the country in the 50's, no joke So yes, kids can be really stupid or just plain ignorant, but if those kids travel to North Korea do they deserve the death penalty just for going? Some kids are just really delusional, who knows how many of those ended up with IS because of their delusions.

True. They are stupid and some are not thr ones who killed people. They are victims to some degree but they also where radicalised and they are going to have to answer very very difficult questions however.

Theres gonna be questioning, and they may not get away free of charge.

The foreign fighters are very very different story. If they where in active combat oporations, actively comitted crimes against Syria or Iraq.

Then they can have em. They have to face whatever they did out there. They have to face the crimes they are accused.

Theres a big difference between being a beaten wife and a active and comitted enemy solider.

The problem of difficult questions is who is asking them, if they will at all. To add to the good points of Baronlveagh and Spetulhu. The US and other Western countries have shown themselves not to be all that bothered with following either international or national law when it comes to terrorists. Frequently with lack of proof or difficulty getting a proper conviction making less than legal options such as Guantanamo or killing preferable. Now that is if they even make it to our reasonably 'benevolent' Western countries. But either they get captured by Assad or an Iraqi government that is totally fine with using Shia paramilitary militias that frequently commit war crimes on Sunnis at the end of a decade long sectarian conflict. If fallen into those hands there will be few questions, perhaps if the captured people are lucky they get to survive in a cell somewhere. The Iraqi state itself will be eager for death sentences to make examples and there have been cases of their military comitting war crimes too. So proving who is guilty or even facts might not be bothered with depending on where they end up. Many innocents will die, even Western volunteers who might not be guilty of more than just joining a terror group will end up on the chopping block. If the West cares at all about its own laws and those of the international community they will do what is needed to prevent this. Just because they went over to IS doesn't mean they stop being Western nationals and our responsibilities. Innocent untill proven guilty of the crime that fits the punishment should be applicable, even to terrorists.

 jhe90 wrote:


We defend our country. We defend our citizens. Their life is forfit if it means saving innocent lives. It takes what it takes to defend the UK and its people.

Thank you for validating my opinions of England. We'll condemn ISIS for it, and then do it ourselves!

Rule of Law? What's that? Send in our death squads to make sure there's no one left alive to make the public question our actions.

To be honest, I might expect that sort of thing from Brazil or Columbia.

 whembly wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
While I do enjoy reading Seb overturn delusional arguments, this discussion is supposed to be about ISIS...

On that front, as far as I am aware Trump delegated more descision making power to generals who are actually in the Middle East, and the fight against ISIS took a positive turn around the same time. Am I at all accurate in this? I haven't been paying particular attention to this issue as compared to others so I'm not well informed.

You are accurate in that regards... and it's not without it's own controversy.

Trump's admin changed the previous administration's ROE, which was deemed at the time as too onerous to get approval (micro-managed).

Whereas the new ROE some has argued may have swung the pendulum too far the other way.

The outcomes recently seem to reflect that... but, we're probably years away from truly knowing if that's true.

I don't understand where this comes from. Obama already started beating IS back before Trump. All Trump did was speed up the process Obama started, which was accompanied with a significant increase in violence. For example, the Mosul counteroffensive already started in 2016. IS had already begun losing, how would you 'turn around' a war which your enemy is losing?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
While I do enjoy reading Seb overturn delusional arguments, this discussion is supposed to be about ISIS...

On that front, as far as I am aware Trump delegated more descision making power to generals who are actually in the Middle East, and the fight against ISIS took a positive turn around the same time. Am I at all accurate in this? I haven't been paying particular attention to this issue as compared to others so I'm not well informed.

You are accurate in that regards... and it's not without it's own controversy.

Trump's admin changed the previous administration's ROE, which was deemed at the time as too onerous to get approval (micro-managed).

Whereas the new ROE some has argued may have swung the pendulum too far the other way.

The outcomes recently seem to reflect that... but, we're probably years away from truly knowing if that's true.

I don't understand where this comes from. Obama already started beating IS back before Trump. All Trump did was speed up the process Obama started, which was accompanied with a significant increase in violence. For example, the Mosul counteroffensive already started in 2016. IS had already begun losing, how would you 'turn around' a war which your enemy is losing?

Nothing I've said contradicts your points... so, I'm not sure why you're so defensive.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

On that front, as far as I am aware Trump delegated more descision making power to generals who are actually in the Middle East, and the fight against ISIS took a positive turn around the same time. Am I at all accurate in this? I haven't been paying particular attention to this issue as compared to others so I'm not well informed.

Its not very accurate for a few reasons. The IS offensive was already blunted and a counter offensive to retake areas such as Mosul were already started under the Obama administration. Perhaps you could say it went slightly slower, but the positive results were already showing or ripe for the taking by the next admin, either Clinton or Trump.

What happened when the Trump admin took over was a heavier emphasis on getting results soon, partly tied to certain decisions at the end of the Obama presidency. This also led to an increase in civilian casualties by US airstrikes. Of course this is tied to offensives into urban areas, but the increase was so significant organisations like Airwars started to only have time for US casualties as they were too busy with those to handle other cases iirc. So the critique has been that the effort took on a negative turn under the Trump admin because the need for results led to more (unnessecary) deaths.

"Civilian deaths from US-led strikes on Isis surge under Trump administration"
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/06/us-syria-iraq-isis-islamic-state-strikes-death-toll

I didn't know if there was correlation or causation (or both) but if I am understanding you correctly actions by Obama and later Trump have accelerated the pushback of ISIS at the cost of increased civilian casualties even compared to what they would have been without operational changes. At any rate I support Trump in delegating more decisions to lower-level generals actually in the area, I feel it's a good move to improve ] results both from the basic logistical level and because Trump himself has no experience in managing warfare.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
While I do enjoy reading Seb overturn delusional arguments, this discussion is supposed to be about ISIS...

Yep, that's fair enough. I'll stop.

On that front, as far as I am aware Trump delegated more descision making power to generals who are actually in the Middle East, and the fight against ISIS took a positive turn around the same time. Am I at all accurate in this? I haven't been paying particular attention to this issue as compared to others so I'm not well informed.

Not really. ISIS was already pretty much spent. They tried to take and hold territory and antagonise the West. You don't get to do both of those things, it gets your men blow up in airstrikes.

ISIS took that much territory because the Iraqi army disintegrated for reasons of its own failigs. Once that disintegration was reversed ISIS made no substantial gains. Much of the delay in retaking Iraqi territory was actually about getting political agreement between the various factions before major operations began.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/06/us-syria-iraq-isis-islamic-state-strikes-death-toll
I didn't know if there was correlation or causation (or both) but if I am understanding you correctly actions by Obama and later Trump have accelerated the pushback of ISIS at the cost of increased civilian casualties even compared to what they would have been without operational changes. At any rate I support Trump in delegating more decisions to lower-level generals actually in the area, I feel it's a good move to improve ] results both from the basic logistical level and because Trump himself has no experience in managing warfare.

Neither Obama nor his administration were directly interfering in planning, though. They weren't telling generals what height to fly drones, or where to patrol or anything like that. The interference was reviewing each strike and expected civilian casualties, and denying strikes if it was deemed the casualties and political fallout would be too great.

So its why we've seen more strikes and more casualties. Whether that is a good thing or not I guess everyone can decide for themselves. But it hasn't impacted the direction or the speed of the war against ISIS. Mosul, Raqqa and so on have steadily fallen over time.

 whembly wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
While I do enjoy reading Seb overturn delusional arguments, this discussion is supposed to be about ISIS...

On that front, as far as I am aware Trump delegated more descision making power to generals who are actually in the Middle East, and the fight against ISIS took a positive turn around the same time. Am I at all accurate in this? I haven't been paying particular attention to this issue as compared to others so I'm not well informed.

You are accurate in that regards... and it's not without it's own controversy.

Trump's admin changed the previous administration's ROE, which was deemed at the time as too onerous to get approval (micro-managed).

Whereas the new ROE some has argued may have swung the pendulum too far the other way.

The outcomes recently seem to reflect that... but, we're probably years away from truly knowing if that's true.

I don't understand where this comes from. Obama already started beating IS back before Trump. All Trump did was speed up the process Obama started, which was accompanied with a significant increase in violence. For example, the Mosul counteroffensive already started in 2016. IS had already begun losing, how would you 'turn around' a war which your enemy is losing?

Nothing I've said contradicts your points... so, I'm not sure why you're so defensive.

Sorry, didn't mean to come across as defensive, apologies. The part where I don't understand where it comes from is in reference to accuracy relating to it supposedly being a positive turn.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

On that front, as far as I am aware Trump delegated more descision making power to generals who are actually in the Middle East, and the fight against ISIS took a positive turn around the same time. Am I at all accurate in this? I haven't been paying particular attention to this issue as compared to others so I'm not well informed.

Its not very accurate for a few reasons. The IS offensive was already blunted and a counter offensive to retake areas such as Mosul were already started under the Obama administration. Perhaps you could say it went slightly slower, but the positive results were already showing or ripe for the taking by the next admin, either Clinton or Trump.

What happened when the Trump admin took over was a heavier emphasis on getting results soon, partly tied to certain decisions at the end of the Obama presidency. This also led to an increase in civilian casualties by US airstrikes. Of course this is tied to offensives into urban areas, but the increase was so significant organisations like Airwars started to only have time for US casualties as they were too busy with those to handle other cases iirc. So the critique has been that the effort took on a negative turn under the Trump admin because the need for results led to more (unnessecary) deaths.

"Civilian deaths from US-led strikes on Isis surge under Trump administration"
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/06/us-syria-iraq-isis-islamic-state-strikes-death-toll

I didn't know if there was correlation or causation (or both) but if I am understanding you correctly actions by Obama and later Trump have accelerated the pushback of ISIS at the cost of increased civilian casualties even compared to what they would have been without operational changes. At any rate I support Trump in delegating more decisions to lower-level generals actually in the area, I feel it's a good move to improve ] results both from the basic logistical level and because Trump himself has no experience in managing warfare.

Its really a bit of both. Civilian casualties surely go up when fighting reaches an urban area like Mosul, but at the same time there is causation as well, because a decision was taken to make it easier to conduct airstrikes which also apply to urban areas. Yes Obama already made it easier to launch airstrikes, but the key part in his decision was that he took it weeks before the end of his presidency. The Trump admin really reaped the effect of easier airstrikes, but with the admin rhetoric a similar decision to make airstrikes easier to conduct would likely have been taken.

Here I hook onto the political fallout part Sebster notes. The war against IS isn't purely military, while handing it over to the military means it becomes very focused on that part. Lower level generals already had control over airstrikes under Obama iirc, just not the ranks below general until the change in the last weeks. The Trump administration should have intervened in the airstrike policy because of the high amount of civilian casualties that resulted from it. Airstrikes in urban areas against a enemy that uses human shields is never going to end well politically. Yes, being freed from IS is great I imagine, but not if your whole family got killed by a US airstrike (the coalition as a whole didn't ease the use of airstrikes). In the end even if Trump has no experience in the military realm, he still holds final responsibility over the military. Once it starts to become excessive, as many organisations feel like it had at the height of operations, maybe it is time for some political introspection as the military outcome was already a foregone conclusions regardless of how many airstrikes were used.

Of course we could go into the relative inexperience of Syria rebel and Iraqi forces in urban combat, which leads to increased pressure on the US for airstrikes to be able to advance. Yet that is how we end up with airstrikes against snipers ending up in excessive civilian casualties. There is the tradeoff between Iraqi military lives and Iraqi civilian lives when considering airstrikes, with the Iraqi government likely to care less about Sunni civilians (going back to letting Shia militias help).

While divesting more responsibility to the military might not necessarily be a bad thing, excessive force should not be used in a conflict you're already winning for obvious political reasons.

I still feel its better that every strike doesn't need to be vetted by the White House before it goes through. If the strikes are causing too many civilian casualties then the relevant generals should be told to bring that into line. If we can't trust them to do something like that when instructed to, there is a serious problem of why they are there in the first place. Obviously the Trump administration has not given such instructions but that's a different point from the delegation of command, and a much more complex one. To ensure there would be the absolute minimum casualties is an exercise in how much resources can be thrown into a bottomless pit, but at the same time civilian casualties are something to be minimized as much as possible without compromising the objective. To be directing such matters is an unenviable position at best which makes me hesitant to criticize, but in this instance I question how much good is being done when so many innocents are being killed.

It didn't always had to, as per the article I linked the Obama administration left the decision in the hands of one star generals. Key is that these requirements were pushed down a number of ranks. While that eases the process of approving airstrikes it also means that there might be less discussion time or that not all factors are know to the person at that level (of course there is never 100% certainty).

The rise in casualties was so significant and on a continuous line for a period that the question was raised of why it was happening. Of course Trump took a hands off approach and handed it to the military, while the military was the one conducting these strikes in the first place. At that point nobody will really step in, as the military leadership seemingly saw it as the price to pay while the political leadership didn't seem to care.

I agree that its an incredibly complicated job and an unenviable one to do as a soldier. But its still a case of using too much force in an urban area that the Iraqi army should have realistically been able to conquer alone without calling in aid to 'level' the entire area. Its a tragic combination of US tools available to assist its allies and the (low) level of professionality of its allies on the ground.

Of course this is not just the Trump admin, although they had a very excessive example recently. The Obama admin had the same issue of tools available (drones) in countries such as Yemen. When all you have is a hammer as they say.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I still feel its better that every strike doesn't need to be vetted by the White House before it goes through. If the strikes are causing too many civilian casualties then the relevant generals should be told to bring that into line. If we can't trust them to do something like that when instructed to, there is a serious problem of why they are there in the first place. Obviously the Trump administration has not given such instructions but that's a different point from the delegation of command, and a much more complex one. To ensure there would be the absolute minimum casualties is an exercise in how much resources can be thrown into a bottomless pit, but at the same time civilian casualties are something to be minimized as much as possible without compromising the objective. To be directing such matters is an unenviable position at best which makes me hesitant to criticize, but in this instance I question how much good is being done when so many innocents are being killed.

Vetting every strike. So you see a key situation going on, delays, delays, waiting for aproval. Opertunity lost.

There right to not delay every strike and have to authorise every one prior to deployment. Political delays cost initiative and drag it on and on.

Thr military in west are highly trained professionals. Trust them to do job they trained for years to do.

 jhe90 wrote:

Vetting every strike. So you see a key situation going on, delays, delays, waiting for aproval. Opertunity lost.

There right to not delay every strike and have to authorise every one prior to deployment. Political delays cost initiative and drag it on and on.

Thr military in west are highly trained professionals. Trust them to do job they trained for years to do.

Yes, because that's always turned out so well for.. .well, pick your western military. Generally speaking, oversight exists for a reason, there have been MANY incident that have been documented over the years as to WHY, and dakka mods have expressly forbid me from posting pictures like THAT anymore, even with spoiler blocks ON.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

Vetting every strike. So you see a key situation going on, delays, delays, waiting for aproval. Opertunity lost.

There right to not delay every strike and have to authorise every one prior to deployment. Political delays cost initiative and drag it on and on.

Thr military in west are highly trained professionals. Trust them to do job they trained for years to do.

Yes, because that's always turned out so well for.. .well, pick your western military. Generally speaking, oversight exists for a reason, there have been MANY incident that have been documented over the years as to WHY, and dakka mods have expressly forbid me from posting pictures like THAT anymore, even with spoiler blocks ON.

And politics and active oporations and tactical decisions are a recipe for disaster.

Ground command should always be the chosen officers. Trained professionals members with up to 20-30 years experience depending on rank.

Oversight is important but too much political rubbish and such just means those troops on the ground cannot do there jobs effectively.

If they cannot. Why did we even deploy them.

They are deployed to assist an allied government. Bombing civilians by the boatload even by accident might win you the battle but will lose you the war. Sunni resentment played a big part in IS getting this far in the first place. Bombing Sunnis isn't going to solve this.

Political guidance is needed. Because the fight against IS is first and foremost a political one. Militarily speaking they were always midgets that just happened to punch above their weight due to some amazing incompetence and mishandling of the Sunni population by Iraq.

 jhe90 wrote:
Vetting every strike. So you see a key situation going on, delays, delays, waiting for aproval. Opertunity lost.

There are middle ground options as well. It isn't 'admin vets every strike' vs 'let the generals do what they want'.

You can give generals scope for quick decisions where time is critical, and have admin involvement where there's significant lead time before the strike.

You can have directives set, admin set guidelines for balancing the importance of the target vs the risk of civilian casaualties and political blowback. This is essential because, as Disciple of Fate points out war there is primarily political, there is no isolated military victory, instead military strikes are just a supporting element to the building of strong, US aligned governments in the region.

 jhe90 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I still feel its better that every strike doesn't need to be vetted by the White House before it goes through. If the strikes are causing too many civilian casualties then the relevant generals should be told to bring that into line. If we can't trust them to do something like that when instructed to, there is a serious problem of why they are there in the first place. Obviously the Trump administration has not given such instructions but that's a different point from the delegation of command, and a much more complex one. To ensure there would be the absolute minimum casualties is an exercise in how much resources can be thrown into a bottomless pit, but at the same time civilian casualties are something to be minimized as much as possible without compromising the objective. To be directing such matters is an unenviable position at best which makes me hesitant to criticize, but in this instance I question how much good is being done when so many innocents are being killed.

Vetting every strike. So you see a key situation going on, delays, delays, waiting for aproval. Opertunity lost.

There right to not delay every strike and have to authorise every one prior to deployment. Political delays cost initiative and drag it on and on.

Thr military in west are highly trained professionals. Trust them to do job they trained for years to do.

I absolutely trust that the military knows how to do their job, certainly better than I do at any rate. What I question is why the job right now is 'accept any amount of civilian casualties to kill the enemy'. I believe that if the military was instructed to limit civilian casualties below a certain level they could do so. The issue is that those instructions aren't being given.

 jhe90 wrote:

And politics and active operations and tactical decisions are a recipe for disaster.

Ground command should always be the chosen officers. Trained professionals members with up to 20-30 years experience depending on rank.

Oversight is important but too much political rubbish and such just means those troops on the ground cannot do there jobs effectively.

If they cannot. Why did we even deploy them.

I'm struggling to find a nice way to say this, and based on your previous posts, you would not understand the idea that sometimes that 'political rubbish' might be more important than the target. I'll use an extreme example, a known terrorist in a crowded marketplace in an otherwise allied country. Do you: A) risk alienating that nation by possibly killing a large number of civilians to bag one bad guy, no matter how important, or B) pass up the shot for the possibility of a more 'precise' take-down at some later date?

ROE may be a pain in the ass, but it tends to exist for a reason. Make the wrong decision, and the people that ten minutes ago were so glad to see you, turn their guns on you. And that guy that's been in for 20 year's 'experience' might not translate well to what he's doing *now*. A good example would be, say, the US occupation of Iraq. Men with plenty of experience found themselves doing something that they were neither trained nor had the temperament for, but had all the right time in grade. (Not an issue unique to the military side of the US government, either).

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

And politics and active operations and tactical decisions are a recipe for disaster.

Ground command should always be the chosen officers. Trained professionals members with up to 20-30 years experience depending on rank.

Oversight is important but too much political rubbish and such just means those troops on the ground cannot do there jobs effectively.

If they cannot. Why did we even deploy them.

I'm struggling to find a nice way to say this, and based on your previous posts, you would not understand the idea that sometimes that 'political rubbish' might be more important than the target. I'll use an extreme example, a known terrorist in a crowded marketplace in an otherwise allied country. Do you: A) risk alienating that nation by possibly killing a large number of civilians to bag one bad guy, no matter how important, or B) pass up the shot for the possibility of a more 'precise' take-down at some later date?

ROE may be a pain in the ass, but it tends to exist for a reason. Make the wrong decision, and the people that ten minutes ago were so glad to see you, turn their guns on you. And that guy that's been in for 20 year's 'experience' might not translate well to what he's doing *now*. A good example would be, say, the US occupation of Iraq. Men with plenty of experience found themselves doing something that they were neither trained nor had the temperament for, but had all the right time in grade. (Not an issue unique to the military side of the US government, either).

I do understand. That some strikes are not worth long term concquences of the short term gains. That they may be a tactical success but a larger stratigic failure.

That some strikes yes. You need to have a drone follow them and wait for them to arrive home, wait for them to be on the road. Wait for a time when it can be performed within rules of engagement.

However over restricted Roe also means the returns deminish and negetive ly effect operating ability. It means overly political command is either too aggressive for a result or too timed to avoid scandal.

Either are bad traits in leadership of a military operation.

Yes their needs to be oversight but generals not under pressure for reelection are not as subject to those pressures and influences. With oversight and checks and balence they still need to be allowed to do there jobs. To complete the mission as required.

And yes. Post Iraq war and into occupation thr US army was ill equipped and prepared for the role.

UK was even worse.

However all in all. Overly political command and overly political pressures that come upon it is weaker and Roe too restricted.
When soldiers cannot do the job then lives are lost. You do need armies wiping out cities like crusades but when rules prevent soldiers doing there jobs effectively. There is no point in even being deployed.