info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
You Are No Sun Tzu, Sir!
87 views
Skip to first unread message
HenryDavidT
Feb 22, 2015, 7:33:10 PM2/22/15
to
The horror of editing, and posting, on the fly!
After a couple times, it's all gone to hell, with junks missing and things I've never written or read popping up out of thin air!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Here's a better edited (and final) draft.
If it were to be published, again, I would have to do an additional 50% reduction, with tons of additional editing & spelling checks; but for general reading purposes alone, here, this is decent enough.
My original title was called "THE TOYOTA TUNDRA WAR."
But, as usual, I changed my mind and thought "You Are No Sun Tzu, Sir" was a bit more irrelevant!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sunday, December 28, 2014
Friday, February 20, 2015
Saturday, Feb. 21, 2015
Sunday, Feb 22, 2015
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
You Are No Sun Tzu, Sir!
Sun Tzu and THE ART OF WAR can be read on-line, so I will not talk about them here.
But this was written with Sun Tzu in mind, in terms of "thinking outside the box."
I asked myself, "How would Sun Tzu, the great war theoretician, deal with these peace-loving Islamists in the 21st century who quote the QURAN, on the one hand, while they decapitate and display severed heads on poles in downtown squares wherever they rule, on the other"?
Here, I tried to articulate a strategy that would help win a war against ISIS. There are different ways to defeat ISIS. And ISIS is easily defeated, if casualties among the populations were no object. But since civilian casualties are now high in America's consciousness, given the recent wars America has conducted in this same region, this new strategy, then, is the most palatable.
But, first, a few about ISIS...
Arguments to the contrary notwithstanding, ISIS is just like Al Qaida, a terror organization. But ISIS is more organized and better-funded.
Initially funded by some Middle Eastern Sunni Muslim conservatives, ISIS is now largely self-sufficient. It has taken over cities with banks, with hundreds of millions in cash. It also has captured a lot of lands with oil fields. And, despite the bombings by Americans and a few Arab allies, oil still earns ISIS millions of dollars, per month, in small trucking operations.
Two other noticeable income generators for ISIS are racketeering (the extortion of money and goods from local businesses) and kidnapping. It is estimated that ransom payments have netted ISIS and close affiliates tens of millions over just the last 2 years alone.
Each war has its own peculiarity and unique circumstances. This stratagem here pertains to this war against ISIS only. And since about 99.5% of ISIS enemies are Muslims in the Middle East, Muslims, I will argue, must take the lead in this fight.
More specifically, Syrians and Iraqis must be the ones who do the actual town to town, door to door fighting.
America, Europe, and other non-Syrian and non-Iraqi partners should only play a supporting role. But that supporting role must be more than just dropping bombs from 30K to 50K feet up. Dropping a few big bombs and lopping a few missiles from distances, with complete game-like infrared pictures of exploding warehouses, is viscerally satisfying; unfortunately, that is NOT going to be enough to dismantle or destroy an enemy as resourceful and adaptive as ISIS.
Self-propaganda notwithstanding, ISIS knows that the West does not bomb indiscriminately. ISIS knows, for example, that having its members living in small groups of 2-3 in local citizen apartments and homes ensures their safety to very high degrees. Yes, Kobani was bombed to rubble; but that's because roughly 98% of the people from Kobani had already left for Turkey.
On the other hand, we know roughly 98% of the citizens of Raqqa and Mosul, totaling over two million people, ARE STILL LIVING in those cities.
NO INDISCRIMINATE BOMBINGS IN RAQQA AND MOSUL BY AMERICA.
That, indeed, is invaluable information for ISIS.
Further, living in small cells among local citizens also allows ISIS members to monitor the citizens in ways they couldn't have, if they were living among themselves in the desert, in dug-out and "fortified" tunnels or holes, in mountains or training facilities.
I'll say only a few words about wars, in general, and about the two Bush wars, in specific: "If we had kept 10K-50K soldiers there, none of these would have happened" is simply a fanciful wish. There are many kinds of "facts," but here is one that stands the test of time: occupying forces and colonialism breed generational contempt and resentment.
Unless the locals wanted you occupying their country, and hardly anyone does, it doesn't matter how powerful you are, militarily, they'd eventually find a way to defeat you and send you home. Even when the locals are somehow forced to be receptive to the idea as it was with Germany, South Korea, and Japan after WWII and the Korean War, respectively, it's too costly.
The TENS OF THOUSANDS of troops still stationed in bases across Europe and Asia, for example, cost America MANY BILLIONS of dollars, per year.
Thus, leaving 10K-50K American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, each, for years to decades, is a non-starter. But, again, doing that would create so much resentment and distrust on both the occupied and the occupiers, there'd never be peace.
That old line of argument, therefore, has little to no merit. And that's that.
Please, note that at the time I first started writing this, late 2014, shortly after Obama started bombing ISIS, there were no more than a few hundred active American soldiers in Iraq, in the various obscure "training" or spying roles and capacities.
Today, there are, in Iraq alone, close to 4,000 uniformed, active American soldiers. Possibly more. They're not at the front-line, true.
But "the front line" is always shifting, so any day of the week, they could be attacked or captured. The situation in the city of Baghdadi and the base a few miles from it, with those 300-500 American marine "trainers," showed that ISIS could attack any city, any time they want. ISIS has a web of conquered towns and cities dotting the Syrian and Iraqi landscapes.
Being merely confined to "just military bases" doesn't make American soldiers all that safe.
The main thrust to this piece, therefore, is how to successfully fight ISIS, with no more than a 1.5 to 2 full brigades (5,000 to 8,000) of SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES from America and its allies, using an "out of the box" strategy.
I won't cite any map here that shows the territories under ISIS control. Some maps show, for example, lands from eastern Syria all the way to the periphery of Baghdad, Iraq, as being controlled by ISIS. I don't think that's very accurate. Most of that are just unoccupied and unlivable deserts.
The more detailed maps show the exact routes and locations under ISIS control. And while it's been estimated that one to two thousand ISIS members have been killed due to bombings the last a couple months, many more thousands have been recruited, during that same period. The range I'd use for active ISIS fighters, based on the reading I've done in the last a couple months, therefore, puts ISIS's strength between 20,000 and 40,000.
So, yes, it is true it'd be foolish to take on 20K-40K fanatics using only 5K-8K special operations forces, in urban settings, doing door to door fighting in towns and cities.
That's not what I am suggesting...
Here, I am talking about inserting small and highly mobile units of 100-200 special operations forces in the various important nodes and junctures OUT THERE IN THE DESERTS, away from urban areas.
In this strategy, anyone who approaches such units, seen miles out, 24/7, needs to be annihilated immediately.
How is that possible?
Unlike North America, Latin America, South Americas, Southeast Asia, or tropical Africa where there are dense forests and jungles and deep valleys and tall mountains in which large groups in the hundreds to thousands could easily hide and survive, for months and years, most of the Middle East is desert or other inhospitable terrains.
To get from points A to B, for supply and re-enforcement purposes, you need to travel through routes; cutting across vast deserts with freezing and boiling temperatures all happening in a 24-hour cycle, TO AVOID SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES, is not going to be easy for ISIS.
We have night vision, Apaches, Black Hawks, satellites, drones, F-22s, F-15s, F-16s, F-18s, B-1s, B-52s, etc.
When you control those important nodes and junctures, in such hostile desert environments, you have a very significant say in how a group like ISIS operates.
It used to be the case that, for example, ISIS would parade in new, gleaming Toyota Tundras, with scary black flags flying proud and high in the air, as they marauded from one town to the next. After some 6 months of constant bombing, no more such large activities or parades.
But ISIS is still expanding. Why? Because they are still able to move as they please, traveling in smaller contingents.
By deploying 5K-8K special operations forces from the USA, Europe, and (Sunni-majority) Arab countries like Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates --- and by deploying them in small, mobile units at important nodes and junctures between Syria and Iraq --- you largely stop all easy ISIS vehicular traffic.
A strangle-hold on ISIS supply, re-supply, and re-enforcement activities means eventual death for the terror organization.
And there should be only ONE RULE, in this strategy: KILL ALL WHO APPROACH YOU IN THE VAST DESERT.
No exceptions made.
Millions of leaflets, therefore, are needed to be dropped in villages, towns, and cities all over Syria and Iraq. Harsh and unfair, true, but it must be done. A short term acute suffering is likely better than a long term and unstoppable ISIS-like cancerous infestation all over the Middle East, Africa, and beyond.
That would allow tens to hundreds of thousands of local Syrian, Iraqi and Kurdish forces to fight in towns and cities, doing door to door fighting against ISIS in terrain lay-outs and among local people Syrian and Iraqi forces know and understand best.
And this, or a similar strategy, needs to be implemented. Better sooner than later.
Contrary to Obama's nonsensical assertion --- e.g., "This war on terror won't be over in weeks or months; it will take years" --- TIME IS THE ESSENCE.
And time is NOT on our side.
If ISIS is a cancer, as Obama and his advisors correctly argue it is, then giving a vicious, fast-spreading cancer YEARS to spread defeats any point in trying to stop it in the first place. A cancer that is both vicious and fast-spreading needs to be operated on and taken out ASAP.
This strategy accomplishes three major aims as follows:
#1: It will minimize injuries and deaths to both American troops as well as civilians, since most civilians will stay in town.
#2: It allows Syrians and Iraqis to do city to city, street to street, and door to door fighting among civilian populations with traditions and languages they know best.
How or why does this strategy work?
Napoleon and Frederick the Great were right: an army, even one like ISIS, marches on its stomach.
We are very MOBILE, both vertically and laterally.
ISIS IS 100% NOT VERTICALLY MOBILE.
Adding a strangle-hold on their lateral movements, too, and you pretty much starve them of the men and supplies they had to have in order to keep up with and to expand their pillaging and killing.
#3: This approach cannot easily be propagandized by ISIS and their sympathizers as an invasion, much less an occupation.
A 5K-8K SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES contingent can be air-lifted out of their desert posts, within a week or two, once Syrians and Iraqis have taken back all their villages and towns and cities.
This latter aspect of point #3 is, indeed, one of the most "sticky points" in large troop application in foreign countries. We all know that when you send tens to hundreds of thousands of troops to a FOREIGN COUNTRY to fight, the question always is: what do you do, once you've defeat the enemies?
Do you create large bases and stay to occupy the country? Or do you leave, after having sacrificed thousands of wounds and dead, in town to town, city to city, doing door to door fighting?
To me, then, sending in a rapid deployed contingent of highly armed, highly mobile special ops forces is the most palatable, intelligent, and effective approach to this ISIS crisis.
But, again, TIME IS NOT ON OUR SIDE.
ISIS is expanding.
Month after month, even under constant American and ally bombing, ISIS has been able to consistently recruit thousands of fresh faces. More worrying, new groups are sprouting all over the Middle East and Africa ... all pledging allegiance to ISIS.
Again, the Obama people keep saying fighting ISIS would take years, not months.
But the American people are already starting to turn against that doctrine and belief; even Obama himself is already starting to equivocate...
Right now, there are around 4K American "advisers" in, over, or around Iraq and Syria. What would happen, ask yourself, if one, two, or ten uniformed men and women were captured and then decapitated, or BURNT ALIVE, like that Jordanian pilot?
Do you really think Obama would stick with his usual "no American boots on the ground"? Of course not! If THAT GRIM SCENARIO HAPPENED, many thousands would be sent in immediately.
But IF THAT WHOLE MORBID CASCADE CAME TO PASS it would NOT, then, be a proactive approach.
Knee-jerk responses are not sound foreign policies.
In early 2014, when ISIS was just starting to become more visible and formally splitting away from Al Qaida, the percentage of Americans favoring "ground troops" was in the high teens to 20% range.
By late summer of 2014, when ISIS was running in circles around Syrian rebels, Iraqis armed forces and Kurds, that number ticked up only very slightly.
Now, "the Ides of March" approaches, 2015.
The percentage of Americans supporting the "ground troops" approach is now in the 50% range. More worrying still, the percentage of Americans saying "Obama doesn't have a plan to defeat ISIS" or that "his bombing campaign has failed" is also around the 50% range.
As the pressure slowly builds, Obama finds that "no troops on the ground," for both doctrinal and practical purposes, simply because "the American citizens are tired of wars" is almost as bad as putting thousands of troops on the ground, in combat roles, simply because most American citizens are now "for it."
This complex and shifting reality, then, is Obama's greatest dilemma.
After a couple times, it's all gone to hell, with junks missing and things I've never written or read popping up out of thin air!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Here's a better edited (and final) draft.
If it were to be published, again, I would have to do an additional 50% reduction, with tons of additional editing & spelling checks; but for general reading purposes alone, here, this is decent enough.
My original title was called "THE TOYOTA TUNDRA WAR."
But, as usual, I changed my mind and thought "You Are No Sun Tzu, Sir" was a bit more irrelevant!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sunday, December 28, 2014
Friday, February 20, 2015
Saturday, Feb. 21, 2015
Sunday, Feb 22, 2015
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
You Are No Sun Tzu, Sir!
Sun Tzu and THE ART OF WAR can be read on-line, so I will not talk about them here.
But this was written with Sun Tzu in mind, in terms of "thinking outside the box."
I asked myself, "How would Sun Tzu, the great war theoretician, deal with these peace-loving Islamists in the 21st century who quote the QURAN, on the one hand, while they decapitate and display severed heads on poles in downtown squares wherever they rule, on the other"?
Here, I tried to articulate a strategy that would help win a war against ISIS. There are different ways to defeat ISIS. And ISIS is easily defeated, if casualties among the populations were no object. But since civilian casualties are now high in America's consciousness, given the recent wars America has conducted in this same region, this new strategy, then, is the most palatable.
But, first, a few about ISIS...
Arguments to the contrary notwithstanding, ISIS is just like Al Qaida, a terror organization. But ISIS is more organized and better-funded.
Initially funded by some Middle Eastern Sunni Muslim conservatives, ISIS is now largely self-sufficient. It has taken over cities with banks, with hundreds of millions in cash. It also has captured a lot of lands with oil fields. And, despite the bombings by Americans and a few Arab allies, oil still earns ISIS millions of dollars, per month, in small trucking operations.
Two other noticeable income generators for ISIS are racketeering (the extortion of money and goods from local businesses) and kidnapping. It is estimated that ransom payments have netted ISIS and close affiliates tens of millions over just the last 2 years alone.
Each war has its own peculiarity and unique circumstances. This stratagem here pertains to this war against ISIS only. And since about 99.5% of ISIS enemies are Muslims in the Middle East, Muslims, I will argue, must take the lead in this fight.
More specifically, Syrians and Iraqis must be the ones who do the actual town to town, door to door fighting.
America, Europe, and other non-Syrian and non-Iraqi partners should only play a supporting role. But that supporting role must be more than just dropping bombs from 30K to 50K feet up. Dropping a few big bombs and lopping a few missiles from distances, with complete game-like infrared pictures of exploding warehouses, is viscerally satisfying; unfortunately, that is NOT going to be enough to dismantle or destroy an enemy as resourceful and adaptive as ISIS.
Self-propaganda notwithstanding, ISIS knows that the West does not bomb indiscriminately. ISIS knows, for example, that having its members living in small groups of 2-3 in local citizen apartments and homes ensures their safety to very high degrees. Yes, Kobani was bombed to rubble; but that's because roughly 98% of the people from Kobani had already left for Turkey.
On the other hand, we know roughly 98% of the citizens of Raqqa and Mosul, totaling over two million people, ARE STILL LIVING in those cities.
NO INDISCRIMINATE BOMBINGS IN RAQQA AND MOSUL BY AMERICA.
That, indeed, is invaluable information for ISIS.
Further, living in small cells among local citizens also allows ISIS members to monitor the citizens in ways they couldn't have, if they were living among themselves in the desert, in dug-out and "fortified" tunnels or holes, in mountains or training facilities.
I'll say only a few words about wars, in general, and about the two Bush wars, in specific: "If we had kept 10K-50K soldiers there, none of these would have happened" is simply a fanciful wish. There are many kinds of "facts," but here is one that stands the test of time: occupying forces and colonialism breed generational contempt and resentment.
Unless the locals wanted you occupying their country, and hardly anyone does, it doesn't matter how powerful you are, militarily, they'd eventually find a way to defeat you and send you home. Even when the locals are somehow forced to be receptive to the idea as it was with Germany, South Korea, and Japan after WWII and the Korean War, respectively, it's too costly.
The TENS OF THOUSANDS of troops still stationed in bases across Europe and Asia, for example, cost America MANY BILLIONS of dollars, per year.
Thus, leaving 10K-50K American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, each, for years to decades, is a non-starter. But, again, doing that would create so much resentment and distrust on both the occupied and the occupiers, there'd never be peace.
That old line of argument, therefore, has little to no merit. And that's that.
Please, note that at the time I first started writing this, late 2014, shortly after Obama started bombing ISIS, there were no more than a few hundred active American soldiers in Iraq, in the various obscure "training" or spying roles and capacities.
Today, there are, in Iraq alone, close to 4,000 uniformed, active American soldiers. Possibly more. They're not at the front-line, true.
But "the front line" is always shifting, so any day of the week, they could be attacked or captured. The situation in the city of Baghdadi and the base a few miles from it, with those 300-500 American marine "trainers," showed that ISIS could attack any city, any time they want. ISIS has a web of conquered towns and cities dotting the Syrian and Iraqi landscapes.
Being merely confined to "just military bases" doesn't make American soldiers all that safe.
The main thrust to this piece, therefore, is how to successfully fight ISIS, with no more than a 1.5 to 2 full brigades (5,000 to 8,000) of SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES from America and its allies, using an "out of the box" strategy.
I won't cite any map here that shows the territories under ISIS control. Some maps show, for example, lands from eastern Syria all the way to the periphery of Baghdad, Iraq, as being controlled by ISIS. I don't think that's very accurate. Most of that are just unoccupied and unlivable deserts.
The more detailed maps show the exact routes and locations under ISIS control. And while it's been estimated that one to two thousand ISIS members have been killed due to bombings the last a couple months, many more thousands have been recruited, during that same period. The range I'd use for active ISIS fighters, based on the reading I've done in the last a couple months, therefore, puts ISIS's strength between 20,000 and 40,000.
So, yes, it is true it'd be foolish to take on 20K-40K fanatics using only 5K-8K special operations forces, in urban settings, doing door to door fighting in towns and cities.
That's not what I am suggesting...
Here, I am talking about inserting small and highly mobile units of 100-200 special operations forces in the various important nodes and junctures OUT THERE IN THE DESERTS, away from urban areas.
In this strategy, anyone who approaches such units, seen miles out, 24/7, needs to be annihilated immediately.
How is that possible?
Unlike North America, Latin America, South Americas, Southeast Asia, or tropical Africa where there are dense forests and jungles and deep valleys and tall mountains in which large groups in the hundreds to thousands could easily hide and survive, for months and years, most of the Middle East is desert or other inhospitable terrains.
To get from points A to B, for supply and re-enforcement purposes, you need to travel through routes; cutting across vast deserts with freezing and boiling temperatures all happening in a 24-hour cycle, TO AVOID SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES, is not going to be easy for ISIS.
We have night vision, Apaches, Black Hawks, satellites, drones, F-22s, F-15s, F-16s, F-18s, B-1s, B-52s, etc.
When you control those important nodes and junctures, in such hostile desert environments, you have a very significant say in how a group like ISIS operates.
It used to be the case that, for example, ISIS would parade in new, gleaming Toyota Tundras, with scary black flags flying proud and high in the air, as they marauded from one town to the next. After some 6 months of constant bombing, no more such large activities or parades.
But ISIS is still expanding. Why? Because they are still able to move as they please, traveling in smaller contingents.
By deploying 5K-8K special operations forces from the USA, Europe, and (Sunni-majority) Arab countries like Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates --- and by deploying them in small, mobile units at important nodes and junctures between Syria and Iraq --- you largely stop all easy ISIS vehicular traffic.
A strangle-hold on ISIS supply, re-supply, and re-enforcement activities means eventual death for the terror organization.
And there should be only ONE RULE, in this strategy: KILL ALL WHO APPROACH YOU IN THE VAST DESERT.
No exceptions made.
Millions of leaflets, therefore, are needed to be dropped in villages, towns, and cities all over Syria and Iraq. Harsh and unfair, true, but it must be done. A short term acute suffering is likely better than a long term and unstoppable ISIS-like cancerous infestation all over the Middle East, Africa, and beyond.
That would allow tens to hundreds of thousands of local Syrian, Iraqi and Kurdish forces to fight in towns and cities, doing door to door fighting against ISIS in terrain lay-outs and among local people Syrian and Iraqi forces know and understand best.
And this, or a similar strategy, needs to be implemented. Better sooner than later.
Contrary to Obama's nonsensical assertion --- e.g., "This war on terror won't be over in weeks or months; it will take years" --- TIME IS THE ESSENCE.
And time is NOT on our side.
If ISIS is a cancer, as Obama and his advisors correctly argue it is, then giving a vicious, fast-spreading cancer YEARS to spread defeats any point in trying to stop it in the first place. A cancer that is both vicious and fast-spreading needs to be operated on and taken out ASAP.
This strategy accomplishes three major aims as follows:
#1: It will minimize injuries and deaths to both American troops as well as civilians, since most civilians will stay in town.
#2: It allows Syrians and Iraqis to do city to city, street to street, and door to door fighting among civilian populations with traditions and languages they know best.
How or why does this strategy work?
Napoleon and Frederick the Great were right: an army, even one like ISIS, marches on its stomach.
We are very MOBILE, both vertically and laterally.
ISIS IS 100% NOT VERTICALLY MOBILE.
Adding a strangle-hold on their lateral movements, too, and you pretty much starve them of the men and supplies they had to have in order to keep up with and to expand their pillaging and killing.
#3: This approach cannot easily be propagandized by ISIS and their sympathizers as an invasion, much less an occupation.
A 5K-8K SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES contingent can be air-lifted out of their desert posts, within a week or two, once Syrians and Iraqis have taken back all their villages and towns and cities.
This latter aspect of point #3 is, indeed, one of the most "sticky points" in large troop application in foreign countries. We all know that when you send tens to hundreds of thousands of troops to a FOREIGN COUNTRY to fight, the question always is: what do you do, once you've defeat the enemies?
Do you create large bases and stay to occupy the country? Or do you leave, after having sacrificed thousands of wounds and dead, in town to town, city to city, doing door to door fighting?
To me, then, sending in a rapid deployed contingent of highly armed, highly mobile special ops forces is the most palatable, intelligent, and effective approach to this ISIS crisis.
But, again, TIME IS NOT ON OUR SIDE.
ISIS is expanding.
Month after month, even under constant American and ally bombing, ISIS has been able to consistently recruit thousands of fresh faces. More worrying, new groups are sprouting all over the Middle East and Africa ... all pledging allegiance to ISIS.
Again, the Obama people keep saying fighting ISIS would take years, not months.
But the American people are already starting to turn against that doctrine and belief; even Obama himself is already starting to equivocate...
Right now, there are around 4K American "advisers" in, over, or around Iraq and Syria. What would happen, ask yourself, if one, two, or ten uniformed men and women were captured and then decapitated, or BURNT ALIVE, like that Jordanian pilot?
Do you really think Obama would stick with his usual "no American boots on the ground"? Of course not! If THAT GRIM SCENARIO HAPPENED, many thousands would be sent in immediately.
But IF THAT WHOLE MORBID CASCADE CAME TO PASS it would NOT, then, be a proactive approach.
Knee-jerk responses are not sound foreign policies.
In early 2014, when ISIS was just starting to become more visible and formally splitting away from Al Qaida, the percentage of Americans favoring "ground troops" was in the high teens to 20% range.
By late summer of 2014, when ISIS was running in circles around Syrian rebels, Iraqis armed forces and Kurds, that number ticked up only very slightly.
Now, "the Ides of March" approaches, 2015.
The percentage of Americans supporting the "ground troops" approach is now in the 50% range. More worrying still, the percentage of Americans saying "Obama doesn't have a plan to defeat ISIS" or that "his bombing campaign has failed" is also around the 50% range.
As the pressure slowly builds, Obama finds that "no troops on the ground," for both doctrinal and practical purposes, simply because "the American citizens are tired of wars" is almost as bad as putting thousands of troops on the ground, in combat roles, simply because most American citizens are now "for it."
This complex and shifting reality, then, is Obama's greatest dilemma.
unkown
Feb 23, 2015, 10:44:26 AM2/23/15
to
Mr. Lauj Hawj
One cannot solve the world problems. Our world is too small to be divided for each ethnic (haiv neeg) or religious fanatic or delusional groups. There are only two choices to ensure peace on this earth. 1. Divide every piece of land for each ethnic group to call their own countries. 2. Open this earth for everyone to roam like a pack of wild horses..When god created this world here, god wants everyone to be a citizen of his earth, not a citizen of a country. Human being will continue to fight for a territory and their philosophy. Let them fight, let them suffer, when they have enough they will stop killing each others.
Everyone lives in this earth is a citizen of the earth. Earth is created for us. God's intention is for us to live the life style as Neanderthal era, take only what we need, roam the earth as far as one can. As long as countries exist in this earth, killing will continue.
Just grab a case of beer and sit on the top of mountain and watch the RAT RACE in the valley. Let stupid folks killing each other and watch the Americans dump their old war ordinances to their war zones, and test newly created weapns's accuracies. No one win the the war...only destruction and suffering..
One cannot solve the world problems. Our world is too small to be divided for each ethnic (haiv neeg) or religious fanatic or delusional groups. There are only two choices to ensure peace on this earth. 1. Divide every piece of land for each ethnic group to call their own countries. 2. Open this earth for everyone to roam like a pack of wild horses..When god created this world here, god wants everyone to be a citizen of his earth, not a citizen of a country. Human being will continue to fight for a territory and their philosophy. Let them fight, let them suffer, when they have enough they will stop killing each others.
Everyone lives in this earth is a citizen of the earth. Earth is created for us. God's intention is for us to live the life style as Neanderthal era, take only what we need, roam the earth as far as one can. As long as countries exist in this earth, killing will continue.
Just grab a case of beer and sit on the top of mountain and watch the RAT RACE in the valley. Let stupid folks killing each other and watch the Americans dump their old war ordinances to their war zones, and test newly created weapns's accuracies. No one win the the war...only destruction and suffering..
AEON
Feb 23, 2015, 12:54:37 PM2/23/15
to
HenryDavidT
Mar 8, 2015, 9:10:48 AM3/8/15
to
http://news.yahoo.com/france-pm-10-000-europeans-could-waging-jihad-112101797.html
Let's say the French PM Manuel Valls estimate is off by, oh, 80%. Well, you'd still have around 2,000 Europeans fighting in Syria and Iraq towards the end of 2015.
That's a lot of fighters, adding on top of the SEVERAL THOUSANDS of Europeans ALREADY there fighting with ISIS and other "fake" "religion of peace" followers and fighters.
That is why you don't allow a cancer that is both vicious and fast spreading, like ISIS, to go on for YEARS, as Obama's "war on terrorism" is said to need to take.
Years.
Now, Boko Haram has just declare, formally, allegiance to ISIS, in Africa; and Africa IS THE SCARRIER and HARDER TO FIGHT terrains, since central/sub-Sahara Africa is thick with impenetrable forest, mountains, valleys, and other landscapes and terrains that would make it IMPOSSIBLE to fight a well organized, large terrorist organization who could hide AND SURVIVE in the thick forests for years. The only time they need to come to towns and cities across Africa, is to terrorize and get supplies, in clandestine set-ups with middle men.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/05/us-mideast-crisis-syria-hazzm-idUSKBN0M10GV20150305
Notice that WITHOUT adequate support, with the CIA only giving some 20 or so anti-tank missile systems to HAZAM, the socalled moderate Syrian rebel group to the north of Syria, and a budget, per some of their commanders said, of only about $500,000.... that after a year, HAZAM, which had an original number of some 5,000 is dissolved?, with many members having gone to join up with Al Nusra and ISIS?
Well, this is Obama's half-peace-half-war attitude.
On the on set of last summer, just a week or two before the major ISIS offensive, Hilary Clinton said she would have armed the "moderate" Syria rebels, like John McCain had also advocated, Obama said anyone who thought they knew some moderate Syria groups and they further thought arming them would have made the situation different AND BETTER, that they're fantasizing.
Well, immediately ISIS went on a successful offensive rampage, over running both Syrian and Iraq groups.
And, as the passage of time over the last year show, Obama DID IMMEDIATELY BEGIN an CIA clandestine operation; except it was never that clandestine, since the one or two small Syrian rebel groups that were, after a few months of "vetting", given arms... they said out loud, time and time again, that such SMALL HELP was nowhere near the level of help they needed to defeat extreme groups like AL NURSA, ISIS, as well as the Assad regime.
Well, turned out they were right.
20 TOW missile system plus $500,000 and a few dozen old AK47s were not gonna help any one or any group very much.
ISIS and AL NURSA and other extremist sunni groups had very good and sustained support before they over-ran Iraq and Syrian government posts and accumulate tons of heavy equipment. Those extremists group, as we know, also have a steady stream of 7th century wannabe jihadist recruits streaming in from the West and the Arab world, in the many hundreds PER MONTH, at least.
So, after a year of allowing ISIS to ran amok, Obama said his CIA and State Department folks ARE NOW STARTING TO VET a few dozens, per month, of "moderate Syrian rebels" to be trained in Jordan, Turkey, Qatar, and one or two other Arab sites.
I don't know how a few hundreds of "moderate Syrian rebels," trained every few months, armed with LIGHT arms, mostly Eastern Europe and Russia made 1940s-90s guns.... are gonna defeat both the ASSAD regime and ISIS and AL NURSA.
Apparently Obama and his inner circle decision makers think that trick would do.
Or perhaps none of the American commanding officers with knowledge of the Mid East think such half-hearted, haphazard & silly undertaking would work but that they can't criticize "the Messiah," as comrade Sao Sou Maly said... lest they face insubordination, treason, and related charges of "disrespecting our great nation and our great commander in chief" nonsense?
Let's say the French PM Manuel Valls estimate is off by, oh, 80%. Well, you'd still have around 2,000 Europeans fighting in Syria and Iraq towards the end of 2015.
That's a lot of fighters, adding on top of the SEVERAL THOUSANDS of Europeans ALREADY there fighting with ISIS and other "fake" "religion of peace" followers and fighters.
That is why you don't allow a cancer that is both vicious and fast spreading, like ISIS, to go on for YEARS, as Obama's "war on terrorism" is said to need to take.
Years.
Now, Boko Haram has just declare, formally, allegiance to ISIS, in Africa; and Africa IS THE SCARRIER and HARDER TO FIGHT terrains, since central/sub-Sahara Africa is thick with impenetrable forest, mountains, valleys, and other landscapes and terrains that would make it IMPOSSIBLE to fight a well organized, large terrorist organization who could hide AND SURVIVE in the thick forests for years. The only time they need to come to towns and cities across Africa, is to terrorize and get supplies, in clandestine set-ups with middle men.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/05/us-mideast-crisis-syria-hazzm-idUSKBN0M10GV20150305
Notice that WITHOUT adequate support, with the CIA only giving some 20 or so anti-tank missile systems to HAZAM, the socalled moderate Syrian rebel group to the north of Syria, and a budget, per some of their commanders said, of only about $500,000.... that after a year, HAZAM, which had an original number of some 5,000 is dissolved?, with many members having gone to join up with Al Nusra and ISIS?
Well, this is Obama's half-peace-half-war attitude.
On the on set of last summer, just a week or two before the major ISIS offensive, Hilary Clinton said she would have armed the "moderate" Syria rebels, like John McCain had also advocated, Obama said anyone who thought they knew some moderate Syria groups and they further thought arming them would have made the situation different AND BETTER, that they're fantasizing.
Well, immediately ISIS went on a successful offensive rampage, over running both Syrian and Iraq groups.
And, as the passage of time over the last year show, Obama DID IMMEDIATELY BEGIN an CIA clandestine operation; except it was never that clandestine, since the one or two small Syrian rebel groups that were, after a few months of "vetting", given arms... they said out loud, time and time again, that such SMALL HELP was nowhere near the level of help they needed to defeat extreme groups like AL NURSA, ISIS, as well as the Assad regime.
Well, turned out they were right.
20 TOW missile system plus $500,000 and a few dozen old AK47s were not gonna help any one or any group very much.
ISIS and AL NURSA and other extremist sunni groups had very good and sustained support before they over-ran Iraq and Syrian government posts and accumulate tons of heavy equipment. Those extremists group, as we know, also have a steady stream of 7th century wannabe jihadist recruits streaming in from the West and the Arab world, in the many hundreds PER MONTH, at least.
So, after a year of allowing ISIS to ran amok, Obama said his CIA and State Department folks ARE NOW STARTING TO VET a few dozens, per month, of "moderate Syrian rebels" to be trained in Jordan, Turkey, Qatar, and one or two other Arab sites.
I don't know how a few hundreds of "moderate Syrian rebels," trained every few months, armed with LIGHT arms, mostly Eastern Europe and Russia made 1940s-90s guns.... are gonna defeat both the ASSAD regime and ISIS and AL NURSA.
Apparently Obama and his inner circle decision makers think that trick would do.
Or perhaps none of the American commanding officers with knowledge of the Mid East think such half-hearted, haphazard & silly undertaking would work but that they can't criticize "the Messiah," as comrade Sao Sou Maly said... lest they face insubordination, treason, and related charges of "disrespecting our great nation and our great commander in chief" nonsense?
HenryDavidT
Mar 9, 2015, 7:58:22 PM3/9/15
to
HenryDavidT
Mar 11, 2015, 5:04:17 PM3/11/15
to
On Monday, March 9, 2015 at 6:57:58 PM UTC-5, Her Lao wrote:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/03/09/america-is-losing-in-the-war-against-the-islamic-state-and-assad-heres-a-grand-plan/
https://news.vice.com/article/anti-islamic-state-forces-cut-key-iraqsyria-supply-lines
Notice, the most important issue, again, is: freedom of movement. Or the lack thereof.
With an organization like ISIS, that is both successfully recruiting and rapidly spreading, you MUST put a STOP to its ABILITY TO MOVE from town to town, city to city, and country to country (of course, you DON'T want the "country to country" spreading at all; because by then, if it were to happen, it would really be the apocalypse)!
Or at least making it SO VERY DIFFICULT for it to freely move, in large contingent carrying heavy weapons with them, from one place to another.
And that is a unique ability of the USA and Europe, because we have virtually limitless ability to move VERTICALLY from one place to another, anywhere around the world, but especially in Iraq and Syria now. We have more or less told Syria and Assad NOT to mess with our flights over its territories, so Assad is NOT going to mess with the West and the USA and Jordan and Saudi Arabia and Qatar and the AUE in our bombing and recognizance flights.
If you put 5-8,000 SPECIAL OPS FORCES, in teams of small and highly mobile units of 100-200 around every major junctures in Syria and Iraq, so that NO ONE DARES to cross you, and allow the Syrian rebels as well as Assad, if Assad wants to, fight those extreme Islamist there in Syrian towns and cities, and do the same thing in Iraq, to stop the easy movements of ISIS there, so as to allow Iraqi Kurds and the Iraqi armed forces to focus on fighting them in towns and cities... it is virtually impossible for ISIS to spread like it has been able to....
It will, in that case, REVERT back to small hit and run tactics like Al Qaida, since undertaking major offensives to take a town or a large city is NOT EASILY POSSIBLE, since they won't be able to move, IN LARGE CONTINGENTS from one town or city to another...
It is NOT POSSIBLE to frighten, much less to over-take, a large city if all ISIS could do was to send only a couple soldiers at a time through very hard to travel roads, on foot, with no heavy weapons. And that's all they could and would do, if every major crossroads they had to go through, in order to go on the offensive, in order to send in supplies and re-enforcement, etc., was all controlled by USA and ally SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES that see and kill everyone that approach them in the open deserts, many miles out!
https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/03/09/america-is-losing-in-the-war-against-the-islamic-state-and-assad-heres-a-grand-plan/
https://news.vice.com/article/anti-islamic-state-forces-cut-key-iraqsyria-supply-lines
Notice, the most important issue, again, is: freedom of movement. Or the lack thereof.
With an organization like ISIS, that is both successfully recruiting and rapidly spreading, you MUST put a STOP to its ABILITY TO MOVE from town to town, city to city, and country to country (of course, you DON'T want the "country to country" spreading at all; because by then, if it were to happen, it would really be the apocalypse)!
Or at least making it SO VERY DIFFICULT for it to freely move, in large contingent carrying heavy weapons with them, from one place to another.
And that is a unique ability of the USA and Europe, because we have virtually limitless ability to move VERTICALLY from one place to another, anywhere around the world, but especially in Iraq and Syria now. We have more or less told Syria and Assad NOT to mess with our flights over its territories, so Assad is NOT going to mess with the West and the USA and Jordan and Saudi Arabia and Qatar and the AUE in our bombing and recognizance flights.
If you put 5-8,000 SPECIAL OPS FORCES, in teams of small and highly mobile units of 100-200 around every major junctures in Syria and Iraq, so that NO ONE DARES to cross you, and allow the Syrian rebels as well as Assad, if Assad wants to, fight those extreme Islamist there in Syrian towns and cities, and do the same thing in Iraq, to stop the easy movements of ISIS there, so as to allow Iraqi Kurds and the Iraqi armed forces to focus on fighting them in towns and cities... it is virtually impossible for ISIS to spread like it has been able to....
It will, in that case, REVERT back to small hit and run tactics like Al Qaida, since undertaking major offensives to take a town or a large city is NOT EASILY POSSIBLE, since they won't be able to move, IN LARGE CONTINGENTS from one town or city to another...
It is NOT POSSIBLE to frighten, much less to over-take, a large city if all ISIS could do was to send only a couple soldiers at a time through very hard to travel roads, on foot, with no heavy weapons. And that's all they could and would do, if every major crossroads they had to go through, in order to go on the offensive, in order to send in supplies and re-enforcement, etc., was all controlled by USA and ally SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES that see and kill everyone that approach them in the open deserts, many miles out!
HenryDavidT
Mar 16, 2015, 3:12:51 AM3/16/15
to
HenryDavidT
Mar 26, 2015, 12:31:48 AM3/26/15
to
On Monday, March 16, 2015 at 2:12:51 AM UTC-5, HenryDavidT wrote:
> http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/12/syria-how-far-will-barack-obama-go
On Monday, March 16, 2015 at 2:13:14 AM UTC-5, Her Lao wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/12/syria-how-far-will-barack-obama-go
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/26/saudi-arabia-begins-airstrikes-against-houthi-in-yemen
As the chaos of the Middle East starts to widen, McCain and other old warriors and arm chair Sun Tzu's like some of us will keep saying: Obama has no plans on any thing when it comes to PRO-ACTIVITY.
All he'd do is REACT to something, here and there and everywhere, when they pop up and make grandiose speeches about the need to defend democracy, American citizens and interests... with little more than a few dozen drone missiles a day, here and there...
Again, MY PSEUDO SUN TZU strategy ---- assuming America is willing to do some serious shit there, again.. and if not, then we should get the fuck out of there 100% --- is to use 5,000 to 8,000 special ops forces, in small and mobile units, to PREVENT THE EASY MOVEMENTS of Al Qaida, ISIS, etc., so as to allow LOCAL FORCES to go into the already taken towns and cities and fight it out, between LOCAL FORCES and ISIS/Al Qaida.
Local forces are not good ONLY WHEN THEY ARE OUT-MANEUVERED by small but persistent Islamists who move fluidly from one town and city to another, to send in support and re-enforcement. Local forces don't have the capability to deal with such maneuvers of these Islamist groups.
That's were America's supreme lateral and VERTICAL ability should come into play, OUT OF THE WAY OF LOCAL CITIZENS AND TOWNS AND CITIES.
The objective of these 5,000 to 8,000 SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES is merely to PREVENT THE EASE OF MOVEMENTS of ISIS and other Islamists, from one town to another, using clearly known roads cutting through incredibly inhospitable deserts that MOST PEOPLE CAN'T MAKE IT OUT ALIVE, if they were to venture into them with little to no food and water, and all they do is just walk.
Most the Middle East is not Southeast Asia or Latin and South America, where dense jungles and tall mountains, with fresh foods to be had in the wild, could hide large rebel and terrorists groups for months and years... In the ME, you must get from ONE TWO OR CITY TO ANOTHER within a few hours, if you want to stay alive, and you must do that through mostly cars, trucks, or other fast means, NOT WALKING THROUGH THE DESERTS FOR HOURS AND DAYS...
Sure, ISIS and other small Islamist groups COULD focus on attacking these small but highly mobile American and Western SPECIAL OPS FORCES in the desert; but that means the towns and cities ISIS and Islamists have already captured are DEFENSELESS, and they could be more easily RE-TAKEN BY LOCAL SYRIAN AND IRAQI FORCES!
And out there in the Deserts of the Middle East, where citizen deaths are MINIMIZED, America's ability to move laterally and VERTICALLY at any moment's notices, for TENS to HUNDREDS OF MILES in radius would easily stop small ISIS and Islamist groups from organizing effective strategies and tactics to take towns and cities!
> http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/12/syria-how-far-will-barack-obama-go
On Monday, March 16, 2015 at 2:13:14 AM UTC-5, Her Lao wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/12/syria-how-far-will-barack-obama-go
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/26/saudi-arabia-begins-airstrikes-against-houthi-in-yemen
As the chaos of the Middle East starts to widen, McCain and other old warriors and arm chair Sun Tzu's like some of us will keep saying: Obama has no plans on any thing when it comes to PRO-ACTIVITY.
All he'd do is REACT to something, here and there and everywhere, when they pop up and make grandiose speeches about the need to defend democracy, American citizens and interests... with little more than a few dozen drone missiles a day, here and there...
Again, MY PSEUDO SUN TZU strategy ---- assuming America is willing to do some serious shit there, again.. and if not, then we should get the fuck out of there 100% --- is to use 5,000 to 8,000 special ops forces, in small and mobile units, to PREVENT THE EASY MOVEMENTS of Al Qaida, ISIS, etc., so as to allow LOCAL FORCES to go into the already taken towns and cities and fight it out, between LOCAL FORCES and ISIS/Al Qaida.
Local forces are not good ONLY WHEN THEY ARE OUT-MANEUVERED by small but persistent Islamists who move fluidly from one town and city to another, to send in support and re-enforcement. Local forces don't have the capability to deal with such maneuvers of these Islamist groups.
That's were America's supreme lateral and VERTICAL ability should come into play, OUT OF THE WAY OF LOCAL CITIZENS AND TOWNS AND CITIES.
The objective of these 5,000 to 8,000 SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES is merely to PREVENT THE EASE OF MOVEMENTS of ISIS and other Islamists, from one town to another, using clearly known roads cutting through incredibly inhospitable deserts that MOST PEOPLE CAN'T MAKE IT OUT ALIVE, if they were to venture into them with little to no food and water, and all they do is just walk.
Most the Middle East is not Southeast Asia or Latin and South America, where dense jungles and tall mountains, with fresh foods to be had in the wild, could hide large rebel and terrorists groups for months and years... In the ME, you must get from ONE TWO OR CITY TO ANOTHER within a few hours, if you want to stay alive, and you must do that through mostly cars, trucks, or other fast means, NOT WALKING THROUGH THE DESERTS FOR HOURS AND DAYS...
Sure, ISIS and other small Islamist groups COULD focus on attacking these small but highly mobile American and Western SPECIAL OPS FORCES in the desert; but that means the towns and cities ISIS and Islamists have already captured are DEFENSELESS, and they could be more easily RE-TAKEN BY LOCAL SYRIAN AND IRAQI FORCES!
And out there in the Deserts of the Middle East, where citizen deaths are MINIMIZED, America's ability to move laterally and VERTICALLY at any moment's notices, for TENS to HUNDREDS OF MILES in radius would easily stop small ISIS and Islamist groups from organizing effective strategies and tactics to take towns and cities!
HenryDavidT
Apr 2, 2015, 4:02:35 AM4/2/15
to
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/01/islamic-state-al-qaeda_n_6989422.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
Doing something serious and doing it badly wrong (Bush) is usually not judged as harshly as doing very little or doing nothing at all (Obama), and watching a bad thing get worse and worse, like it is with the Islamic movement in the Middle East, where the world literally watch on a daily and weekly basis, dozens to hundreds of people being decapitated and the USA and Western Europe just mostly fold their arms across their chests, shake their heads and do little to nothing... even when their own citizens are among those paraded on YouTube and then decapitated.
Obama will, therefore, likely be judged more harshly in the future than Bush Jr.
Notice that Obama used the metaphor a "cancer" to describe ISIS.
But if you have described something as a terminally dangerous violent and heinous group, that decapitates and displays severed heads in public squares in all cities they conquer, and have no plan, no willingness to do substantive things about the "cancer," you must know others WILL JUDGE YOU HARSHLY... in a situation like this, where the CANCER IS SPREADING beyond the immediate Middle East, into northern and central Africa and farther into south Asia and elsewhere, in central as well as southeast Asia...
Bombing "cleanly" from 50,000 feet up won't "dismantle" much less "destroy" ISIS, although the video-game-like YouTube clips the Pentagon releases are indeed really entertaining...
Doing something serious and doing it badly wrong (Bush) is usually not judged as harshly as doing very little or doing nothing at all (Obama), and watching a bad thing get worse and worse, like it is with the Islamic movement in the Middle East, where the world literally watch on a daily and weekly basis, dozens to hundreds of people being decapitated and the USA and Western Europe just mostly fold their arms across their chests, shake their heads and do little to nothing... even when their own citizens are among those paraded on YouTube and then decapitated.
Obama will, therefore, likely be judged more harshly in the future than Bush Jr.
Notice that Obama used the metaphor a "cancer" to describe ISIS.
But if you have described something as a terminally dangerous violent and heinous group, that decapitates and displays severed heads in public squares in all cities they conquer, and have no plan, no willingness to do substantive things about the "cancer," you must know others WILL JUDGE YOU HARSHLY... in a situation like this, where the CANCER IS SPREADING beyond the immediate Middle East, into northern and central Africa and farther into south Asia and elsewhere, in central as well as southeast Asia...
Bombing "cleanly" from 50,000 feet up won't "dismantle" much less "destroy" ISIS, although the video-game-like YouTube clips the Pentagon releases are indeed really entertaining...
AEON
Apr 2, 2015, 5:06:52 AM4/2/15
to
HenryDavidT
Apr 17, 2015, 1:08:52 AM4/17/15
to
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/16/middleeast/iraq-isis/index.html
Remember, I am with John McCain on this, just this... not on bombing Iran, or bombing Libya, or bombing or nuking North Korea, etc.
If ISIS is a "cancer" and it looks to be a very deadly, since he has captured hundreds of towns and cities across both Syria and Iraq, and it's popped up all over north Africa as well... and, so, again, if the diagnosis is that ISIS is a deadly cancer and it must be removed, then doing a few dozen bombing flights, using a few F-15s, F-16s, Rafaels, and old Typhoons a month, from 30,000 to 50,000 feet up in the air.... is NOT gonna "destroy "or "dismantle" is... since it is a very FLUID organization that can pop up here and there using small units of 7th century wannab primitives, with modern, 21st century AK-47s and American made weapons and armored vehicles to terrorize people with...
You got to be on the GROUND.
So, the only way to avoid a CLASSICAL INVASION or OCCUPATION dilemma is to do as I argue: the deployment of SMALL, HIGHLY MOBILE SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES all over in the desert across Syria and Iraq, dozens to hundreds of miles AWAY FROM TOWNS AND CITIES, focusing on IMPORTANT CROSS-ROADS AND JUNCTURES that even ISIS must use, in order to haul their asses and weapons, for both invading towns and cities as well as for supply and re-enforcement purposes...
Again, ISIS could only move LATERALLY, not vertically, since they have NO FLYING AIRCRAFT of any kind... and even laterally, they CAN NOT, in the inhospitable Middle East, go anywhere they want.
They MUST go through a certain highway and freeway and small roads... in order to get from place A to place B.... the Middle East is NOT like tropical/juncle Africa, Latin and South America, and Southeast Asia, where thousands to tens of thousands of guerillas could hide and survive for years, as they travel slowly undectable through deep and covered valleys, jungles, plains lush with drinking water, fruits, edible vegetation, crop lands, etc.
Remember, I am with John McCain on this, just this... not on bombing Iran, or bombing Libya, or bombing or nuking North Korea, etc.
If ISIS is a "cancer" and it looks to be a very deadly, since he has captured hundreds of towns and cities across both Syria and Iraq, and it's popped up all over north Africa as well... and, so, again, if the diagnosis is that ISIS is a deadly cancer and it must be removed, then doing a few dozen bombing flights, using a few F-15s, F-16s, Rafaels, and old Typhoons a month, from 30,000 to 50,000 feet up in the air.... is NOT gonna "destroy "or "dismantle" is... since it is a very FLUID organization that can pop up here and there using small units of 7th century wannab primitives, with modern, 21st century AK-47s and American made weapons and armored vehicles to terrorize people with...
You got to be on the GROUND.
So, the only way to avoid a CLASSICAL INVASION or OCCUPATION dilemma is to do as I argue: the deployment of SMALL, HIGHLY MOBILE SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES all over in the desert across Syria and Iraq, dozens to hundreds of miles AWAY FROM TOWNS AND CITIES, focusing on IMPORTANT CROSS-ROADS AND JUNCTURES that even ISIS must use, in order to haul their asses and weapons, for both invading towns and cities as well as for supply and re-enforcement purposes...
Again, ISIS could only move LATERALLY, not vertically, since they have NO FLYING AIRCRAFT of any kind... and even laterally, they CAN NOT, in the inhospitable Middle East, go anywhere they want.
They MUST go through a certain highway and freeway and small roads... in order to get from place A to place B.... the Middle East is NOT like tropical/juncle Africa, Latin and South America, and Southeast Asia, where thousands to tens of thousands of guerillas could hide and survive for years, as they travel slowly undectable through deep and covered valleys, jungles, plains lush with drinking water, fruits, edible vegetation, crop lands, etc.
0 new messages