Perhaps some details provided would be nice.

I have a feeling that ISIS will be undermined from with as much as from without. They are trying to impose their regime from day one and it will become unsustainable.

freeman3 wrote:So, I guess you are advocating putting troops on the ground to push ISIS out of areas they control? How many troops? What do we do after ISIS is largely stamped out (what is our exit plan)? I am not saying I disagree with you about having to put in ground troops soon , but what are the details?

I think we're on the road to being dragged to the right strategy. We see Jordan and Egypt flexing because of the outrageous malevolence of ISIS. I propose making sure the Peshmerga, Jordanians, and anyone else who will fight have everything they need, including our air support. The second missing ingredient: Marines at the ready (in LST's and ready to be deployed by other means) and Spec Ops forces. They would hit ISIS randomly, unexpectedly, and then leave. What I propose is occupying their attention with local forces, then raiding them with our troops. Essentially, I want to terrorize ISIS. We will not "invade." We will not "occupy." We will kill them and leave them to rot.

I don't believe a massive army would work. Sure, we would drive them away, but it's like turning on the lights and letting the roaches run away. That doesn't solve the infestation issue. You have to kill them.

With ISIS, if we tell them we're coming, they will move on.

What we are doing now is an epic failure. They are growing in strength because there is a sense in which it seems they are winning.

And, if you don't believe the current Administration is clueless, just listen to the State Department spokeswoman, Mari Harf. (video at the bottom of the page) http://hotair.com/archives/2015/02/17/s ... rtunities/

I am not sure how large a force should be sent but I do think we should drive them out of the towns/areas they control, cause as many casualties as we can, take away their oil and other resources,have the attacks to last 60-90 days, and leave the area under the control of militias/locals friendly to us. They have in some sense been trying to build a nation state and we should destroy their power. These groups seem to draw support partially from their ability to defy the west; getting trounced by our military forces should take care of that.

freeman3 wrote:I am not sure how large a force should be sent but I do think we should drive them out of the towns/areas they control, cause as many casualties as we can, take away their oil and other resources,have the attacks to last 60-90 days, and leave the area under the control of militias/locals friendly to us. They have in some sense been trying to build a nation state and we should destroy their power. These groups seem to draw support partially from their ability to defy the west; getting trounced by our military forces should take care of that.

With regard to your last point, it is spot on, brilliant, spectacular, and I do wish it was more universally understood. This is NOT pointed toward Obama. He is merely accelerating the decisions Bush made. The notion of winning hearts and minds of the populace is a good one. However, there is only one way to defeat ISIS: kill them. When we show a reluctance to engage them, they use it as an example of their "strength" and our "fear." Now, that is not true, but it doesn't matter--it helps them recruit. It is difficult for me (and I suspect most of the West) to understand, but the numbers don't lie. The more we attack via air-only, the stronger they get and the wider they reach.

The reason I propose shorter raids is primarily that I don't want them to be able to predict where we'll be and thus gain some propaganda coup. As you indicate, our goal should not be territory, but inflicting casualties. The casualty rate should be high enough to be demoralizing. They need to realize they are getting crushed.

freeman3

take away their oil and other resources

I believe the sale of oil is generally happening through Turkish outlets.Turkey's behavior and participation against ISIS needs to be examined closely and influence from the West brought to bear on their behaviors. They weren't exactly helpful when ISIS advanced near their border...

Generally I think Fate's strategy is right. However the problem is that ISIS is not in the open anymore. They are hunkered down in populated areas, and urban war fare is really on the side of the guerrillas and the indigenous. It should be the responsibility of Iraq to win back Iraqis populated areas....And Arabs generally to win back Syrian populated areas.
Western forces, especially American, will not be viewed as liberators. (Even if they are ...)
I will note that Fate says that

2. You can contain a nation with expansionist ideas. You cannot contain an ideology

and

The notion of winning hearts and minds of the populace is a good one. However, there is only one way to defeat ISIS: kill them

.
These are contradictory. You can kill ISIS combatants today. But you can't kill the one's who will arrive tomorrow because you are inspiring them today.
The more the war against ISIS is seen as a victory for the Arab world against ISIS the less likely that the ideology will survive . The more the influence of the west is seen to be the fewer the embittered who sympathize with ISIS and who may fuel its continued resistance.


However I agree where possible, limited strikes by western forces against ISIS in support of the occupying Arab forces is advisable.

rickyp wrote:Generally I think Fate's strategy is right. However the problem is that ISIS is not in the open anymore. They are hunkered down in populated areas, and urban war fare is really on the side of the guerrillas and the indigenous.

Let's say you're right. Let's say ISIS is "hunkered down." Well, in that case they are not capable of picking up any additional territory. "Hunkered down in populated areas" means they are not advancing. Is that true?

In a word, "No." For example, this headline: "ISIS Seizes Al-Baghdadi, Town Just Miles Away From Baghdad, With Only A US Marine Base In Its Path"

It should be the responsibility of Iraq to win back Iraqis populated areas....And Arabs generally to win back Syrian populated areas.

Syria is a lot more difficult because of Assad. There you have a sitting government with an air force, etc.

And, that is a major part of the problem. We cannot permit ISIS to simply retreat into Syria and "be safe." However, that is our current posture. As long as President Obama prefers to not to lead, nothing will change. We need Churchill, not Ron Paul, in terms of rhetoric and leadership. In fact, I'd settle for the vitriol and anger Obama reserves for Republicans. If he'd simply unleash that on ISIS and permit the military to develop a plan for actual "victory" rather than containment, that would be really great.

I will note that Fate says that

2. You can contain a nation with expansionist ideas. You cannot contain an ideology

and

The notion of winning hearts and minds of the populace is a good one. However, there is only one way to defeat ISIS: kill them

.
These are contradictory. You can kill ISIS combatants today. But you can't kill the one's who will arrive tomorrow because you are inspiring them today.

You are wrong, of course. You kill the ones on the battlefield today and you discourage tomorrow's volunteers by giving their predecessors inglorious deaths. It is our middling approach that is encouraging new jihadis to join ISIS--they believe they will achieve success and that we are too cowardly to stop them.

The more the war against ISIS is seen as a victory for the Arab world against ISIS the less likely that the ideology will survive . The more the influence of the west is seen to be the fewer the embittered who sympathize with ISIS and who may fuel its continued resistance.

True, but militant Islam will survive in some form or another. All we can do is limit its success by killing those who act upon it. Actually, "slaughtering" them would be ideal--it has to be seen as an utterly futile exercise.


However I agree where possible, limited strikes by western forces against ISIS in support of the occupying Arab forces is advisable.

It seems like a recurring theme from Islamic extremists--from Al Qaeda to ISIS--is that while the West might be materially strong it can be beaten because it is weak, morally decadent, and cowardly. The militants will win because they are willing to die and be martyrs in a righteous war against enemies of Islam. Air strikes can be interpreted as a sign of weakness, for example. But a decisive defeat of ISIS's forces should hinder its ability to recruit replacements.

freeman3 wrote:It seems like a recurring theme from Islamic extremists--from Al Qaeda to ISIS--is that while the West might be materially strong it can be beaten because it is weak, morally decadent, and cowardly. The militants will win because they are willing to die and be martyrs in a righteous war against enemies of Islam. Air strikes can be interpreted as a sign of weakness, for example. But a decisive defeat of ISIS's forces should hinder its ability to recruit replacements.

Agreed. Additionally, I think we ought to be supporting anti-ISIS propaganda. For example, if it is against the Qur'an (as some have claimed) to burn another Muslim to death, then we ought to show a still image of it alongside the verse that condemns it.

Unlike some in government, I don't claim to be an expert in the Qur'an. However, if it truly speaks against some of the things they are doing, then it seems to me that it would have value to point out their "heresy" to potential followers.

Yes, propaganda could be a useful tool. Of course, it would have to come from Muslim clerics who would validate that interpretation, not from us. Anything coming from the infidel is going to be suspect.

http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/com ... again.html

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/f ... n-kasasbeh

freeman3

Of course, it would have to come from Muslim clerics who would validate that interpretation, not from us. Anything coming from the infidel is going to be suspect.

there's plenty muslim outrage and preaching...(see links)

rickyp wrote:http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/commonwordcommonlord/2014/08/think-muslims-havent-condemned-isis-think-again.html

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/f ... n-kasasbeh

freeman3

Of course, it would have to come from Muslim clerics who would validate that interpretation, not from us. Anything coming from the infidel is going to be suspect.

there's plenty muslim outrage and preaching...(see links)

No, not really. Some of it may be genuine, however:

1. "The Organization Of Islamic Cooperation: The Islamic State Has “Nothing To Do With Islam,” Has Committed Crimes “That Cannot Be Tolerated.” As the Vatican’s internal news source reported, the Secretary General for the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, which represents 1.4 billion Muslims in 57 countries around the world . . ."

Sorry, but that's patently rubbish. No one and no organization "represents 1.4 billion Muslims."

2. CAIR is a fraud. They have consistently said "peace" while supporting Hamas and other terror organizations. But, for many Muslims, it is acceptable to lie to the infidel.

3. Similarly, many Saudis and British Muslims support terrorism and some even participate in it.

I am impressed by the Egyptian and by the Turk, both of whom have something to lose (their lives) for taking such a stand.

That said, if violence were unacceptable, where would all of these jihadis come from? Is it two or three clerics spreading all of the mayhem? Uh, no.

In summary, there may be SOME "outrage" and anti-violence "preaching," but not enough. In addition, some of it is faux outrage.

All you never wanted to know about ISIS.

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/arc ... dium=email

The article has a very good analysis of how extremists can justify their actions as being justified by their religion and that the whole idea of saying that they are not really Muslims or that what they are doing cannot be justified by the Quran is wishful thinking. We have to stop doing that. Now, if a Muslim leader comes out and says their interpretation is plausible/possible but incorrect--ok, that's fine. Of course, we want mainstream Muslims to be against extremism. But when a Muslim leader comes on TV and says they are completely out there, that there is no justification or precedent could possibly be found in the Quran--and after every attack it seems you will see Muslim leaders come out and say that--then I think that is painting a rosy picture that begs the question of why any Muslim would be attracted to the extremist interpretation in the first place.

freeman3 wrote:. . . after every attack it seems you will see Muslim leaders come out and say that--then I think that is painting a rosy picture that begs the question of why any Muslim would be attracted to the extremist interpretation in the first place.

(With fear and trepidation) Look, I don't want to argue about the Crusades. However, we often here of the great evils done during the Crusades. Fine.

But, why were the Crusades undertaken? Did "Christians" simply roll out of bed one day and decide to march on the Holy Land?

To get back to freeman3's point: Islam does contain some justification for violence. It swept over all of North Africa and much of Europe at the point of a sword. At the very least, some of today's extreme Islamist movement views itself as the legitimate descendant of that movement. The President has no capacity to determine whether or not they are legitimate. They believe they are, so withholding "Islamic" from their name is kind of . . . childish. They don't "deserve" the name? Oh brother.

The only way to fight them successfully is to know what motivates them and take it away. They're not out for "legitimacy" as the President claimed. They believe they are legitimate. He can't hurt their feelings. What he does when he claims they do not represent "true Islam" is insult them without any particular effect. We can (and should) acknowledge theirs is the minority position without playing semantic games that achieve nothing.

As an example, those idiots from Westboro Baptist Church do not represent Christianity. However, they claim to follow the Bible. They claim to be the "true" church. Christians roundly denounce them. We even mock them.

Of course, the difference is stark: they are not burning people alive or decapitating them. ISIS is. Still, I think Muslims can decide for themselves whether ISIS is genuinely a Muslim movement without the President's help. What they need is his leadership in order to do something effective to ISIS. Hashtag campaigns and bombing raids are not getting it done.