Think you meant this in the Ukraine thread vice Iraq. I doubt moving tanks into Europe will affect ISIS too much.
War Against ISIS
- Thread starter spikehades
- Start date
oh dear.Think you meant this in the Ukraine thread vice Iraq. I doubt moving tanks into Europe will affect ISIS too much.
long daybrain fart moment
Canada to deploy SF troops to Iraq to help train the Kurds with 100 Canadians to be deployed.
ISIS in Iraq: Canada to send special ops soldiers as advisers - Politics - CBC News
France agrees to be part of a military coalition if the Iraqi government requests the intervention of France
France says would join alliance to fight ISIS | News , Middle East | THE DAILY STAR
UK PM has been softening up the public to military intervention for a few weeks now with reports saying the UK could be striking targets in Iraq within weeks.
UK too has been formally asked by the US to join them in air strikes against ISIS. Shame Tornado squadrons got cut by two not that long ago, they'd be ideal.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-asked-to-join-coalition-to-destroy-Isil.html
More global partners willing to take part can only be a positive thing.
ISIS in Iraq: Canada to send special ops soldiers as advisers - Politics - CBC News
France agrees to be part of a military coalition if the Iraqi government requests the intervention of France
France says would join alliance to fight ISIS | News , Middle East | THE DAILY STAR
UK PM has been softening up the public to military intervention for a few weeks now with reports saying the UK could be striking targets in Iraq within weeks.
UK too has been formally asked by the US to join them in air strikes against ISIS. Shame Tornado squadrons got cut by two not that long ago, they'd be ideal.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-asked-to-join-coalition-to-destroy-Isil.html
More global partners willing to take part can only be a positive thing.
We're on the heels of a major Air Campaign against ISIL in Syria and Iraq. I think the U.S. should give assurance to Assad, that it's strictly against ISIL. Though, that's obviously not gonna happen. Arming the "moderate" rebels at this point is not wise or worth it(They've been armed with western arms anyway). There are too many radicalized groups in Syria. The nature of this conflict has been very brutal. I'm concerned at possible air strikes against Syrian Army positions and Air Defenses. They've worked hard and gained a lot of ground in the past 2 years.
I think the air campaign should focus on bombing all the road and supply routs between Syria and Iraq; while a heavier bombardment occurs in all ISIL positions in Iraq. Hopefully the Iraqi Army and Kurdish forces can capitalize on some sort of Offensive.
I think the air campaign should focus on bombing all the road and supply routs between Syria and Iraq; while a heavier bombardment occurs in all ISIL positions in Iraq. Hopefully the Iraqi Army and Kurdish forces can capitalize on some sort of Offensive.
If the Coalition would work with Assad, or at least not bomb Syrian positions; the Syrian Army could wipe out a lot of FSA and Al Nusra positions in the western part of the country. Lebanon has already blocked off a lot of FSA border positions. Idib and Aleppo are still major battlegrounds, but the Syrian Army could benefit from these airstrikes. They can gain a foothold in several contested provinces, like Raqqa.
HurricaneDitka
New Member
Is there significant risk to "coalition" strike craft from either Assad regime anti-air forces or aircraft (or ISIS-captured anti-air equipment for that matter)?
HurricaneDitka
New Member
Isn't Obama more likely to use this opportunity to sneak in a few air strikes against Assad forces while he's there (he did want to bomb them a year ago) rather than work with Assad? In other words, why would the West want to benefit the Syrian Army?
I've actually heard of talk of increasing material support for the U.S. backed rebels. Apparently someone already realized bombing ISIS/ISIL/IS in Syria could create a vacuum that Assad's forces could fill. The increased support for the rebels would be to counter-act that. I don't know if that's the best idea, but it been tossed around.
Still, if Assad's remaining air defense units engage US aircraft, I don't how we can conduct a campaign while ignoring AA fire.
There's no way to avoid that. To hit ISIS in Syria will benefit Assad. But so what?
The West and Syria are already technically on the same side:both are fighting ISIS and groups like it.
Assad and his government will publicly voice out against strikes, saying they're illegal and on sovereign Syrian soil; but in private will probably welcome it. Assad and Iran of course will remind the West that what's happening now is exactly what they've been warning about in the past. Problem is, certain folks were fixated on the idea that the good guys [the ''moderates]'' would overcome the bad guys [the ''extremists''] and overthrow the evil dictator to form a democratic ''moderate'', Western friendly regime that it at peace with its neighbours and doesn't pose a threat to anyone. Now if only things were that simply.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...r-force-of-evil-to-be-vanquished-9727423.html
Last edited:
Assad is a lesser evil compared to the Rebel forces. They won't be launching suicide attacks at Israel. Obama and Israel just want this to be a long divided conflict. Airstrikes alone won't defeat Assad, but it will set back his latest achievements on the battlefield. It's really unwise to arm the rebels at this point; as I pointed out they already have western arms from Turkey, ect. This seems to be more of a political gesture, but one that can be costly.
in all likelihood the u.s/coalition will bomb both the isis and Assad well arming the rebels, after all if there going to be arming the rebels and still against Assad that is the most likly option. I have seen nothing to indicate that u.s policy isnt still fixated on believing the "moderate" rebels can defeat Assad and insert a pro u.s government. Or at the very least a anti Iranian government
edit. infact if you think about it, its almost ideal for the u.s policy as they wanted to arm the moderates but not with the advanced weapons it would take to counter Assads airpower so why not take a few shots at the syrian military help out your proxys and if Assads forced decide to defend you now have a justification to wipe out there airpower. If they dont attack collation aircraft keep hitting them. Either way it results in the preferred u.s policy
i guess what im saying is when you factor in what the u.s policy is towards all partys its hard not to see some sort of mission creep happening.
To quote Clausewitz
"the political objective is goal war is the means of reaching it, and the means can never be considered in isolation from there purpose"
Last edited:
surpreme
Member
Remember Syria air defense is not that good or in other words is a non factor in U.S. air strike. The Israelis already proved that Assad air defense is not a factor so yes they will not have to worry about AA fire or SAM. Just in case they want lock in on to U.S. aircrafts they will be destroyed quickly.
There's a difference between systematically delaminating and rolling back Assad's IADS, and worrying about a stray Pantsyr-1 unit knocking down an F-18 through good luck/bad planning. There is no doubt that the US could silence Assads air defense assets on a network level. But that doesn't matter unless the US is prepared for an air campaign against Assad.
Impossible. Irrspective of who wins there is no way that a lasting peace can be achieved without the coperation of Iran. Just not possible. Look at what happened in Iraq. Despite all the efforts by the U.S. to keep Iran away, Iraq/Iran relations are now at and all time high. The Iranians I'm sure are grateful to America for this.
But weakening Assad will benefit ISIS. If the FSA or so-called moderates were gaining ground this solution might work. Problem is the FSA and other ''moderates'' are weak.
The Syrians were not expecting the Israeli's to strike but are expecting the Americans. That could make a slight difference.
More importantly, how does this all end? Do the folks at the State Department and Foreign Office even know or are they slightly clueless? Are they still under the illusion that the ''moderates'' will defeat both the ''evil'' dictator and the ''extremists'' and that extremist supporters will the see the error of their ways?
Despite all the tough talks and al the cliches; why isn't any leader talking about getting to the root cause of the problem: why would so many young men be attracted to ISIS and groups like it? Are there fundamental, longstanding grievances that need to be addressed? One things's for sure, despite all the rhetoric and tough talk; military action is a short term solution and is no subsititute for what is also a economic/social issue.
Excerpts from one of the articles below.
There is a bizarre section in Mr Obama’s speech in which he says “we must strengthen the [Syrian] opposition as the best counterweight to extremists like Isil [Isis]”. The only way that this could be done would be to raise a mercenary army and pretend it is the Free Syrian Army reborn or, something that Saudi Arabia and Qatar have done in the past, pretend that jihadi groups whose ideology is the same as that of Isis nevertheless belong to the moderate camp.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-out-on-the-path-to-war-in-syria-9717384.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...audi-role-in-911-has-helped-isis-9731563.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...g-as-there-is-civil-war-in-syria-9727847.html
Last edited:
surpreme
Member
That where a good RADAR system comes into effect. It won't matter if they knew they was coming cause if your air defense network is old what good is it for you in today air warfare. If they had the S-300 that would be a different story. The IDF knew the soft point of the Syrian AD or in other word they don't have AD system or grind for whole Syrian airspace it non existence in Syria. I don't have to tell you it required a lot of know how to operate a AD system that cover the whole Syrians airspace. The Syrian AD was in the stage of being upgraded until the civil war happen. Now you have Syrian Air Force personnel who have defected with valuable knowledge. The Syrian AD is at a lowest point due to upgrading and personnel issues.
Last edited:
HurricaneDitka
New Member
Why would this be an economic problem? There are jihadists that have come from well-off backgrounds in Western countries.
On the contrary it does matter if the radar operators had warning of an impending strike; irrespective of whether the radar network was old or not. They would have more time to press the alert button. The fact remains that the Syrians were not expecting an Israeli strike but are now expecting a Western strike and that an alerted AD network has a better chance of doing its job when compared to a AD network taken completely by surprise. I can point out quite a few examples of ''old'' AD networks/systems hitting what they aimed at.
Why would it be ''a different story''? Are you suggesting that if Syria had S-300s that the West would have a harder time penetrating Syrian airspace or that the S-300 would provide Syria with more warning?
And there are also an awful lot of ''jihadists'' who don't come from Western countries and who don't have a middle class or well off backgrounds. If these folks had stable jobs or lived in a stable enviroment would they be inclined to join ISIS? Some no doubt would but many wouldn't. The propaganda spun by ISIS and other groups is designed to attract volunteers who have nothing to lose and who have existing grievances.
The point I'm trying to make is that ISIS can be rolled back by military means but not totally defeated. It does not matter how many tonnes of ordance are drooped or how many ISIS fighters are killed. Unless cetain key issues are resolved, there will continue to be willing volunteers.
Last edited:
surpreme
Member
What I'm trying say with the technology the U.S. Air Force have you have to update your network. When U.S. strike they going after the network if it old the easy it will be to hit. Now the AD personnel has to be well trained that the problem the Syrian have now. The Civil War has drained there personnel also AWOL and defection has a lot do with it to. Now would be a great time for the U.S. to strike they are at there lowest point.
The S-300 is a up to date AD that will make it hard to hit targets also can hit multiple long range target at that. The U.S. will break the system but a lot U.S. jets will be shot down in the process. If they had the S400 that's even better. They also has better radar system and required well trained crews to maintain.
The S-300 is a up to date AD that will make it hard to hit targets also can hit multiple long range target at that. The U.S. will break the system but a lot U.S. jets will be shot down in the process. If they had the S400 that's even better. They also has better radar system and required well trained crews to maintain.
Last edited:
Yes, and might a lot of these jihadists, like Osama Bin Laden come from wellfare states who are major world class suppliers of oil and gas. If you mean to claim that ISIS is due mostly to economic rather than other problems, then please be bothered to provide actual data to back up that statement. Specifically, what countries and in what proportions do the ISIS jihadists come from?
I can think of a number of possible causes that feed ISIS. To say that economic conditions (poverty) is the primary cause of ISIS, without backing that up with some sort of evidence, is pure fantasy.
Economic factors and the problems that come with it are one of the reasons as to why people would join ISIS and groups lke it. I did not say or mean to imply that it was the ''primary '' cause. What I should also have said in my earlier post - to avoid people jumping to conclusions or misconstruing what I meant - is that there are ''political, economic and other'' factors that have to be addressed, in parallel with military and other efforts, if ISIS is to be totally defeated.
Last edited: