Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
I thing your question here is the wrong question.
I think that the air strike's are going to become a very ineffectual strategy anyways. I think that Obama selling this on the pretext that the end goal of the destruction of IS is either disingenuous or he was sold the wrong and much to positive message by his advisers.
Frankly IS is already reacting to the airstrikes by moving their logistics centers and troops and leadership centers into civilian areas, and this coalition is desperate to not create a high civilian casualty count.
Second of all, IS is not a sophisticated military with a need for a lot of logistics. These guys for the most part walk into battle or drive pickups and other vehicles into battle, so unlike an Iraq that was crippled when America removed their technology in the first days of Desert Storm. The bombing campaign will be more like pin pricks.
Does IS have to be stopped and stomped out, I believe it does, at the very least their continued success is going to distort energy prices. At the very worst, they continue to spread and recruit and export their terror brand to different countries, and then we have a real problem. We are also looking at the beginning of a genocide based state, and as citizens of the world, we really can't stand by and watch as they gun down, forcibly convert and kill, murder anyone who they don't like. Nasty hostage beheadings aside, the world media is already losing interest in the mass slaughter of people caught behind the so called lines.
The bottom line is that the only way to defeat IS is with boots on the ground and solid intelligence and being able to fight the war ruthlessly.
Seal operators in different wars have called it "Making footsteps" because you make the enemy so afraid and worried about what your going to do next that they worry about that and lose the initiative and start making mistakes.
Frankly IS is not making a lot of mistakes.
As well they don't even have to recruit and train anymore, they just have to inspire, and the more that they win with impunity and the West reacts weakly, the more that different radicalized individuals will strike out on their own in their own countries.
I believe that the only way to defeat IS is to go in and rip it out by the roots and however the human and monetary cost to that is huge. You would then have to occupy the area and ruthlessly deal with the insurgency while spending a lot on improving education and ifrastructure.
I also believe that you have to choke off their funding by threatening supporting countries, and you have to go in and clean out their radicalizing mosques and leaders.
Its a job that can't be done with a 100 figher bomber salute.
|
I really enjoy your insight into military strategy Captain, it's an area that I will admit to not being very well versed in.
I bolded the section of your post that I find really interesting. I would agree that everything you said, but are we willing to do what it takes to make it happen? Like you said, the monetary cost would be huge, along with the human cost it would take to conquer and occupy the areas that IS currently controls. Is it feasible for the west to do that?
Another thought, will we be able to convince people in the Middle East to accept the kind of fundamental changes to their society that we are proposing? More importantly, do we want to be a society that forces our views on other at the tip of the sword?
Why not let the Middle East decide their own fate for a change? Have they not earned that right?
I realize I am asking a lot of questions here, but that's because I legitimately don't know how we should proceed here. I think a lot of people are in the same boat.