Shootings and explosions in Paris

[unbeliever]

Too open a question for me I'm afraid, can you be more specific? We need to define the 'enemy' carefully. We have to win the propaganda war too and that will not happen by a too wide definition of any enemy allowing for civilian casualties. I'd suggest all soldiers have head cams so we can use the footage to show people we are there to help and not to kill them (also allows us to call ******** on when ISIS inevitably kill civilians and try to blame us). Send soldiers who understand there is more to this than just shooting, make sure they are fully briefed and trained in dealing with civilians who are scared and are not a threat. Do short, well defined missions, isolate a target, get in there and kill him and get out again. Do not have soldiers staying/living on the ground in high risk zones. Do not have a huge military presence that's a target for suicide bombers.

 

That's for starters. This isn't easy, but we have the skills in the SAS and paras to carry out these type of operations., and almost certainly in other specialised infantry divisions too.

 

So the idea would not be to use western forces to retake the IS occupied land, but rather to decapitate the organisation?

[L00b]

So the idea would not be to use western forces to retake the IS occupied land, but rather to decapitate the organisation?

Never going to work long term with fundies.

 

The effective dissolution of AQ membership over time into IS, Boko Haram and others here there and everywhere after Bin Laden was bagged shows as much.

 

Take the IS head off and either another one will sprout quasi-immediately, or you'll end up with a multitude of miniature ISes throughout the area. Or worse still: both. And don't be fooled into thinking that would result in intestinal warfare reducing their numbers, coordination and capacity for the benefit of Assad/any Coalition.

 

Both the head and the 25,000 militants need taking out. Including the 5,800 foreign ('Western') jihadis (recent Interpol estimate). And whoever is found (on the back of supporting evidence heard and assessed before an independent judiciary) to be helping 'at home'. But preferably noone else so as to help win hearts and minds. "Tricky" does not begin to describe it, even remotely.

Edited November 19, 2015 by L00b

[milquetoast1]

There are a few Brits I've heard of over the months through media, both muslims and non-muslims. I distinctly recall reading about an Iraqi from Wakefield Keighley going over and fighting not so long ago.

 

Same with French muslims and (mostly-) non-muslims fighting alongside the Peshmerga under the Assyrian French Legion or the Task Force Lafayette banners. Many Dutch, Danes and US non-muslims as well.

 

Mix of ex-forces and not and, without exception (that I'm aware of), all self-financing volunteers.

 

We talk the talk. They do the walking

 

I'm reminded of John Gallagher, a Canadian who volunteered with the Kurdish forces in northern Syria to fight ISIL, and was killed recently. Here's an essay he wrote about his reasons for fighting.

 

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/we-are-all-on-the-front-lines-canadian-reportedly-killed-fighting-isil-wrote-essay-about-why-he-went-to-war

 

The cause of a free and independent Kurdistan is important enough to be worth fighting for all on its own. The Kurdish people are the largest ethnicity in the world without a country of their own, and have suffered enormously under the boot-heel of regional powers. Now they are under threat from another genocidal foe, yet they have not given themselves over to the joint manias of religious fanaticism and suicide murder. This should be enough reason for the West to give them whatever support they need in such a time of crisis. But there is an even better reason.

 

 

For decades now, we have been at war. This war has been unacknowledged by our leaders, but enthusiastically proclaimed by our enemies. This war has produced casualties on every continent, in nearly every nation on earth. It has had periods of intense fighting, followed by long stretches of rearming and regrouping, but it has never ended. It is not even close to being won. Someday historians will look back and marvel at how much effort we put into deceiving ourselves about the nature of this conflict, and wonder how we convinced ourselves that it was not even taking place. This war may have started in 1979, or earlier; 2001 increased the intensity of the conflict; the withdrawal from Iraq kicked off the latest phase. Like the American Civil War, World War II, and the Cold War, this war is about ideas as much as it is about armies. Slavery, fascism, and communism were all bad ideas which required costly sacrifice before they were finally destroyed. In our time, we have a new bad idea: Theocracy.

 

Theocracy is what my mum and dad ran away from 30 years ago. Well before the war in Iraq.

[sgtkate]

So the idea would not be to use western forces to retake the IS occupied land, but rather to decapitate the organisation?

 

Yes, entirely. What good is taking over IS lands going to be? Further fuels the idea that the West are conquering masters who demand the world conform to our whims. Assassination squads would probably be the best description for what I think would work.

[tinfoilhat]

Too open a question for me I'm afraid, can you be more specific? We need to define the 'enemy' carefully. We have to win the propaganda war too and that will not happen by a too wide definition of any enemy allowing for civilian casualties. I'd suggest all soldiers have head cams so we can use the footage to show people we are there to help and not to kill them (also allows us to call ******** on when ISIS inevitably kill civilians and try to blame us). Send soldiers who understand there is more to this than just shooting, make sure they are fully briefed and trained in dealing with civilians who are scared and are not a threat. Do short, well defined missions, isolate a target, get in there and kill him and get out again. Do not have soldiers staying/living on the ground in high risk zones. Do not have a huge military presence that's a target for suicide bombers.

 

That's for starters. This isn't easy, but we have the skills in the SAS and paras to carry out these type of operations., and almost certainly in other specialised infantry divisions too.

 

I think we have special forces out there now directing air strikes - the Americans will do as well. But, again to the best of my limited knowledge, what you're asking our military to do is what they tried to do in afghan and failed to do because it's too damn hard. This would be a million times harder as there are so many factions both allied to us and not - to add to fun you've got Putin throwing his weight around and he won't be as thorough as we are with regards to civillian deaths and I for one don't want our troops getting hammered by a russian airstrike.

 

Look at the map in this article. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-34860914

 

Where would put small detachments of troops on the ground unless you are prepared for lots of casualties? I've no idea. Personally I'm happier letting russia do the heavy lifting and let him back assad. If he wants to risk his troops on, and let's be honest, a very long and unwinnable war, let him.

[sgtkate]

Never going to work long term with fundies.

 

The effective dissolution of AQ membership over time into IS, Boko Haram and others here there and everywhere after Bin Laden was bagged shows as much.

 

Take the IS head off and either another one will sprout quasi-immediately, or you'll end up with a multitude of miniature ISes throughout the area. Or worse still: both. And don't be fooled into thinking that would result in intestinal warfare reducing their numbers, coordination and capacity for the benefit of Assad/any Coalition.

 

Both the head and the 25,000 militants need taking out. Including the 5,800 foreign ('Western') jihadis (recent Interpol estimate). And whoever is found (on the back of supporting evidence heard and assessed before an independent judiciary) to be helping 'at home'. But preferably noone else so as to help win hearts and minds. "Tricky" does not begin to describe it, even remotely.

 

Possibly. But right now ISIS are seemingly well organised and getting more so. Taking out key leaders will almost certainly make them less efficient and more likely to have an internal power struggle which will give us time to either form a ore comprehensive military plan if appropriate or time to show the next generation that ISIS, al-Qaeda, boko haram etc are a load of fools. I think if went in with a full ground assault rather than in and out operations we'd end up with a worse situation than Iraq. Name one conflict since WW2 where a full occupation has worked?

[L00b]

Theocracy is what my mum and dad ran away from 30 years ago. Well before the war in Iraq.

Which was not a theocracy. Nor were Egypt, Libya, Syria, Tunisia or Morocco for that matter.

 

Iran though...theocracy start year: 1979. And we're only just now starting to do business with them again.

 

36 years on

 

I hear you fully about running away from theocracies. Not that Egypt is one, but e.g. for over 2 decades my Dad had some very good Egyptian friends met through business. Copts. Not heard anything from them for over 10 years now, and we've repeatedly tried to find them/get in touch over time. Not a trace. I count on the fingers of one hand the 'everyday' people I know (friends, acquaintance, UK and elsewhere) who know anything about the persecution of Christians throughout the Middle East, never mind how long it's been going on.

Edited November 19, 2015 by L00b

[unbeliever]

I think we have special forces out there now directing air strikes - the Americans will do as well. But, again to the best of my limited knowledge, what you're asking our military to do is what they tried to do in afghan and failed to do because it's too damn hard. This would be a million times harder as there are so many factions both allied to us and not - to add to fun you've got Putin throwing his weight around and he won't be as thorough as we are with regards to civillian deaths and I for one don't want our troops getting hammered by a russian airstrike.

 

Look at the map in this article. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-34860914

 

Where would put small detachments of troops on the ground unless you are prepared for lots of casualties? I've no idea. Personally I'm happier letting russia do the heavy lifting and let him back assad. If he wants to risk his troops on, and let's be honest, a very long and unwinnable war, let him.

 

I'm more inclined toward the overwhelming force solution.

IS have declared war on the entire world.

Let's get together with the entire world and take them up on their offer.

 

The Kurds are good folk. And whilst pluralistic, they're mostly Muslim. We'll put them in charge once the IS goons are dead. Turkey will just have to lump it.

 

---------- Post added 19-11-2015 at 12:59 ----------

 

Possibly. But right now ISIS are seemingly well organised and getting more so. Taking out key leaders will almost certainly make them less efficient and more likely to have an internal power struggle which will give us time to either form a ore comprehensive military plan if appropriate or time to show the next generation that ISIS, al-Qaeda, boko haram etc are a load of fools. I think if went in with a full ground assault rather than in and out operations we'd end up with a worse situation than Iraq. Name one conflict since WW2 where a full occupation has worked?

 

Korea .

[tinfoilhat]

I'm more inclined toward the overwhelming force solution.

IS have declared war on the entire world.

Let's get together with the entire world and take them up on their offer.

 

The Kurds are good folk. And whilst pluralistic, they're mostly Muslim. We'll put them in charge once the IS goons are dead. Turkey will just have to lump it.

 

---------- Post added 19-11-2015 at 12:59 ----------

 

 

Korea .

 

If it wasn't for the Kurds Turkey would be in the mire and they'd do well to remember that when new States are formed when all this comes out in the wash.

[sgtkate]

I think we have special forces out there now directing air strikes - the Americans will do as well. But, again to the best of my limited knowledge, what you're asking our military to do is what they tried to do in afghan and failed to do because it's too damn hard. This would be a million times harder as there are so many factions both allied to us and not - to add to fun you've got Putin throwing his weight around and he won't be as thorough as we are with regards to civillian deaths and I for one don't want our troops getting hammered by a russian airstrike.

 

Look at the map in this article. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-34860914

 

Where would put small detachments of troops on the ground unless you are prepared for lots of casualties? I've no idea. Personally I'm happier letting russia do the heavy lifting and let him back assad. If he wants to risk his troops on, and let's be honest, a very long and unwinnable war, let him.

 

No, don't agree. We had long term military bases in Afghanistan. We had thousands of soldiers on the ground getting killed by road side bombs and suicide troops. And we lost. We cannot do that again as you said it didn't work. What I'm suggesting is that we pick an ISIS target (1 or 2 people or a specific compound for example). We send in SAS or paras (depending on what skills are needed, paras for open ground, SAS for in cities - generalisation but nevertheless). They complete their mission in a short period of time. No more than a few days MAX, staying under the radar. Then we pull them out. No-one lives in Syria, or if they do they stay in hidden bases for again the minimum amount of time. We cannot have a full scale military assault, it's completely the wrong type of warfare for this type of attack. Look at Afghanistan, look at Vietnam.

 

---------- Post added 19-11-2015 at 13:02 ----------

 

I'm more inclined toward the overwhelming force solution.

IS have declared war on the entire world.

Let's get together with the entire world and take them up on their offer.

 

The Kurds are good folk. And whilst pluralistic, they're mostly Muslim. We'll put them in charge once the IS goons are dead. Turkey will just have to lump it.

 

---------- Post added 19-11-2015 at 12:59 ----------

 

 

Korea .

 

You mean the countries still at war? One half of which has a dictator seemingly on a scale with Hitler? Not sure we'd agree on a definition of success here!