War Against ISIS

[wittmanace]

I see the U.S. Is sending special forces to Syria...

The link will update itself as it is breaking news:

US to send special forces unit to Syria - BBC News

 

[GermanHerman]

I see the U.S. Is sending special forces to Syria...

The link will update itself as it is breaking news:

US to send special forces unit to Syria - BBC News

I wonder how well the communication between russia and the US will be considering that all we heared so far were talks about avoiding incidents in the air. Given the nature of the operations special forces conduct it seems a rather risky move to deploy ground fighters in a region that is under active attac from a foreign air force.

 

[alexkvaskov]

Feanor, I thought the SVP-24 was for Fencers. Or is it something they can fit to different types? Is the Su-30SM in Russian service really incapable of launching LGBs? Not so modern after all as they claim all the time. Also, can the upgraded (Gefest and the other mod) Fencers use LGBs?

 

[Ranger25]

I see the U.S. Is sending special forces to Syria...

The link will update itself as it is breaking news:

US to send special forces unit to Syria - BBC News

IMO this is a mistake. The US should focus on assisting the Iraqi army drive ISIL out if Iraq and not get further involved in Syria.

The potential for a Russian Strike(mistaken or intentional) hitting embedded US SOF is a problem that could have game changing consequences.

 

[chris]

IMO this is a mistake. The US should focus on assisting the Iraqi army drive ISIL out if Iraq and not get further involved in Syria.

The potential for a Russian Strike(mistaken or intentional) hitting embedded US SOF is a problem that could have game changing consequences.

From what I read in the news, they plan to send them to the Kurdish section. Russians seem to to consider Kurds as good guys, so I don't think that there would be any Russian strikes against them.

On the other hand, Turkey considers Syrian Kurds as bad guys and bombs them now and then. As things are now, there is better chance for a Turkish strike accidentally hitting US troops than a Russian one. I'm waiting to see the official Turkish reaction on this.

What a mess...

 

[wittmanace]

Feanor, I thought the SVP-24 was for Fencers. Or is it something they can fit to different types? Is the Su-30SM in Russian service really incapable of launching LGBs? Not so modern after all as they claim all the time. Also, can the upgraded (Gefest and the other mod) Fencers use LGBs?

When the su-30sm was identified in Syria, the brought in experts on BBC and Sky both made points of the fact that they were for heavy PGM strikes, and I am sure implied LGB specifically. As such, and for other reasons, an inability for them to use LGBs would surprise me a great deal.

I'm more inclined to believe they are economical in their selection of munitions used, using the cheapest or oldest munitions where nothing is lost by it.

 

[Ranger25]

When the su-30sm was identified in Syria, the brought in experts on BBC and Sky both made points of the fact that they were for heavy PGM strikes, and I am sure implied LGB specifically. As such, and for other reasons, an inability for them to use LGBs would surprise me a great deal.

I'm more inclined to believe they are economical in their selection of munitions used, using the cheapest or oldest munitions where nothing is lost by it.

I've also read that the Russian Air Force has a very low number of PGMs available at any given time. May also be one of the reasons for their lower use rate

 

[bobby_77]

I don't think ISIS is really a threat to USA, England or France

I think Iraq war, in 91, and 2003, was really to Protect England and France, USA is opposite the Atlantic but they have a NATO alliance. England and France just wants to look innocent, and asked the Americans to attack Iraq.

I think ISIS is really supported by NATO, and is currently being used to try to overthrow the Syrian, and Iran, and Iraq governments, then will be deposed of later by NATO.

9-11 in America, is most likely done by NATO, with American aid and the country of Saudi Arabia. The Americans and NATO wanted to go to war in the middle east and wanted to take over Iraq, and Iran, and Syria, because they wanted to protect England and France from a future when Iran, and Iraq can have cruise missiles and nukes capable of reaching England.

The Americans and Israel probably did want to try to invade in Iran, but it's not really logistically possible. Probably because Iran has a population of 80 million and Israel population is only about 7 million, and Americans can only bring in about 300,000 troops. But I think I read that Iran has a defence pact with China, so then will probably get advance jets, and missiles from China, just like how France sold 60 mirage jets and missiles to Taiwan. Iran will suffer initially, but will probably win and take over Israel and Iraq, but at a cost of probably 10 million Iranians.
That's why Israel and USA, and NATO didn't attack Iran yet.

ISIS I think is just a NATO project to keep the middle east broken apart and week, so they can protect England and France. I mean, England and France and USA are such hypocrites, with huge war crimes. To keep a country week, they keep bombing, schools, hospitals roads, and bridges, and purposely starving the children, so to have week population.

I still remember during Vietnam USA, used Agent orange. Not just one hectre, but tonnes of it, like 80, thousand or 80 million litres, to cover the whole country. By that measure I think it's a war crime.

I think the only way for England, France and USA, and NATO to control Iran, and Iraq, is to just nuke the whole place, then repopulate the middle east with English speaking people, because that's what NATO really wants to do.

 

[Feanor]

I've also read that the Russian Air Force has a very low number of PGMs available at any given time. May also be one of the reasons for their lower use rate

There's info that they've had to work the factories in 3 shifts to produce new PGMs for the current (very modest) operation.

Feanor, I thought the SVP-24 was for Fencers. Or is it something they can fit to different types? Is the Su-30SM in Russian service really incapable of launching LGBs? Not so modern after all as they claim all the time. Also, can the upgraded (Gefest and the other mod) Fencers use LGBs?

It is... what's confusing? Until now they've mainly carried unguided munitions mainly on the Su-25 and Su-24, and guided munitions on the Su-34. Now both the Su-30SM and Su-24M are capable of carrying PGMs. So like I said, I'm not sure why the Su-30SM is carrying unguided bombs.

 

[wittmanace]

There's info that they've had to work the factories in 3 shifts to produce new PGMs for the current (very modest) operation.



It is... what's confusing? Until now they've mainly carried unguided munitions mainly on the Su-25 and Su-24, and guided munitions on the Su-34. Now both the Su-30SM and Su-24M are capable of carrying PGMs. So like I said, I'm not sure why the Su-30SM is carrying unguided bombs.

Presumably being economical with PGM use when not necessary to use them. Cost, as well as limited numbers you point to, no?

 

[alexkvaskov]

It is... what's confusing? Until now they've mainly carried unguided munitions mainly on the Su-25 and Su-24, and guided munitions on the Su-34. Now both the Su-30SM and Su-24M are capable of carrying PGMs. So like I said, I'm not sure why the Su-30SM is carrying unguided bombs.

I thought you were implying the Su-30SM is equipped with SVP-24.

 

[Ranger25]

I think Iraq war, in 91, and 2003, was really to Protect England and France, USA is opposite the Atlantic but they have a NATO alliance. England and France just wants to look innocent, and asked the Americans to attack Iraq.

I think ISIS is really supported by NATO, and is currently being used to try to overthrow the Syrian, and Iran, and Iraq governments, then will be deposed of later by NATO.

9-11 in America, is most likely done by NATO, with American aid and the country of Saudi Arabia. The Americans and NATO wanted to go to war in the middle east and wanted to take over Iraq, and Iran, and Syria, because they wanted to protect England and France from a future when Iran, and Iraq can have cruise missiles and nukes capable of reaching England.

The Americans and Israel probably did want to try to invade in Iran, but it's not really logistically possible. Probably because Iran has a population of 80 million and Israel population is only about 7 million, and Americans can only bring in about 300,000 troops. But I think I read that Iran has a defence pact with China, so then will probably get advance jets, and missiles from China, just like how France sold 60 mirage jets and missiles to Taiwan. Iran will suffer initially, but will probably win and take over Israel and Iraq, but at a cost of probably 10 million Iranians.
That's why Israel and USA, and NATO didn't attack Iran yet.

ISIS I think is just a NATO project to keep the middle east broken apart and week, so they can protect England and France. I mean, England and France and USA are such hypocrites, with huge war crimes. To keep a country week, they keep bombing, schools, hospitals roads, and bridges, and purposely starving the children, so to have week population.

I still remember during Vietnam USA, used Agent orange. Not just one hectre, but tonnes of it, like 80, thousand or 80 million litres, to cover the whole country. By that measure I think it's a war crime.

I think the only way for England, France and USA, and NATO to control Iran, and Iraq, is to just nuke the whole place, then repopulate the middle east with English speaking people, because that's what NATO really wants to do.

I'd suggest you stay on point in these forums and disregard overtly nationalistic Rants that don't further our forum.

Thank You

 

[Ranger25]

There's info that they've had to work the factories in 3 shifts to produce new PGMs for the current (very modest) operation.



It is... what's confusing? Until now they've mainly carried unguided munitions mainly on the Su-25 and Su-24, and guided munitions on the Su-34. Now both the Su-30SM and Su-24M are capable of carrying PGMs. So like I said, I'm not sure why the Su-30SM is carrying unguided bombs.

Thank You Feanor

 

[Feanor]

I thought you were implying the Su-30SM is equipped with SVP-24.

They should be, but they're not. So far they've equipped some Su-24Ms and some Tu-22M3s. They're still focused on having not multi-role platforms, but narrow mission sets for regiments. At least reconnaissance seems to have gone away from dedicated recon squadrons to be done by everyone.

 

[gf0012-aust]

If there are any more threads that breach forum rules (read them carefully) they will be deleted in toto - not just edited. The poster also runs the risk of banning for either a period, or if a serial offender - permanent

we're not going to have discussions hijacked by conspiracy theories, nationalism or country bashing.


last warning

 

[Scotterz]

Solution to ISIS

Having followed the conflict closely since its inception, I have often thought long and hard about the possible outcomes and/or long term ramifications of this conflict. It is clear from the recent Government actions of strategic withdrawal to the north and the west that Assad plans to, perhaps as a last resort, create an Alawite fiefdom in the west. In my opinion, it seems like a sound plan of action. I would do the following things to expedite this process;

1. Strengthen the alliance with Hezbollah (authorise more advanced weapons shipments and finance - thereby using Hezbollah as the strategic deterrent to Israel).
2. Offer the Kurds autonomy and finance in return for military support against the rebels (thus encircling the rebels).
3. Split the rebels by making peace with the moderates and attack the extremist elements with prejudice.

Once the west is consolidated and stabilised future campaigns to retake the anterior of Syria could be initialised. This plan of action would allow the Syrian state to recuperate economically and provide relief for the armed forces. I was interested on receiving more informed opinions on this scenario.

The solution to ISIS is much simpler than that.

1. Send in sufficient integrated US forces to effectively blockade a large city.

2. Keep US forces completely separate from all foreign fighters.

3. One by one proceed to surround and blockade each ISIS controlled location in Iraq.

4. Operate only as backup and support for domestic Iraqi forces. Allow Iraqi forces to take objectives themselves, providing only rear guard support...in other words, Iraqi forces can procede to take their own cities with full knowledge that they can retreat to safe allied lines at any time, any obstacles such as snipers and minefields can be quickly dealt with as well as the completely demoralizing effect on the ISIS forces that there is no possibility of retreat whatsoever.

Keeping the US forces as rear support and separte is essential to minimizing US casualties.

5. Realize that the Muslim religion cannot deal with democracy and make friends with the Syrian regime so as to repeat the process in their country as well.:ar15

 

[Hone C]

The solution to ISIS is much simpler than that

I think your proposed solution manages to achieve the worst of both worlds by putting large numbers of 'boots on the ground' and simultaneously limiting their freedom of action and ability to integrate with local forces so as to render them ineffective.

Supporting Assad would be a major policy shift and has to be seen in the context of the Shia-Sunni and US-Russia conflicts. Handing Iran a Shia dominated Iraq and Alawite dominated Syria would probably result in a serious cooling of relations with NATO member Turkey and also Saudi Arabia, and also more resourcing by them of radical Sunni groups such as ISIS. It would also be a major win for Putin, and may have flow on effects for Eastern Europe as well.

IMHO the search for a solution here is a pipedream. There are no solutions, just a choice between increasingly poor looking trade-offs.

 

[Ranger25]

I think your proposed solution manages to achieve the worst of both worlds by putting large numbers of 'boots on the ground' and simultaneously limiting their freedom of action and ability to integrate with local forces so as to render them ineffective.

Supporting Assad would be a major policy shift and has to be seen in the context of the Shia-Sunni and US-Russia conflicts. Handing Iran a Shia dominated Iraq and Alawite dominated Syria would probably result in a serious cooling of relations with NATO member Turkey and also Saudi Arabia, and also more resourcing by them of radical Sunni groups such as ISIS. It would also be a major win for Putin, and may have flow on effects for Eastern Europe as well.

IMHO the search for a solution here is a pipedream. There are no solutions, just a choice between increasingly poor looking trade-offs.

The solution to ISIS is much simpler than that.

1. Send in sufficient integrated US forces to effectively blockade a large city.

2. Keep US forces completely separate from all foreign fighters.

3. One by one proceed to surround and blockade each ISIS controlled location in Iraq.

4. Operate only as backup and support for domestic Iraqi forces. Allow Iraqi forces to take objectives themselves, providing only rear guard support...in other words, Iraqi forces can procede to take their own cities with full knowledge that they can retreat to safe allied lines at any time, any obstacles such as snipers and minefields can be quickly dealt with as well as the completely demoralizing effect on the ISIS forces that there is no possibility of retreat whatsoever.

Keeping the US forces as rear support and separte is essential to minimizing US casualties.

5. Realize that the Muslim religion cannot deal with democracy and make friends with the Syrian regime so as to repeat the process in their country as well.


I mostly agree with you both.

I do feel ISIS will need to be discarded and it will likely take US (ideally and other western allies) to complete the task.

I like the concept of using those allied units mainly to support Iraqi Military operations

The Quds and Sulumani will need to be withdrawn, also should ease GCC/Saudi concerns ref Iranian influence


I don't feel this will need to be a large operation, perhaps two full heavy brigades(with all attached supporting units) with some SOF attached units (Ranger Battalion, Seal team)

IMO should proceed relatively quickly

Then the hard part begins, maintaining the peace in a nation with miminal institutions prepared for it and many against it


Again, IMO, it was a disastrous decision to totally withdrawal all US/Allied combat forces and leave the new government and Virgin Army to fend for themselves.

Can easily be argued this vacuum has lead to many problems

 

[corporalclegg]

Russian ssay that leadership of several illegal groups forming part of the Jabhat al-Nusra terrorist grouping decided to reject their symbols and to join the Harakat Ahrar ash-Sham, which was considered to be a member of "moderate opposition". What`s the difference between the "moderate opposition" and terrorists?

 

[Hone C]

Russian ssay that leadership of several illegal groups forming part of the Jabhat al-Nusra terrorist grouping decided to reject their symbols and to join the Harakat Ahrar ash-Sham, which was considered to be a member of "moderate opposition". What`s the difference between the "moderate opposition" and terrorists?

Not much in this case. Harakat Ahrar ash-Sham are an Islamist/Salafist group that have cooperated with ISIS and al-Nusra in the past, and are listed in the UAE as a terrorist group.

They have been rumoured to recieve Western funding via Turkey and have no expantionist ambitions outside of Syria, which is enough to place them in the moderate opposition camp presumably.

As has been stated previously on this thread, the opposition has become increasingly polarised over the course of the Civil War. Moderate has become quite a relative term.