fate

This does nothing but demonstrate the uselessness of Obama's "strategy."

well, it specifically demonstrates the pointlessness of a limited invasion force that you suggested... They could drive through the desert unoppossed but would accomplish not much else. well I suppose they would have enough force to take some of the smaller villages... But successful urban warfare would probably be out of the question...

AS for Obama's "strategy". Depends on how limited the goals are....
If the goals don't include occupying Iraq or Syria, but simply keeping ISIS hemmed in to towns and cities in Sunni regions, then the strategy is fine.
if the goal is the eradication of ISIS in a period of time less than 5 years then its probably not going to be achieved. That would depend upon a motivated and capable local armed force that can legitimately occupy cities in Iraq and/or Syria. And that doesn't seem immediately apparent does it? Perhaps penning them in will see them wear out their welcome amongst the Sunnis and they'll face too much opposstion from them to continue as the controlling power. Who knows?
(The Khurds can control their territory with air support, and vaarious minorities can be protected..)

I remember a time when simple containment of a dangerous nation wasn't deeemed adequate. Although a no fly zone and embargo kept Saddam Hussein from threatening his neighbors .... a full scale invasion and occupation was trumped up and we're still dealing with the repercussions...

Okay, so then we just leave them on their own? Or, are you just sniping?

If they're an effective force, why are they surrounded at Aleppo? Why haven't they won? If it's just numbers, then what is Obama yammering about?

I'm just saying that they're unlikely to be as useless as the Iraqi army turned out to be because they're already proven as a fighting force. That implies no judgement on Obama's plans.

There seems to be somewhat of a contradiction between your lack of faith in President Obama's abilities and your demand that he come up with the strategy, DF. To me, this is an area that he does not feel that secure in. He does not have the background in the military or educational background or work in the Congress that would prepare him for making these kinds of strategic decisions. I am hoping that someone with the requisite expertise comes up with a good plan and then that the president has the wisdom to follow it. I think the president has a default position where he goes with a limited amount of force (air power, drones) with little risk or loss. This ISIS situation may (probably) requires more than that level of force and let's hope he makes the right call when his military advisors give him different options.
It seems like the U.S. military did a good job in the original invasion back in 2003 of defeating the enemy with little loss in a short period of time. Maybe we need to send in 100,000 troops but stipulate that they will leave within 90 days come what may. They do as much damage as they can to ISIS and then leave.

freeman3 wrote:There seems to be somewhat of a contradiction between your lack of faith in President Obama's abilities and your demand that he come up with the strategy, DF.

Not at all. He doesn't have to design the nuts and bolts, but rather lay out a coherent strategy. He has not done so. He is currently relying on airpower and other countries' troops. However, the Iraqi army is useless. The Kurds are only now getting weapons and they won't go into Syria. The FSA, contra Sass, is a fighting force, but it is not a "proven" fighting force. They have not had the initiative in quite some time.

To me, this is an area that he does not feel that secure in. He does not have the background in the military or educational background or work in the Congress that would prepare him for making these kinds of strategic decisions.

Neither did FDR. Neither did Lincoln. How did they win? They brought in the right leadership. Obama should do the same.

I am hoping that someone with the requisite expertise comes up with a good plan and then that the president has the wisdom to follow it. I think the president has a default position where he goes with a limited amount of force (air power, drones) with little risk or loss. This ISIS situation may (probably) requires more than that level of force and let's hope he makes the right call when his military advisors give him different options.

He has been purging the best of them. Furthermore, he's only talking about ISIS because the beheadings changed public opinion, so Obama shifted with them. Think of it as "leading from behind with a tailwind."

He consistently rejects what his military advisers suggest. If you don't believe me and want to force me to prove it, I will.

It seems like the U.S. military did a good job in the original invasion back in 2003 of defeating the enemy with little loss in a short period of time. Maybe we need to send in 100,000 troops but stipulate that they will leave within 90 days come what may. They do as much damage as they can to ISIS and then leave.

I don't think we could ferry that many over and back. Still, you're closer to the right track than the President.

rickyp wrote:fate

This does nothing but demonstrate the uselessness of Obama's "strategy."

well, it specifically demonstrates the pointlessness of a limited invasion force that you suggested... They could drive through the desert unoppossed but would accomplish not much else. well I suppose they would have enough force to take some of the smaller villages... But successful urban warfare would probably be out of the question...

Actually, you don't know this. In other words, how would ISIS respond? By hunkering down? Maybe and maybe not. If they did, their supply lines, any depots, etc., would be undefended. I'd say a couple of weeks without food and ammo could make life tough.

AS for Obama's "strategy". Depends on how limited the goals are....
If the goals don't include occupying Iraq or Syria, but simply keeping ISIS hemmed in to towns and cities in Sunni regions, then the strategy is fine.

Again, you don't know. They have grown in strength. How much bigger can they get if we don't do anything significant? How many more religious minorities and Westerners will they execute? Will they be able to pull off a successful attack in another country (as they apparently tried in Australia)?

I remember a time when simple containment of a dangerous nation wasn't deeemed adequate. Although a no fly zone and embargo kept Saddam Hussein from threatening his neighbors .... a full scale invasion and occupation was trumped up and we're still dealing with the repercussions...

Dragging the Iraq invasion into a "What do we do about ISIS?" thread is asinine.

Containing terrorists . . . that's oxymoronic.

df

Actually, you don't know this. In other words, how would ISIS respond

Well, no I don't. Which is why I relied upon an expert witness as evidence for what the situation is and is likely to be....
How do you know what you claim to know?

We expect ISIL to begin to rely far more on IEDs,” he said, referring to the Islamic State by one of its acronyms and to improvised explosive devices. "As they retreat, my guess is they will litter, literally litter ... areas that they abandon with IEDs. So we need a serious counter-IED effort with the ISF [Iraqi forces] so they don’t stumble in and take unnecessary casualties.”

The Iraqi army and police forces have more experience at dealing with militants who attempt to blend into the population in towns and cities than at fighting a conventional-style war, Dempsey said, noting that they have battled such a shadowy foe for years.

http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast ... story.html

The occupation of Iraq's urban areas by American troops was, ultimately a failure. Doing it again because Sunni militants are reoccupying sunni areas,,,,, will also fail. Probably the Iraqis Shiite army can't do the job either. But the local Sunni population may tire of ISIS and may have the means and abilities to turn them out... arms are plentiful in Iraq and many of the men were engaged in resistance of the American occupation.

Especially if the rural areas are inhospitable to travel because of the allied air power .

rickyp wrote:The occupation of Iraq's urban areas by American troops was, ultimately a failure. Doing it again because Sunni militants are reoccupying sunni areas,,,,, will also fail. Probably the Iraqis Shiite army can't do the job either. But the local Sunni population may tire of ISIS and may have the means and abilities to turn them out... arms are plentiful in Iraq and many of the men were engaged in resistance of the American occupation.

Especially if the rural areas are inhospitable to travel because of the allied air power .

Can you see any trees, being so deep in the forest?

Why are we interested in ISIS? Is it because they are occupying territory? Or, is it because they represent an existential threat to a few governments in the Middle East? Is it because they are Sunni or because they are murdering people in ways that turn our stomachs?

I do not want an American "occupation." That is directly the opposite of what I've said. So, thanks for that.

Now, can we deal with reality?

The "Obama plan" is to train Syrian rebels.

President Obama’s national security adviser said Friday it will take “many months” before the U.S. can arm and train Syrian rebels to fight the Islamic State terrorist group.

“This is not going to happen overnight,” Susan E. Rice told reporters at the White House. “We will move as fast as we reasonably can.”…

Many months? Okay, well, surely the Syrians will overwhelm the ISIS fighters?

Saudi Arabia has agreed to provide bases for training, but there are questions about the rebels’ ability, with only about 5,000 fighters available. The Islamic State is estimated to have as many as 31,000 fighters.

Oh, so a 1:6 ratio?

But, surely the President is listening to his military advisers?

Uh, no. http://www.realcleardefense.com/article ... 07435.html

Containment of terrorists? We have a way to do that. It's called "Gitmo." It works and the President hates it.

ISIS will strike in Europe, Australia, or the US. It's just a matter of time. It won't be 9/11, but it will be sick and probably deadly. You can only "contain" someone who cares about his/her existence. ISIS does not care about individual deaths. They have a "greater" cause. You can't "contain" an ideology. You can't stop it from spreading. What you can do: kill those who wish to impose it on others. The only "containment" for those cockroaches is a lethal dose of hot lead.

fate

Why are we interested in ISIS? Is it because they are occupying territory? Or, is it because they represent an existential threat to a few governments in the Middle East? Is it because they are Sunni or because they are murdering people in ways that turn our stomachs?

For most Americans I'm sure its the executions and massacres.
For governments in the West I'm sure its the second, and mostly because of access to oil.

fate

I do not want an American "occupation." That is directly the opposite of what I've said. So, thanks for that.

No you've been quite clear that you think a couple of marine brigades could march through the ISIS controlled areas of Iraq and wipe them out.
Except that, as Dempsey said, they won't be so cooperative to fight in the open desert. ISIS will be holed up in towns and citites where urban war fare will be required.And to be successful at that requires an overwhelming force, local cooperation from civilians and a great deal of time. An occupation.

If you want to define a succesful strategy, you first need to correctly define what the enemy is doing... and explain why your strategy will work. So far all you've done is offer imaginings..

fate

ISIS will strike in Europe, Australia, or the US. It's just a matter of time. It won't be 9/11, but it will be sick and probably deadly

.

More likely ISIS wannabees or lone wolves...It doesn't take an army to be able to be a terrorist threat. 9/11 was planned by 3 guys in a an apartment in Munich.
The military response to ISIS in Syria and Iraq won't have anything to do with the potential threat of terrorism. Except that it is attracting acolytes.... throught the Internet. Which isn't a reason to do nothing, either.

rickyp wrote:fate

I do not want an American "occupation." That is directly the opposite of what I've said. So, thanks for that.

No you've been quite clear that you think a couple of marine brigades could march through the ISIS controlled areas of Iraq and wipe them out.

You need help. Luckily, I'm here for you.

6.the seizure and control of an area by military forces, especially foreign territory.

7.the term of control of a territory by foreign military forces:
Danish resistance during the German occupation.

I say I want no "occupation." You then argue that I do because I want Marines to "march" through.

You do realize that "marching through" is not "occupy," right? You also edited out the time limit I placed on such an operation, which would also preclude any definition of a military "occupation."

As usual, you don't like the truth to get in your way.

Except that, as Dempsey said, they won't be so cooperative to fight in the open desert. ISIS will be holed up in towns and citites (sic) where urban war fare (sic) will be required.And to be successful at that requires an overwhelming force, local cooperation from civilians and a great deal of time. An occupation.

If he is correct, some things need to be mentioned:

1. That is in response to Obama's bombing campaign. If we had employed the "Doc Fate Plan," they would have had no warning.

2. Again, you ignore the destruction that a Marine incursion would bring about to their infrastructure, etc.

3. You offer NOTHING--no solution, no suggestion. You're basically being a . . . rickyp.

4. We could, during such a Marine raid, hit some small towns or lesser cities with overwhelming force, thus eliminating some ISIS forces.

5. We would have to commit to far more interdiction from the air following such a raid so that reinforcements could not easily come and supplies would be substantially reduced.

6. Finally, the President's plan has been universally panned. No one outside of his family believes it will work. Congress approved it for fear of being seen as "doing nothing." 2/3 of ISIS is in Syria and the President, like you, has no plan.

If you want to define a succesful strategy, you first need to correctly define what the enemy is doing... and explain why your strategy will work. So far all you've done is offer imaginings..

So far, you've offered horse droppings.

I have told you, and you seem incapable of grasping this, that the President (me) does not lead the troops on the ground. He does not direct the men on the ground. What he does, as Lincoln and FDR did, is give the "Pentagon" (Armed Forces leadership) a directive and ask for options based on that. I said I wanted one that was more "Inchon" and less "Gettysburg." Why? Because we need to strike hard and not grind it out--and we need to do something other than what they anticipate. They would probably "enjoy" street-to-street fighting to the death.

And, again, any plan that leaves ISIS HQ in Syria intact is . . . not a plan. I would decimate it immediately, raining fire and brimstone upon it.

fate

ISIS will strike in Europe, Australia, or the US. It's just a matter of time. It won't be 9/11, but it will be sick and probably deadly

.

More likely ISIS wannabees or lone wolves..

So what? If they hack off a few heads in Los Angeles, Sydney, NYC, DC, etc., then post them to the Internet, it won't matter how many there are.

The military response to ISIS in Syria and Iraq won't have anything to do with the potential threat of terrorism. Except that it is attracting acolytes.... throught the Internet. Which isn't a reason to do nothing, either.

I appreciate the self-defeating nature of your argumentation. You may leave.

fate

I say I want no "occupation." You then argue that I do because I want Marines to "march" through

I didn't say this at all... I said your strategy would not be successful in what has become a necessity. Urban warfare.

You do realize that "marching through" is not "occupy," right?

Yes. Which was exactly my point. Marching through a largely empty desert would accomplish nothing. And unless one is prepared to occupy a large urban space, the large urban space cannot be rid of a guerrila force. Especially not one that has any kind of support from the local populace. (Wirtness the recent failure to rid most of Iraq urban areas of terrorists/resistance after a long occupation with a large force...

fate

If we had employed the "Doc Fate Plan," they would have had no warning.

really. What do you think is entiled in moving two brigades into an advance postion from a continent away? And would ISIS sympathizers and spies in bordering nations not notice some of this activity. And say, use their mobile phones to call someone?

fate

Again, you ignore the destruction that a Marine incursion would bring about to their infrastructure, etc.

Not much infrastructure in the desert Fate. And certainly nothing that bombs ca't reach as well. And with less warning...

fate

We could, during such a Marine raid, hit some small towns or lesser cities with overwhelming force, thus eliminating some ISIS forces

I did say this was a possibility. Yes.

fate

We would have to commit to far more interdiction from the air following such a raid so that reinforcements could not easily come and supplies would be substantially reduce

Sure. But what of the large cities where most of ISIS is moving?

fate

Finally, the President's plan has been universally panned. No one outside of his family believes it will work. Congress approved it for fear of being seen as "doing nothing." 2/3 of ISIS is in Syria and the President, like you, has no plan

Yeah, its a tough situation. I'm sure the Saudis are really unhappy that the forces they funded for years turned into ISIS. And now ISIS is calling for the end of the Saudi monarchy.
And they're supposed to know whats going on in the region...

The problem with attacking Assad is that he is the chief opponent of ISIS. And even though the free Syria Army has engaged in fights with ISIS they want the focus of the West to be Assad...
Iraq doesn't want western land forces on their territory. And its Iraq that will eventually have to supplant ISIS locally....
So its complicated And your Plan was obviously flawed, both in concept and politically. What happens if you do land two brigades of Marines and the Iraqis Shiite army engages them as invaders? Or the Iranians who are in Iraq now to engage ISIS but instead engage the US forces? That would be a distinct possibility...
Obama is engaged in bumbling through... Trying not to do something really stupid... like invade and occupy a nation or two again. Politically he has to do something. Strategically its very difficult. There is nothing like an easy solution available... Most of his crtitics, except idiots like McCain, understand that ... (McCain who was a big fan of Bandar of Saudi Arabia who's program was the original funding for ISIS)

By the way, you quoted an "expert" earlier.

Quoting two U.S. military officials, the Washington Post reported on Wednesday that Army Gen. Lloyd Austin, commander of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), said “that his best military advice was to send a modest contingent of American troops, principally Special Operations forces, to advise and assist Iraqi army units in fighting the militants.

”
This seems very odd since its been reported that there are a number of forces in Khurdistan already. US, Canadain and British and possibly Australian. Mostly the special forces of those nations..
What do you think they are doing?

rickyp wrote:Yes. Which was exactly my point. Marching through a largely empty desert would accomplish nothing.

That is almost insightful.

Here's the thing: if I proposed such a thing and the Pentagon said, "That would accomplish nothing," we would not do it.

Right now, we have a "plan" that is laughable. No reasonable military mind thinks it has a chance of success. The President boasts of having a coalition. You know what Saudi Arabia is providing? They're part of the "coalition." They're going to provide a training ground for Syrian rebels to train.

Wow. Impressive!

Maybe a few other countries can provide lunches!

But, getting back to "the march": you're being dumb, but I state the obvious.

Let's say ISIS hunkers down in the towns. None of their vehicles, none of their weaponry, none of their depots, none of their trucks, none of their lines of communication, NOTHING will be left exposed?

Please.

And unless one is prepared to occupy a large urban space, the large urban space cannot be rid of a guerrila force.

Fine: then, why don't you just say, "The right course of action is . . . ?"

Is it because you don't have a clue?

You needn't answer. We know.

Especially not one that has any kind of support from the local populace. (Wirtness the recent failure to rid most of Iraq urban areas of terrorists/resistance after a long occupation with a large force...

So, we just sit by and watch them kill whomever they please, however they please?

If not, give us a PLAN or shut up.

fate

If we had employed the "Doc Fate Plan," they would have had no warning.

really. What do you think is entiled in moving two brigades into an advance postion from a continent away? And would ISIS sympathizers and spies in bordering nations not notice some of this activity. And say, use their mobile phones to call someone?

It's not as hard as you make it out to be. Plus, they would not know where the attack is coming from--unless President Obama announced it. Frankly, that would not surprise me.

If you think cell phones are the key to defending . . . well, okay.

fate

Again, you ignore the destruction that a Marine incursion would bring about to their infrastructure, etc.

Not much infrastructure in the desert Fate. And certainly nothing that bombs ca't reach as well. And with less warning...

So, you, contra every military expert, believe the war can be won from the air alone? Or, do you believe the FSA will be sufficient?

What is your PLAN?

The problem with attacking Assad is that he is the chief opponent of ISIS.

Not now he's not. He has more or less declared a ceasefire with them so he can focus on our "allies," the FSA.

So its complicated And your Plan was obviously flawed, both in concept and politically.

No one said it was easy.

What happens if you do land two brigades of Marines and the Iraqis Shiite army engages them as invaders?

Ooh, that's sooo scary! They fled ISIS but they'll fight the US?

But, again, we would not be there long. I'm not proposing an "occupation." I'm proposing killing terrorists.

And, guess what? If brigades are too big and draw too much attention, I'd send smaller units for lesser amounts of time. The point is to kill those idiots.

Or the Iranians who are in Iraq now to engage ISIS but instead engage the US forces? That would be a distinct possibility...

No, it wouldn't be. Again, you miss the point. We would go into areas with large concentrations of ISIS fighters ONLY.

Obama is engaged in bumbling through... Trying not to do something really stupid... like invade and occupy a nation or two again. Politically he has to do something. Strategically its very difficult. There is nothing like an easy solution available... Most of his crtitics, except idiots like McCain, understand that ...

Yes, the "idiot McCain." Wasn't he the one calling for action two years ago? If Obama had done something then, the situation would not be as bad as it is now.

Oh, and btw, according to Panetta on 60 Min, you have been WRONG all along with regard to a residual force staying in Iraq. Panetta was Obama's SecDef and is a lifelong Democrat.

By the way, you quoted an "expert" earlier.

Quoting two U.S. military officials, the Washington Post reported on Wednesday that Army Gen. Lloyd Austin, commander of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), said “that his best military advice was to send a modest contingent of American troops, principally Special Operations forces, to advise and assist Iraqi army units in fighting the militants.

”
This seems very odd since its been reported that there are a number of forces in Khurdistan already. US, Canadain and British and possibly Australian. Mostly the special forces of those nations..
What do you think they are doing?

Not enough.

Tell you what: cite a military expert who says the FSA can defeat ISIS and Assad.

Here is a discussion of the effects of the bombing campaign thus far . http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/09/23/wo ... &referrer=

A source with quite bit of info on ISIS. http://www.vox.com/cards/things-about-i ... at-is-isis

It appears that unless we do something about Sunni unhappiness in Iraq a military solution will not be effective. However, a political solution will take a while and a military solution is the only option in the short-term. If we can prevent ISIS from spreading by using air power to prevent them from using roads could that be enough for now? I'm not sure our objectives with regard to using ground troops are clear enough, yet. Perhaps we should wait to use ground troops until we have more Sunni militias on board. Meanwhile, we can use air power to stop ISIS from expanding any further.

fate

Yes, the "idiot McCain." Wasn't he the one calling for action two years ago?

Oh he's always calling for action, somewhere somehow..
here's whats known about his jusgement in Iraq recently...

“Thank God for the Saudis and Prince Bandar,” John McCain told CNN’s Candy Crowley in January 2014. “Thank God for the Saudis and Prince Bandar, and for our Qatari friends,” the senator said once again a month later, at the Munich Security Conference.

McCain was praising Prince Bandar bin Sultan, then the head of Saudi Arabia’s intelligence services and a former ambassador to the United States, for supporting forces fighting Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria. McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham had previously met with Bandar to encourage the Saudis to arm Syrian rebel forces.
Qatar’s military and economic largesse has made its way to Jabhat al-Nusra, to the point that a senior Qatari official told me he can identify al-Nusra commanders by the blocks they control in various Syrian cities. But ISIS is another matter. As one senior Qatari official stated, “ISIS has been a Saudi project.”
ISIS, in fact, may have been a major part of Bandar’s covert-ops strategy in Syria.

http://www.theatlantic.com/internationa ... ar/373181/

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... -isis.html

Prince Bandar bin Sultan, once the powerful Saudi ambassador in Washington and head of Saudi intelligence until a few months ago, had a revealing and ominous conversation with the head of the British Secret Intelligence Service, MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove. Prince Bandar told him: "The time is not far off in the Middle East, Richard, when it will be literally 'God help the Shia'. More than a billion Sunnis have simply had enough of them."

The fatal moment predicted by Prince Bandar may now have come for many Shia, with Saudi Arabia playing an important role in bringing it about by supporting the anti-Shia jihad in Iraq and Syria.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/com ... 02312.html

rickyp wrote:fate

Yes, the "idiot McCain." Wasn't he the one calling for action two years ago?

Oh he's always calling for action, somewhere somehow..
here's whats known about his jusgement in Iraq recently...

But, he was right about Syria--if we had intervened, things would not be as bad as they are. In fact, Obama wanted to, but . . . he didn't have the will or leadership to take Congress with him.

At least McCain is right once in a while, which is more than can be said for President Obama.

All you're really doing is distracting from the situation as it is. Obama still doesn't know what he's doing. Sadly, he's the President. Now, I don't agree with McCain and Graham that American troops need to be everywhere, all the time, but the Obama Doctrine of "wait until everything goes to h*** before taking action" is the problem right now.

fate

But, he was right about Syria--if we had intervened, things would not be as bad as they are

You're joking right?
You remember what Iraq was like ?
Why would Syria be any different?