info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: War and Peace
57 views
Skip to first unread message
Message has been deleted
AEON
Feb 20, 2015, 10:05:56 AM2/20/15
to
On Friday, February 20, 2015 at 4:24:24 AM UTC-6, HenryDavidT wrote:
> This is a working draft. I will cut about 50% of the redundancy later.
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Sunday, December 28, 2014
> Friday, February 20, 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" and other nonsense like that.
>
> I asked myself, as I attempted to write this: How would Sun Tzu, the great war theoretician, deal with these nice, peace-loving Islamists in the 21st century who quote long and short HOLY QURAN, on the one hand, while they decapitate and display severed heads on poles in downtown city squares wherever they rule, on the other?
>
> Here, I tried to articulate a strategy that would help win a war like this, against ISIS in the Middle East. There are different ways to defeat ISIS. But to me, this is the most palatable, all the very complex dynamics considered, as I will point out momentarily.
>
> Arguments to the contrary notwithstanding, ISIS is just like Al Qaida, a terror organization.
>
> But ISIS is a more organized and better-funded terror organization.
>
> Initially funded by some Middle Eastern Sunni Muslim conservatives, individuals and states, now, ISIS is largely "self-sufficient." It has taken over cities with banks, with hundreds of millions of cash, not to say any thing about hundreds of American tanks, armored Humvees, and general military transport vehicles. It also has captured a lot of lands with oil fields. And despite the bombings by Americans and a few Arab coalition countries, oil still produces for ISIS millions of dollars, per month, in small trucking operations with middle men who ask questions about neither suppliers nor buyers.
>
> Two other noticeable income generators for ISIS are racketeering --- the extortion of money and goods from local businesses ("So we could protect you from the bad guys" or, "Are you a believer of Allah or not? If, yes, then you WILL SHARE your bounties with those who are fighting and dying to spread HIS HOLY MESSAGES") --- and kidnapping of foreigners.
>
> 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, so this stratagem I haphazard here pertains to this WAR AGAINST ISIS only.
>
> The current situation with ISIS is about a rather small but deadly and terror organization that decapitates and burns many of its enemies on YouTube.
>
> And about 99.5 percent of ISIS enemies are Muslims in the Middle East.
>
> Muslims, therefore, must take the lead in this fight, with America, Europe, and other non-Syrian and non-Iraqi partners playing only SUPPORTING roles. But those supporting roles must be more than just dropping bombs and missiles from 30,000 to 50,000 feet up in the air. Dropping a few big bombs and missiles, on a daily basis, from tens of thousands of feet in the air is viscerally satisfying; unfortunately, such a strategy is NOT going to "dismantle and ultimately destroy" an enemy as resourceful, clever, and adaptive as ISIS... an organization that has been able to attract many additional THOUSANDS more recruits since the bombing campaign commenced last August.
>
> ISIS knows Americans and the West, contrary to their own ISIS propaganda (which publicly says otherwise), do care about massive civilian casualties; that is, ISIS knows if they live in small groups of 2-3 in an apartment or house, in cities and towns like Raqqa, Mosul, etc., the West WOULD NOT BOMB those towns and cities indiscriminately. Yes, we've bombed KOBANI to rubbles; but that's because roughly 98% of the Kurds living in Kobani had already left for Turkey. On the other hand, notice that 98% of the citizens of Raqqa and Mosuls, the latter with some 1.8 million, ARE STILL living in Raqqa and Mosuls and NO INDISCRIMINATE BOMBINGS have taken place in those two cities.
>
> Again, despite their propaganda to the contrary, ISIS KNOWS THAT FACT VERY WELL.
>
> Thus, ISIS members are now living, in small units, among citizens.
>
> Living in small cells among apartment renters and home owners not only gives ISIS great protection from air campaigns, but such living arrangements also allow ISIS members to monitor the local citizens in ways they couldn't have, if they were living among themselves in the desert, in dug-out & "fortified" tunnels or holes, in mountains, or training facilities... all of which are, even they themselves know, guaranteeing death for ISIS fighters, from 30,000 to 50,000 feet up in the air.
>
> I will say only a few words about previous wars, especially those fought by the two Bushes: forget about arguments like "we could have left 10,000 to 50,000 soldiers there, and none of these would have happened."
>
> There are many kinds of "facts," but this one is very important to know: occupying forces and colonialism breed generational contempt and resentment.
>
> Unless the locals wanted you occupying their country, it doesn't matter what you say or do, or how many soldiers you put in bases in their countries, they would eventually find a way to DEFEAT you and drive you out. Even when the locals are somehow forced to be receptive to the idea as with Germany, South Korea, and Japan --- because right after the war, they HAD NO OTHER CHOICE, really! --- it's too much of a drain of resources. The TENS OF THOUSANDS of troops still stationed in bases across Europe and Asia, for example, cost America MANY BILLIONS of dollars, per year.
>
> Leaving 10,000 to 50,000 American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, each, for years to decades, therefore, is a non-starter, for resource consideration alone.
>
> But doing that would also create so much psychological fear and distrust on both the occupied and the occupiers, there would NEVER BE PEACE for either side to enjoy.
>
> 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 ALREADY, in Iraq alone, close to 4,000 uniformed, active American soldiers (possibly more, since we only hear about the formally announced numbers Obama was sending to "train Iraqi forces"). They're not at the front-line, which is always shifting, so they could any day be, as the situation with those 300-500 American marine "trainers" at the Anbar province shows: --- ISIS could attack any city, from any direction, any time they want, since the terror organization has a web of series of conquered towns and cities dotting the Syrian and Iraqi landscape, in the thousands of square kilometers all combined. So being "confined" to "just military bases" doesn't really make American soldiers all that safe.
>
> The main trust to this piece, therefore, is how to successfully fight ISIS, with no more than a 1.5 to 2 full brigades of SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES of American and Western and Arab allies (other than Iraq and Syria), using an entirely different strategy.
>
> I won't cite any map here that shows the territories ISIS controls; but if you are observing this "war on terror" and you Google it, there are many different kinds. Some maps show all the lands from the eastern parts of Syria to the large Anbar province of Iraq, west of Baghdad as being controlled by ISIS. I don't think that's very accurate. Most of that are just unoccupied and unlivable deserts.
>
> But if you look at the more detailed maps that show the routes connecting the many large and small cities under ISIS in the regions I just described, you'd see where the absolute majority of ISIS fighters are, and what routes they are using now and must use in the future in order to travel from one town or city to another, in the regions they control.
>
> This pseudo Sun-Tzu strategy here calls for no more than 5,000 to 8,000 special operations forces to deal with that reality. While a thousand plus ISIS members, the best estimates suggested, have died in the last 5-6 months, from US and ally bombing, many more thousands have been recruited, in that time too. The rough range I'd use, based on the reading I've done in the last a couple months, therefore, puts ISIS's active numbers between 20,000 and 40,000.
>
> So, yes, while it is true that it'd be extremely foolish to use 5,000 to 8,000 elite forces, no matter how well trained or how well armed, to take on 20,000 to 40,000 fanatics in urban settings where fighting takes place inside schools, mosques, apartments, homes, offices, universities, etc., if the those 5,000 to 8,000 elite forces, in small and highly mobile units, were living and fighting in the open deserts, where individuals approaching could be seen many miles out... very few opponents could take them on and win... especially if you're talking about American special operations forces having access to all kinds of support like night vision, Apaches, Black Hawks, satellites, drones, F-22s, F-15s, F-16s, F-18s, B-1s, B-2s, B-52s, etc.
>
> Again, this strategy is RADICALLY DIFFERENT from all that I've read, from all the experts. And it could work only in the Middle East or some other similar topographical environment.
>
> As you know, most of the Middle East are desert or dry terrains. Unlike North and South Americas, or 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, the Middle East has VERY few dense forest and river systems. In the Middle East, as a result, if you could cut-off and control the ESTABLISHED ROUTES and other important junctures where there's water and food, moving from point A to point B becomes very difficult, if not entirely impossible.
>
> In the open and hostile desert environments of the Middle East --- where it could be freezing at night, only to have boiling temperatures 12 hours later, and there's very few sources of water --- once you control those important nodes and junctures, you have a very significant say in HOW a group like ISIS conducts its activities.
>
> Spanking new Toyota Tundras, for example, used to be ISIS preferred mode of travel and transportation, for supplies and re-enforcement purposes.
>
> Constant bombing from the air over the last few months made them use cars and trucks in LESS visible ways; but they still travel by trucks and cars, for conquest, for supplies, and for re-enforcement. The 5,000 to 8,000 special operations forces from the USA, Europe, and countries like Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates ---- in small and highly mobile units of 100 to 200, strategically placed in the various essential routes and connections from eastern Syria to western Iraq, accompanied by Apaches and Black Hawks and are assisted by drones and satellites ---- WOULD LARGELY PUT A STOP TO ALMOST ALL EASY VEHICULAR TRAFFIC between towns and cities by ISIS.
>
> There is only ONE RULE:
>
> For the duration of the operation --- which could be arbitrarily set between 3 to 6 months ---- KILL ALL WHO APPROACH you in the vast desert. No exceptions made. Millions of leaflets, therefore, are need to be dropped in villages, towns, and cities all over Syria and Iraq. Harsh and unfair, 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, as you can see, leaves TENS to HUNDREDS of thousands of local Syrian rebel forces and Iraqi and Kurdish forces to fight from one town and one city, to another, doing door to door fighting, fighting against ISIS in terrains among local people Syrian and Iraqi forces know and understand best.
>
> And, yes, contrary to Obama's nonsensical assertion --- e.g., "We will bomb them until they are all dead, and this is a campaign that will take years, not weeks or months" --- TIME IS THE ESSENCE.
>
> And time is NOT on our side.
>
> If ISIS is a cancer, as Obama and his advisors correctly argued 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, like ISIS, needs to be operated on and taken out ASAP.
>
> This strategy will accomplish three major aims as follows:
>
> #1: It will MINIMIZE DEATHS and INJURIES to both American troops as well as civilians there in the Middle East, since most civilians will stay in town.
>
> #2: This chocking-off-important-juncture-approach by 5,000 to 8,000 special operations forces, again, allows Syrians and Iraqis to do street to street, door to door fighting in towns, cities as well as among civilian populations with traditions and languages they know best.
>
> How or why this tactic would work?
>
> Because the enemies are NO DIFFERENT from us: --- they need supplies and re-supplies. Supplies and re-enforcement must come from outside of a city or town they either have conquered or want to conquer. When you cut-off all entrances and exits, to a town or city, little to no supply or re-enforcement could be readily brought about by ISIS.
>
> We are MOBILE; we have airplanes; and we have supplies. So do the Syrians and Iraqis we intent to help.
>
> ISIS doesn't have satellites, helicopters, drones, or fighter jets.
>
> Strategically cutting off routes they had to use, in order to rapidly transport men and supplies from one city to another, using cars and trucks, would deal them close to a fatal blow alone. But the fatal blow must come from local folks like Syrians and Iraqis who know their towns and cities as well as the people living in those towns and cities.
>
> #3: This approach cannot easily be propagandized by ISIS and their sympathizers as an invasion, much less an occupation.
>
> Our 5,000-8,000 strong SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES can be air-lifted out of their desert posts any day! Once LOCAL SYRIANS and IRAQIS have taken back all their villages and towns and cities, in their respective countries, America and its allies simply fly those special operations forces out of their posts, within a few days to a week or two, not months or years, as in past and in large campaigns. Most ordinary citizens in Syria and Iraq won't even see American or other foreign troops. The harshest things they must endure are the severe travel restrictions imposed on them, as well as the lack of food and supplies...
>
> But they ARE SUFFERING, right now, under ISIS ... so what's the difference, really?
>
> Indeed, this last aspect of the third point above here is one of the most "sticky points" in the sending of thousands of troop to any foreign country.
>
> 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, by using the various phrases and cliches (e.g., "We are merely staying to help train local soldiers")? Or do you leave, after having suffered thousands of wounds and dead, in town to town, city to city, doing door to door fighting? And even if you leave, with tens of thousands, it takes YEARS to "wind down." By the time you've finally wounded down, the problem will have started again... And then you wish you had left tens of thousands of troops behind to "secure the peace we've sacrificed so much to win," and we'd be at the present situation all over again.
>
> To me, then, sending in 5,000 to 8,000 highly armed, highly mobile SPECIAL OPS FORCES, from America, Europe, and Jordan and Saudi Arabia and Qatar and Bahrain and the AUE and station them at crucial cross points all over eastern Syria and western Iraq ... is the most palatable as well as most effective approach to this ISIS crisis.
>
> But, again, TIME IS NOT ON OUR SIDE.
>
> ISIS is conquering and expanding on lands as well as recruiting thousands of fighters in cyberspace, month after month, year after year, even if the bombings we and our allies do on a daily basis. In addition to the original al-Baghdadi ISIS, new groups are sprouting all over the Middle East and Africa, all pledging allegiance to ISIS.
>
> Obama and his speech writers keep saying, "This war on terrorists like ISIS will take years."
>
> But the American people ARE ALREADY STARTING TO TURN AGAINST this current approach of Obama; and even Obama is ARLREADY STRATING TO LOOSENING UP this "no boots on the ground" nonsense. Listen to his various equivocations.... Right now, there are around 4,000 American "advisers" in or around Iraq and Syria... But what would happen, ask yourself, IF ONE OR TWO 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 grounds"? Of course not! If THAT GRIME SCENARIO HAPPENED, many thousands would be sent in immediately.
>
> But IF THAT WHOLE CASCADE TRANSPIRED it would NOT, then, be a proactive approach.
>
> Knee-jerk responses to the dictates of ISIS or any other terror group are not the ways to run foreign policies, including wars. In order to AVOID VICIOUS CYCLE of conundrum, therefore, roughly 5,000 to 8,000 special operations forces need to be deployed, immediately, as roughly sketched out here.
>
> "Not going to war" simply because "the American citizens are against it," as the Obama folks argued, is almost as bad as "going to war because now most American citizens are for it."
>
> In early 2014, if you would recall, when ISIS was just starting to become more visible and a formally split from Al Qaida was taking place, the percentage of Americans who said we should send in ground troops were only in the high teens to 20-percent range. By late summer, when ISIS was running in circles around Syrian rebels, Iraqis armed forces and Kurds that percentage ticked up only very slightly.
>
> But now, as March 2015 approaches, the percentage of Americans SUPPORTING THE IDEA OF SENDING IN GROUND TROOPS IS AT THE 50-plus percent range, in most of the latest surveys. More importantly, for Obama personally, the percentage of Americans saying "Obama doesn't have a plan to defeat ISIS" or that "the bombing campaign has failed" is also approaching 50 percent.
>
>
> This complex reality, then, is right now Obama's greatest dilemma.
ISIS is JUST ANOTHER SADDAM. dig him out of his HOLE and ISIS will be gone or ELSE ISIS will keep growing. USA NEEDS ANOTHER DESSERT STORM BY BURNING THE SANDS to get the silicon in them out. "OIL4BLOOD" as complainted by some people. just start deploy troops in hundred thousands including SALITE TARGET BOMBS yep those 2000 pound or heavier + more bunker buster.
USA can NOT win ISIS with OUT A FULL WAR. use those over stock toys so better ones can be created. a FULL WAR measures how POWERFUL or WEAKY of a US PREZDENT. the BUSHES showed the way. THE DONKEYS are WEAKY. the ELEPHANT CAN DO IT just keep that in mind for the NEXT ELECTION.
> This is a working draft. I will cut about 50% of the redundancy later.
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Sunday, December 28, 2014
> Friday, February 20, 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" and other nonsense like that.
>
> I asked myself, as I attempted to write this: How would Sun Tzu, the great war theoretician, deal with these nice, peace-loving Islamists in the 21st century who quote long and short HOLY QURAN, on the one hand, while they decapitate and display severed heads on poles in downtown city squares wherever they rule, on the other?
>
> Here, I tried to articulate a strategy that would help win a war like this, against ISIS in the Middle East. There are different ways to defeat ISIS. But to me, this is the most palatable, all the very complex dynamics considered, as I will point out momentarily.
>
> Arguments to the contrary notwithstanding, ISIS is just like Al Qaida, a terror organization.
>
> But ISIS is a more organized and better-funded terror organization.
>
> Initially funded by some Middle Eastern Sunni Muslim conservatives, individuals and states, now, ISIS is largely "self-sufficient." It has taken over cities with banks, with hundreds of millions of cash, not to say any thing about hundreds of American tanks, armored Humvees, and general military transport vehicles. It also has captured a lot of lands with oil fields. And despite the bombings by Americans and a few Arab coalition countries, oil still produces for ISIS millions of dollars, per month, in small trucking operations with middle men who ask questions about neither suppliers nor buyers.
>
> Two other noticeable income generators for ISIS are racketeering --- the extortion of money and goods from local businesses ("So we could protect you from the bad guys" or, "Are you a believer of Allah or not? If, yes, then you WILL SHARE your bounties with those who are fighting and dying to spread HIS HOLY MESSAGES") --- and kidnapping of foreigners.
>
> 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, so this stratagem I haphazard here pertains to this WAR AGAINST ISIS only.
>
> The current situation with ISIS is about a rather small but deadly and terror organization that decapitates and burns many of its enemies on YouTube.
>
> And about 99.5 percent of ISIS enemies are Muslims in the Middle East.
>
> Muslims, therefore, must take the lead in this fight, with America, Europe, and other non-Syrian and non-Iraqi partners playing only SUPPORTING roles. But those supporting roles must be more than just dropping bombs and missiles from 30,000 to 50,000 feet up in the air. Dropping a few big bombs and missiles, on a daily basis, from tens of thousands of feet in the air is viscerally satisfying; unfortunately, such a strategy is NOT going to "dismantle and ultimately destroy" an enemy as resourceful, clever, and adaptive as ISIS... an organization that has been able to attract many additional THOUSANDS more recruits since the bombing campaign commenced last August.
>
> ISIS knows Americans and the West, contrary to their own ISIS propaganda (which publicly says otherwise), do care about massive civilian casualties; that is, ISIS knows if they live in small groups of 2-3 in an apartment or house, in cities and towns like Raqqa, Mosul, etc., the West WOULD NOT BOMB those towns and cities indiscriminately. Yes, we've bombed KOBANI to rubbles; but that's because roughly 98% of the Kurds living in Kobani had already left for Turkey. On the other hand, notice that 98% of the citizens of Raqqa and Mosuls, the latter with some 1.8 million, ARE STILL living in Raqqa and Mosuls and NO INDISCRIMINATE BOMBINGS have taken place in those two cities.
>
> Again, despite their propaganda to the contrary, ISIS KNOWS THAT FACT VERY WELL.
>
> Thus, ISIS members are now living, in small units, among citizens.
>
> Living in small cells among apartment renters and home owners not only gives ISIS great protection from air campaigns, but such living arrangements also allow ISIS members to monitor the local citizens in ways they couldn't have, if they were living among themselves in the desert, in dug-out & "fortified" tunnels or holes, in mountains, or training facilities... all of which are, even they themselves know, guaranteeing death for ISIS fighters, from 30,000 to 50,000 feet up in the air.
>
> I will say only a few words about previous wars, especially those fought by the two Bushes: forget about arguments like "we could have left 10,000 to 50,000 soldiers there, and none of these would have happened."
>
> There are many kinds of "facts," but this one is very important to know: occupying forces and colonialism breed generational contempt and resentment.
>
> Unless the locals wanted you occupying their country, it doesn't matter what you say or do, or how many soldiers you put in bases in their countries, they would eventually find a way to DEFEAT you and drive you out. Even when the locals are somehow forced to be receptive to the idea as with Germany, South Korea, and Japan --- because right after the war, they HAD NO OTHER CHOICE, really! --- it's too much of a drain of resources. The TENS OF THOUSANDS of troops still stationed in bases across Europe and Asia, for example, cost America MANY BILLIONS of dollars, per year.
>
> Leaving 10,000 to 50,000 American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, each, for years to decades, therefore, is a non-starter, for resource consideration alone.
>
> But doing that would also create so much psychological fear and distrust on both the occupied and the occupiers, there would NEVER BE PEACE for either side to enjoy.
>
> 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 ALREADY, in Iraq alone, close to 4,000 uniformed, active American soldiers (possibly more, since we only hear about the formally announced numbers Obama was sending to "train Iraqi forces"). They're not at the front-line, which is always shifting, so they could any day be, as the situation with those 300-500 American marine "trainers" at the Anbar province shows: --- ISIS could attack any city, from any direction, any time they want, since the terror organization has a web of series of conquered towns and cities dotting the Syrian and Iraqi landscape, in the thousands of square kilometers all combined. So being "confined" to "just military bases" doesn't really make American soldiers all that safe.
>
> The main trust to this piece, therefore, is how to successfully fight ISIS, with no more than a 1.5 to 2 full brigades of SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES of American and Western and Arab allies (other than Iraq and Syria), using an entirely different strategy.
>
> I won't cite any map here that shows the territories ISIS controls; but if you are observing this "war on terror" and you Google it, there are many different kinds. Some maps show all the lands from the eastern parts of Syria to the large Anbar province of Iraq, west of Baghdad as being controlled by ISIS. I don't think that's very accurate. Most of that are just unoccupied and unlivable deserts.
>
> But if you look at the more detailed maps that show the routes connecting the many large and small cities under ISIS in the regions I just described, you'd see where the absolute majority of ISIS fighters are, and what routes they are using now and must use in the future in order to travel from one town or city to another, in the regions they control.
>
> This pseudo Sun-Tzu strategy here calls for no more than 5,000 to 8,000 special operations forces to deal with that reality. While a thousand plus ISIS members, the best estimates suggested, have died in the last 5-6 months, from US and ally bombing, many more thousands have been recruited, in that time too. The rough range I'd use, based on the reading I've done in the last a couple months, therefore, puts ISIS's active numbers between 20,000 and 40,000.
>
> So, yes, while it is true that it'd be extremely foolish to use 5,000 to 8,000 elite forces, no matter how well trained or how well armed, to take on 20,000 to 40,000 fanatics in urban settings where fighting takes place inside schools, mosques, apartments, homes, offices, universities, etc., if the those 5,000 to 8,000 elite forces, in small and highly mobile units, were living and fighting in the open deserts, where individuals approaching could be seen many miles out... very few opponents could take them on and win... especially if you're talking about American special operations forces having access to all kinds of support like night vision, Apaches, Black Hawks, satellites, drones, F-22s, F-15s, F-16s, F-18s, B-1s, B-2s, B-52s, etc.
>
> Again, this strategy is RADICALLY DIFFERENT from all that I've read, from all the experts. And it could work only in the Middle East or some other similar topographical environment.
>
> As you know, most of the Middle East are desert or dry terrains. Unlike North and South Americas, or 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, the Middle East has VERY few dense forest and river systems. In the Middle East, as a result, if you could cut-off and control the ESTABLISHED ROUTES and other important junctures where there's water and food, moving from point A to point B becomes very difficult, if not entirely impossible.
>
> In the open and hostile desert environments of the Middle East --- where it could be freezing at night, only to have boiling temperatures 12 hours later, and there's very few sources of water --- once you control those important nodes and junctures, you have a very significant say in HOW a group like ISIS conducts its activities.
>
> Spanking new Toyota Tundras, for example, used to be ISIS preferred mode of travel and transportation, for supplies and re-enforcement purposes.
>
> Constant bombing from the air over the last few months made them use cars and trucks in LESS visible ways; but they still travel by trucks and cars, for conquest, for supplies, and for re-enforcement. The 5,000 to 8,000 special operations forces from the USA, Europe, and countries like Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates ---- in small and highly mobile units of 100 to 200, strategically placed in the various essential routes and connections from eastern Syria to western Iraq, accompanied by Apaches and Black Hawks and are assisted by drones and satellites ---- WOULD LARGELY PUT A STOP TO ALMOST ALL EASY VEHICULAR TRAFFIC between towns and cities by ISIS.
>
> There is only ONE RULE:
>
> For the duration of the operation --- which could be arbitrarily set between 3 to 6 months ---- KILL ALL WHO APPROACH you in the vast desert. No exceptions made. Millions of leaflets, therefore, are need to be dropped in villages, towns, and cities all over Syria and Iraq. Harsh and unfair, 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, as you can see, leaves TENS to HUNDREDS of thousands of local Syrian rebel forces and Iraqi and Kurdish forces to fight from one town and one city, to another, doing door to door fighting, fighting against ISIS in terrains among local people Syrian and Iraqi forces know and understand best.
>
> And, yes, contrary to Obama's nonsensical assertion --- e.g., "We will bomb them until they are all dead, and this is a campaign that will take years, not weeks or months" --- TIME IS THE ESSENCE.
>
> And time is NOT on our side.
>
> If ISIS is a cancer, as Obama and his advisors correctly argued 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, like ISIS, needs to be operated on and taken out ASAP.
>
> This strategy will accomplish three major aims as follows:
>
> #1: It will MINIMIZE DEATHS and INJURIES to both American troops as well as civilians there in the Middle East, since most civilians will stay in town.
>
> #2: This chocking-off-important-juncture-approach by 5,000 to 8,000 special operations forces, again, allows Syrians and Iraqis to do street to street, door to door fighting in towns, cities as well as among civilian populations with traditions and languages they know best.
>
> How or why this tactic would work?
>
> Because the enemies are NO DIFFERENT from us: --- they need supplies and re-supplies. Supplies and re-enforcement must come from outside of a city or town they either have conquered or want to conquer. When you cut-off all entrances and exits, to a town or city, little to no supply or re-enforcement could be readily brought about by ISIS.
>
> We are MOBILE; we have airplanes; and we have supplies. So do the Syrians and Iraqis we intent to help.
>
> ISIS doesn't have satellites, helicopters, drones, or fighter jets.
>
> Strategically cutting off routes they had to use, in order to rapidly transport men and supplies from one city to another, using cars and trucks, would deal them close to a fatal blow alone. But the fatal blow must come from local folks like Syrians and Iraqis who know their towns and cities as well as the people living in those towns and cities.
>
> #3: This approach cannot easily be propagandized by ISIS and their sympathizers as an invasion, much less an occupation.
>
> Our 5,000-8,000 strong SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES can be air-lifted out of their desert posts any day! Once LOCAL SYRIANS and IRAQIS have taken back all their villages and towns and cities, in their respective countries, America and its allies simply fly those special operations forces out of their posts, within a few days to a week or two, not months or years, as in past and in large campaigns. Most ordinary citizens in Syria and Iraq won't even see American or other foreign troops. The harshest things they must endure are the severe travel restrictions imposed on them, as well as the lack of food and supplies...
>
> But they ARE SUFFERING, right now, under ISIS ... so what's the difference, really?
>
> Indeed, this last aspect of the third point above here is one of the most "sticky points" in the sending of thousands of troop to any foreign country.
>
> 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, by using the various phrases and cliches (e.g., "We are merely staying to help train local soldiers")? Or do you leave, after having suffered thousands of wounds and dead, in town to town, city to city, doing door to door fighting? And even if you leave, with tens of thousands, it takes YEARS to "wind down." By the time you've finally wounded down, the problem will have started again... And then you wish you had left tens of thousands of troops behind to "secure the peace we've sacrificed so much to win," and we'd be at the present situation all over again.
>
> To me, then, sending in 5,000 to 8,000 highly armed, highly mobile SPECIAL OPS FORCES, from America, Europe, and Jordan and Saudi Arabia and Qatar and Bahrain and the AUE and station them at crucial cross points all over eastern Syria and western Iraq ... is the most palatable as well as most effective approach to this ISIS crisis.
>
> But, again, TIME IS NOT ON OUR SIDE.
>
> ISIS is conquering and expanding on lands as well as recruiting thousands of fighters in cyberspace, month after month, year after year, even if the bombings we and our allies do on a daily basis. In addition to the original al-Baghdadi ISIS, new groups are sprouting all over the Middle East and Africa, all pledging allegiance to ISIS.
>
> Obama and his speech writers keep saying, "This war on terrorists like ISIS will take years."
>
> But the American people ARE ALREADY STARTING TO TURN AGAINST this current approach of Obama; and even Obama is ARLREADY STRATING TO LOOSENING UP this "no boots on the ground" nonsense. Listen to his various equivocations.... Right now, there are around 4,000 American "advisers" in or around Iraq and Syria... But what would happen, ask yourself, IF ONE OR TWO 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 grounds"? Of course not! If THAT GRIME SCENARIO HAPPENED, many thousands would be sent in immediately.
>
> But IF THAT WHOLE CASCADE TRANSPIRED it would NOT, then, be a proactive approach.
>
> Knee-jerk responses to the dictates of ISIS or any other terror group are not the ways to run foreign policies, including wars. In order to AVOID VICIOUS CYCLE of conundrum, therefore, roughly 5,000 to 8,000 special operations forces need to be deployed, immediately, as roughly sketched out here.
>
> "Not going to war" simply because "the American citizens are against it," as the Obama folks argued, is almost as bad as "going to war because now most American citizens are for it."
>
> In early 2014, if you would recall, when ISIS was just starting to become more visible and a formally split from Al Qaida was taking place, the percentage of Americans who said we should send in ground troops were only in the high teens to 20-percent range. By late summer, when ISIS was running in circles around Syrian rebels, Iraqis armed forces and Kurds that percentage ticked up only very slightly.
>
> But now, as March 2015 approaches, the percentage of Americans SUPPORTING THE IDEA OF SENDING IN GROUND TROOPS IS AT THE 50-plus percent range, in most of the latest surveys. More importantly, for Obama personally, the percentage of Americans saying "Obama doesn't have a plan to defeat ISIS" or that "the bombing campaign has failed" is also approaching 50 percent.
>
>
> This complex reality, then, is right now Obama's greatest dilemma.
ISIS is JUST ANOTHER SADDAM. dig him out of his HOLE and ISIS will be gone or ELSE ISIS will keep growing. USA NEEDS ANOTHER DESSERT STORM BY BURNING THE SANDS to get the silicon in them out. "OIL4BLOOD" as complainted by some people. just start deploy troops in hundred thousands including SALITE TARGET BOMBS yep those 2000 pound or heavier + more bunker buster.
USA can NOT win ISIS with OUT A FULL WAR. use those over stock toys so better ones can be created. a FULL WAR measures how POWERFUL or WEAKY of a US PREZDENT. the BUSHES showed the way. THE DONKEYS are WEAKY. the ELEPHANT CAN DO IT just keep that in mind for the NEXT ELECTION.
Born2beHmong
Feb 20, 2015, 2:39:28 PM2/20/15
to
Hawjlauj,
cov nom tswv Meska no tsi yog yuav yog mus ua "ROG", tabsi lawv nrhiav kev ua Business thiab txoj kev siv nyiajtxiag kom pobnyiaj rau cov tubrog Meska no loj tshaj qub ntxiv xwb.
Meska tsi yog ua rog kom muaj yeej, thiab lawv tsi nco qab txog npluav rog nyablaj lawm.
ua ib tug tib neeg nyob, thaum koj tua luag tsevneeg tuag tag lawm. thaum luag tsi muaj txoj kev mus lawm, luag ib tug xwb los luag yeej kam tua mus li. tuag hnub twg xam hnub ntawd xwb.
txoj kev ua rog es ua ib togzus mus li nyablaj teb lawv twb tua tsi yeej lawm. yog tseem yog ua tsov ua rog li ua rog QUAV DEV no es sibnyas tua xwb. tsi muaj hnub yus yuav yeej tau npluav rog no li.
ntiajteb no ua rau puas tsawg lub teb chaw nyob sab tis qhov chaw koj tham no puas tag lawm. thaum zoo li no, tej neeg no thiaj li yuav tuag hnub no-xum cias tuag tagkhi. yog li ntawd, yuav declared tsovrog tua cov neeg li no mas tsi muaj hnub yeej.
yog tias lam ua li no kom tau zoo mus tua lawm tus thiab tau kev sivnyiajtxiag povtseg no ces ua nyog thiab yog lawm os nawb.
koj rov mus saib cov COWBOY movies ua Laib tua niam tua txiv tag es tus tub mam li mus revenge tua tus laib kom tuag...koj muab xav tias, cov tua tua neeg nyob sab ntuj koj tham no ces lub sijhawm cov neeg seem coob npaum li koj hais no. yog li no, luag thiaj li tubsab tua es tuag hnub xam hnub ntawd li lawm mas mog.
Born
cov nom tswv Meska no tsi yog yuav yog mus ua "ROG", tabsi lawv nrhiav kev ua Business thiab txoj kev siv nyiajtxiag kom pobnyiaj rau cov tubrog Meska no loj tshaj qub ntxiv xwb.
Meska tsi yog ua rog kom muaj yeej, thiab lawv tsi nco qab txog npluav rog nyablaj lawm.
ua ib tug tib neeg nyob, thaum koj tua luag tsevneeg tuag tag lawm. thaum luag tsi muaj txoj kev mus lawm, luag ib tug xwb los luag yeej kam tua mus li. tuag hnub twg xam hnub ntawd xwb.
txoj kev ua rog es ua ib togzus mus li nyablaj teb lawv twb tua tsi yeej lawm. yog tseem yog ua tsov ua rog li ua rog QUAV DEV no es sibnyas tua xwb. tsi muaj hnub yus yuav yeej tau npluav rog no li.
ntiajteb no ua rau puas tsawg lub teb chaw nyob sab tis qhov chaw koj tham no puas tag lawm. thaum zoo li no, tej neeg no thiaj li yuav tuag hnub no-xum cias tuag tagkhi. yog li ntawd, yuav declared tsovrog tua cov neeg li no mas tsi muaj hnub yeej.
yog tias lam ua li no kom tau zoo mus tua lawm tus thiab tau kev sivnyiajtxiag povtseg no ces ua nyog thiab yog lawm os nawb.
koj rov mus saib cov COWBOY movies ua Laib tua niam tua txiv tag es tus tub mam li mus revenge tua tus laib kom tuag...koj muab xav tias, cov tua tua neeg nyob sab ntuj koj tham no ces lub sijhawm cov neeg seem coob npaum li koj hais no. yog li no, luag thiaj li tubsab tua es tuag hnub xam hnub ntawd li lawm mas mog.
Born
AEON
Feb 20, 2015, 6:44:58 PM2/20/15
to
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
AEON
Feb 21, 2015, 7:05:54 AM2/21/15
to
On Friday, February 20, 2015 at 11:10:35 PM UTC-6, HenryDavidT wrote:
> Here's a second and better edited draft.
>
> 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!
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> 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 in the Middle East. There are different ways to defeat ISIS. And ISIS is easily defeated, if casualties among the populations were no important. But they are important. And, so, because of such and other considerations, to me, this is the most palatable. I will articulate it momentarily. But, first, a few about ISIS...
>
> Two other noticeable income generators for ISIS are racketeering --- the extortion of money and goods from local businesses --- and kidnapping of foreigners. 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, so this stratagem I haphazard here pertains to this war against ISIS only, a rather small but deadly terror organization that decapitates and burns many of its enemies on YouTube.
>
> And since about 99.5% of ISIS enemies are Muslims in the Middle East, Muslims, therefore, must take the lead in this fight.
>
> America, Europe, and other non-Syrian and non-Iraqi partners should only play supporting roles. But that supporting role must be more than just dropping bombs and missiles from 30K to 50K feet up in the air. Dropping a few big bombs and missiles from tens of thousands of feet in the air, with complete game-like infrared pictures of exploding warehouses, is viscerally satisfying; unfortunately, that is NOT going to enough to "dismantle and ultimately destroy" an enemy as resourceful, clever, 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 or homes, in large cities like Raqqa, Mosul, etc. 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, 98% of the citizens of Raqqa and Mosul, totaling over two million people, ARE STILL LIVING in those cities. And NO INDISCRIMINATE BOMBINGS have taken place in either city.
>
> That, indeed, is invaluable information for ISIS.
>
> Living in small cells among local citizens not only gives ISIS great protection from air campaigns, but such a living arrangement also allows its members to monitor the citizens in ways they couldn't have, if they were living among themselves in the desert, in dug-out & "fortified" tunnels or holes, in mountains, or training facilities.
>
> I will say only a few words about previous wars, especially those fought by the two Bushes: forget about arguments like "we could have left 10K-50K soldiers there, and none of these would have happened."
>
> They're not at the front-line, true.
>
> But "the front line" is always shifting, so any day of the week, they could be, as the situation with those 300-500 American marine "trainers" at the Anbar province shows: ISIS could attack any city, any time they want, since the terror organization has a web of conquered towns and cities dotting the Syrian and Iraqi landscapes. So being "confined" to "just military bases" doesn't make American soldiers all that safe.
>
> The main trust to this piece, therefore, is how to successfully fight ISIS, with no more than a 1.5 to 2 full brigades of SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES of American and Western and Arab allies, using an entirely different strategy.
>
> So, yes, while it is true it'd be foolish to take on 20K- 40K fanatics in urban settings where fighting takes place inside schools, mosques, apartments, homes, offices, and universities using no more than 5K-8K elite forces ...that's not what I am suggesting. Here, I am talking about inserting small and highly mobile units of 100-200 those elite forces in the various important nodes and junctures far away from urban centers where any could be seen and dealt with immediately many miles out, with military assets like night vision, Apaches, Black Hawks, satellites, drones, F-22s, F-15s, F-16s, F-18s, B-1s, and B-52s.
>
> To get from point A to point B, you need to travel through well-worn, well known routes; cutting across vast deserts with freezing and boiling temperatures, with little or no water, to AVOID American special operations forces who are now manning strategic junctures across the spaces between towns and cities ISIS wants to expand to or travel to and from, is not going to be easy for ISIS.
>
> When you control those important nodes and junctures, in such hostile environments, you have a very significant say in how a group like ISIS conducts its activities.
>
> It used to be that case that, for example, ISIS would parade in spanking new, gleaming Toyota Tundras, with scary black flags flying proud and high in the air, as they marauded from one town and city to the next. After some 6 months of constant bombing, no more such large and rowdy activities.
>
> Sending in 5K-8K special operations forces from the USA, Europe, as well as, Arab countries like Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates you largely put a stop to almost all easy vehicular traffic between towns and cities by ISIS.
>
> And there should be only ONE RULE: 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, as you can see, would allow tens to hundreds of thousands of local Syrian rebel forces and Iraqi and Kurdish forces to fight from one town and one city, to another, doing door to door fighting, fighting against ISIS in terrains among local people Syrian and Iraqi forces know and understand best.
>
> #2: This chocking-off-important-juncture-approach by 5K-8K special operations forces, again, allows Syrians and Iraqis to do street to street, door to door fighting in towns, cities as well as among civilian populations with traditions and languages they know best.
>
> Cutting off all easily accessed entrances and exits, and other important cross-roads and junctures in the far-flung inhospitable desert Middle East between Syria and Iraq would "starve" ISIS (not so much in food nowadays but in human and material supply and re-enforcement).
>
> We are very MOBILE, vertically and horizontally, with mighty airplanes, trucks, fighter jets, helicopters, etc.
>
> ISIS IS 100% NOT AT ALL VERTICALLY MOBILE.
>
> And if you also made it very difficult for them to shuttle men and supplies back and forth across Syria and Iraq ---- that is, if every important desert junctures, nodes, and water source was manned by deadly units of highly mobile special operations forces --- then there's very few other "cards" they could play...
>
> Most ordinary citizens in Syria and Iraq won't even see American or other foreign troops. The harshest things they must endure are the severe travel restrictions imposed on them, as well as the lack of food and supplies. But they ARE SUFFERING, right now, under ISIS ... so what's the difference, really?
>
> 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 operations forces from America, Europe, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, and the AUE and stationing them at crucial cross points all over eastern Syria and western Iraq, to do only a very specific supporting is the most palatable and effective approach to this ISIS crisis. It also avoids having to deal with those multi-variable, complex questions.
>
> Obama and his speech writers keep saying, "This war on terrors will take years."
>
> But the American people are already starting to turn against that doctrine and belief; hell, even Obama himself is already starting to equivocate...
>
> Right now, there are around 4K American "advisers" in or around Iraq and Syria. But what would happen, ask yourself, if one or two 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 grounds"? Of course not! If THAT GRIM SCENARIO HAPPENED, many thousands would be sent in immediately.
>
> Now, as "the Ides of March" approaches, the percentage of Americans supporting the idea of sending in "ground troops" is in the plus 50% range. More importantly, for Obama personally, 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.
>
> This complex and shifting reality, then, is Obama's greatest dilemma in his "war against terror."
ISIS is rooted in an OIL REGION which $ isn't a BIG ISSUES. ISIS CAN BUY the advance WAR MACHINE and the MOST FEARNOT SOLDIERS which creates a little STICKY WAR to WIN. THE USA can NOT DO IT as it did to VIETNAM where NAPHAM & CLUSTER BOMBS can maximize it's effectiveness. the SAND can NOT BURN for days so the NAPHAM EFFECTIVE ZONE is limited. ISIS can dig a trench and safely AVOID NAPHAM. so SOLDIERS ON the ground are needed to make sure ISIS is gone frome the farm or it will just grow more as the AIR RAID has gone from a zone.
SINCE $ is NOT AN ISSUES ISIS has rounded up supplies to each defense unit sot it can NOT be an EZ WAR to win within 100 hours as the desertstorm in 1991.
> Here's a second and better edited draft.
>
> 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, December 28, 2014
> Friday, February 20, 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."
>
> 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.
>
>
> 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 in the Middle East. There are different ways to defeat ISIS. And ISIS is easily defeated, if casualties among the populations were no important. But they are important. And, so, because of such and other considerations, to me, this is the most palatable. I will articulate it momentarily. But, first, a few about ISIS...
>
> Arguments to the contrary notwithstanding, ISIS is just like Al Qaida, a terror organization.
>
> But ISIS is a more organized and better-funded terror organization.
>
> Initially funded by some Middle Eastern Sunni Muslim conservatives, individuals and states, now, ISIS is largely "self-sufficient." It has taken over cities with banks, with hundreds of millions of cash, not to say anything about hundreds of American tanks, armored Humvees, and general military transport vehicles. It also has captured a lot of lands with oil fields. And, despite the bombings by Americans and a few Arab coalition countries, oil still produces for ISIS millions of dollars, per month, in small trucking operations.
> Arguments to the contrary notwithstanding, ISIS is just like Al Qaida, a terror organization.
>
> But ISIS is a more organized and better-funded terror organization.
>
>
> Two other noticeable income generators for ISIS are racketeering --- the extortion of money and goods from local businesses --- and kidnapping of foreigners. 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, so this stratagem I haphazard here pertains to this war against ISIS only, a rather small but deadly terror organization that decapitates and burns many of its enemies on YouTube.
>
> And since about 99.5% of ISIS enemies are Muslims in the Middle East, Muslims, therefore, must take the lead in this fight.
>
> America, Europe, and other non-Syrian and non-Iraqi partners should only play supporting roles. But that supporting role must be more than just dropping bombs and missiles from 30K to 50K feet up in the air. Dropping a few big bombs and missiles from tens of thousands of feet in the air, with complete game-like infrared pictures of exploding warehouses, is viscerally satisfying; unfortunately, that is NOT going to enough to "dismantle and ultimately destroy" an enemy as resourceful, clever, 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 or homes, in large cities like Raqqa, Mosul, etc. 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, 98% of the citizens of Raqqa and Mosul, totaling over two million people, ARE STILL LIVING in those cities. And NO INDISCRIMINATE BOMBINGS have taken place in either city.
>
> That, indeed, is invaluable information for ISIS.
>
> Living in small cells among local citizens not only gives ISIS great protection from air campaigns, but such a living arrangement also allows its members to monitor the citizens in ways they couldn't have, if they were living among themselves in the desert, in dug-out & "fortified" tunnels or holes, in mountains, or training facilities.
>
> I will say only a few words about previous wars, especially those fought by the two Bushes: forget about arguments like "we could have left 10K-50K soldiers there, and none of these would have happened."
>
> There are many kinds of "facts," but this one is very important to know:
> 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 would eventually find a way to DEFEAT you and drive you out. 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.
> There are many kinds of "facts," but this one is very important to know:
> occupying forces and colonialism breed generational contempt and resentment.
>
> 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, for resource consideration alone. But, again and more importantly, doing that would create so much psychological fear and distrust on both the occupied and the occupiers, there would NEVER BE PEACE for either.
> The TENS OF THOUSANDS of troops still stationed in bases across Europe and Asia, for example, cost America MANY BILLIONS of dollars, per year.
>
>
> 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, since we only hear about the formally announced numbers Obama was sending to "train Iraqi forces").
> 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.
>
>
> They're not at the front-line, true.
>
> But "the front line" is always shifting, so any day of the week, they could be, as the situation with those 300-500 American marine "trainers" at the Anbar province shows: ISIS could attack any city, any time they want, since the terror organization has a web of conquered towns and cities dotting the Syrian and Iraqi landscapes. So being "confined" to "just military bases" doesn't make American soldiers all that safe.
>
> The main trust to this piece, therefore, is how to successfully fight ISIS, with no more than a 1.5 to 2 full brigades of SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES of American and Western and Arab allies, using an entirely different strategy.
>
> I won't cite any map here that shows the territories ISIS controls; but if you are observing this "war on terror" and you Google it, there are many different kinds. Some maps show all the lands from the eastern parts of Syria to the large Anbar province of Iraq, west of Baghdad as being controlled by ISIS. I don't think that's very accurate. Most of that are just unoccupied and unlivable deserts.
>
> A more detailed set of maps shows the exact routes connecting the many large and small cities under ISIS control. And while one to two thousand ISIS members, the best estimates suggested, have died in the last 5-6 months, from US and ally bombing, many more thousands have been recruited, during that same period. The rough range I'd use, based on the reading I've done in the last a couple months, therefore, puts ISIS's active numbers between 20,000 and 40,000.
> I won't cite any map here that shows the territories ISIS controls; but if you are observing this "war on terror" and you Google it, there are many different kinds. Some maps show all the lands from the eastern parts of Syria to the large Anbar province of Iraq, west of Baghdad as being controlled by ISIS. I don't think that's very accurate. Most of that are just unoccupied and unlivable deserts.
>
>
> So, yes, while it is true it'd be foolish to take on 20K- 40K fanatics in urban settings where fighting takes place inside schools, mosques, apartments, homes, offices, and universities using no more than 5K-8K elite forces ...that's not what I am suggesting. Here, I am talking about inserting small and highly mobile units of 100-200 those elite forces in the various important nodes and junctures far away from urban centers where any could be seen and dealt with immediately many miles out, with military assets like night vision, Apaches, Black Hawks, satellites, drones, F-22s, F-15s, F-16s, F-18s, B-1s, and B-52s.
>
> Again, this strategy is RADICALLY DIFFERENT from all that I've read, from all the experts. And it could work only in the Middle East or some other similar topographical environment.
>
> 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 inhospitable terrains.
> Again, this strategy is RADICALLY DIFFERENT from all that I've read, from all the experts. And it could work only in the Middle East or some other similar topographical environment.
>
>
> To get from point A to point B, you need to travel through well-worn, well known routes; cutting across vast deserts with freezing and boiling temperatures, with little or no water, to AVOID American special operations forces who are now manning strategic junctures across the spaces between towns and cities ISIS wants to expand to or travel to and from, is not going to be easy for ISIS.
>
> When you control those important nodes and junctures, in such hostile environments, you have a very significant say in how a group like ISIS conducts its activities.
>
> It used to be that case that, for example, ISIS would parade in spanking new, gleaming Toyota Tundras, with scary black flags flying proud and high in the air, as they marauded from one town and city to the next. After some 6 months of constant bombing, no more such large and rowdy activities.
>
> Sending in 5K-8K special operations forces from the USA, Europe, as well as, Arab countries like Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates you largely put a stop to almost all easy vehicular traffic between towns and cities by ISIS.
>
> And there should be only ONE RULE: 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, as you can see, would allow tens to hundreds of thousands of local Syrian rebel forces and Iraqi and Kurdish forces to fight from one town and one city, to another, doing door to door fighting, fighting against ISIS in terrains among local people Syrian and Iraqi forces know and understand best.
>
> And, yes, contrary to Obama's nonsensical assertion --- e.g., "We will bomb them until they are all dead, and this is a campaign that will take years, not weeks or months" --- TIME IS THE ESSENCE.
>
> And time is NOT on our side.
>
> If ISIS is a cancer, as Obama and his advisors correctly argued 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, like ISIS, needs to be operated on and taken out ASAP.
>
> This strategy will accomplish three major aims as follows:
>
> #1: It will minimize injuries and deaths to both American troops as well as civilians there in the Middle East, since most civilians will stay in town.
> And, yes, contrary to Obama's nonsensical assertion --- e.g., "We will bomb them until they are all dead, and this is a campaign that will take years, not weeks or months" --- TIME IS THE ESSENCE.
>
> And time is NOT on our side.
>
> If ISIS is a cancer, as Obama and his advisors correctly argued 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, like ISIS, needs to be operated on and taken out ASAP.
>
> This strategy will accomplish three major aims as follows:
>
>
> #2: This chocking-off-important-juncture-approach by 5K-8K special operations forces, again, allows Syrians and Iraqis to do street to street, door to door fighting in towns, cities as well as among civilian populations with traditions and languages they know best.
>
> How or why this tactic would work?
>
> Napoleon and Frederick the Great were right: an army, even one like ISIS, marches on its stomach.
> How or why this tactic would work?
>
>
> Cutting off all easily accessed entrances and exits, and other important cross-roads and junctures in the far-flung inhospitable desert Middle East between Syria and Iraq would "starve" ISIS (not so much in food nowadays but in human and material supply and re-enforcement).
>
> We are very MOBILE, vertically and horizontally, with mighty airplanes, trucks, fighter jets, helicopters, etc.
>
> ISIS IS 100% NOT AT ALL VERTICALLY MOBILE.
>
> And if you also made it very difficult for them to shuttle men and supplies back and forth across Syria and Iraq ---- that is, if every important desert junctures, nodes, and water source was manned by deadly units of highly mobile special operations forces --- then there's very few other "cards" they could play...
>
> #3: This approach cannot easily be propagandized by ISIS and their sympathizers as an invasion, much less an occupation.
>
> Our 5K-8K strong SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES can be air-lifted out of their desert posts, once Syrians and Iraqis have taken back all their villages and towns and cities, in their respective countries. And the evacuation of 5K-8K special operations forces shouldn't take more than a few days to a week or two.
> #3: This approach cannot easily be propagandized by ISIS and their sympathizers as an invasion, much less an occupation.
>
>
> Most ordinary citizens in Syria and Iraq won't even see American or other foreign troops. The harshest things they must endure are the severe travel restrictions imposed on them, as well as the lack of food and supplies. But they ARE SUFFERING, right now, under ISIS ... so what's the difference, really?
>
> Indeed, this last aspect of the third point above here is one of the most "sticky points" in the sending of thousands of troop to any foreign country.
>
> 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 (e.g., "We are merely staying to help train local soldiers;" "We have the right to stay, since we've sacrificed so much blood, sweat, and treasures")?
> Indeed, this last aspect of the third point above here is one of the most "sticky points" in the sending of thousands of troop to any foreign country.
>
> The question always is... what do you do, once you've defeat the enemies?
>
> 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 operations forces from America, Europe, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, and the AUE and stationing them at crucial cross points all over eastern Syria and western Iraq, to do only a very specific supporting is the most palatable and effective approach to this ISIS crisis. It also avoids having to deal with those multi-variable, complex questions.
>
> But, again, TIME IS NOT ON OUR SIDE.
>
> ISIS is expanding on lands as well as recruiting thousands of fighters in cyberspace. Month in and month out, even under American and ally constant bombing, ISIS has been able to consistently recruit hundreds to thousands of fresh faces. What's even more worrying, new groups are sprouting all over the Middle East and Africa, all pledging allegiance to ISIS.
> But, again, TIME IS NOT ON OUR SIDE.
>
>
> Obama and his speech writers keep saying, "This war on terrors will take years."
>
> But the American people are already starting to turn against that doctrine and belief; hell, even Obama himself is already starting to equivocate...
>
> Right now, there are around 4K American "advisers" in or around Iraq and Syria. But what would happen, ask yourself, if one or two 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 grounds"? Of course not! If THAT GRIM SCENARIO HAPPENED, many thousands would be sent in immediately.
>
> But IF THAT WHOLE CASCADE TRANSPIRED it would NOT, then, be a proactive approach.
>
> Knee-jerk responses to the dictates of ISIS or any other terror group are not the ways to run foreign policies, including wars. In order to AVOID VICIOUS CYCLE of conundrum, therefore, roughly 5K-8K special operations forces need to be deployed, immediately, as roughly sketched out here.
> But IF THAT WHOLE CASCADE TRANSPIRED it would NOT, then, be a proactive approach.
>
>
> "Not going to war" simply because "the American citizens are against it," as the Obama folks argued, is almost as bad as "going to war because now most American citizens are for it."
>
> In early 2014, if you would recall, when ISIS was just starting to become more visible and a formal split from Al Qaida was taking place, the percentage of Americans who said we should "send in ground troops" was in the high teens to 20% range. By late summer, when ISIS was running in circles around Syrian rebels, Iraqis armed forces and Kurds that percentage ticked up only very slightly.
> "Not going to war" simply because "the American citizens are against it," as the Obama folks argued, is almost as bad as "going to war because now most American citizens are for it."
>
>
> Now, as "the Ides of March" approaches, the percentage of Americans supporting the idea of sending in "ground troops" is in the plus 50% range. More importantly, for Obama personally, 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.
>
> This complex and shifting reality, then, is Obama's greatest dilemma in his "war against terror."
ISIS is rooted in an OIL REGION which $ isn't a BIG ISSUES. ISIS CAN BUY the advance WAR MACHINE and the MOST FEARNOT SOLDIERS which creates a little STICKY WAR to WIN. THE USA can NOT DO IT as it did to VIETNAM where NAPHAM & CLUSTER BOMBS can maximize it's effectiveness. the SAND can NOT BURN for days so the NAPHAM EFFECTIVE ZONE is limited. ISIS can dig a trench and safely AVOID NAPHAM. so SOLDIERS ON the ground are needed to make sure ISIS is gone frome the farm or it will just grow more as the AIR RAID has gone from a zone.
SINCE $ is NOT AN ISSUES ISIS has rounded up supplies to each defense unit sot it can NOT be an EZ WAR to win within 100 hours as the desertstorm in 1991.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
0 new messages