War Against ISIS

[STURM]

The key facts remain:

[1] There has to be a realistic and long term plan if air strikes do not roll back ISIS. IMO all the statements made would suggest that there is no such plan and that the hope - despite evidence to the contrary - is that air strikes alone are sufficient. Unfortunately, ISIS [despite setbacks in Kolbane] continues not only to gain ground in other areas but also to draw recruits and support; not only from within the region but also elsewhere

[2] In addition to military efforts, political efforts are also needed to deny ISIS recruits and funding and to ensure the Sunnis in Iraq don't continue to feel marginalised. Is there a long term and realistic plan to do so?

[3] Pressure has to be made on the Sunni Gulf countries to contribute troops in Iraq to work alongside the Iraqi government [irrespective of the fact that it's a Shia dominated government]. Until this is done, the fight against ISIS will be seen as a mostly Western fight and the Arab countries will just sit back and watch. We heard about Arab countries joining or supporting the air strikes but where are their planes now? If there's another humanitarian crisis, will UAE C-17s join in the effort or will it be left solely to the U.S, Britain and Australia? At least Iran has Pasdaran on the ground in Iraq trying to contain ISIS.

[4] Given that the situation in Iraq is linked to Syria; how will the West pursue it's anti-ISIS campaign, given that other countries [friends, partners and allies] have different agendas and concerns. Realpolitik would dictate that some kind of back channel dealing be conducted with Assad to deal with ISIS. What Assad has been saying all the while about how support for his enemies will lead to the growth of extremism has come true ...

[5] If the so-called ''moderates'' in Syria - despite outside training and support - fail to make a difference, what then? Who will the West work with in Syria to defeat ISIS and other groups like it? And what happens if the ''moderates'' later turn out to be not so '' moderate''?

 

[ngatimozart]

The key facts remain:

[1] There has to be a realistic and long term plan if air strikes do not roll back ISIS. IMO all the statements made would suggest that there is no such plan and that the hope - despite evidence to the contrary - is that air strikes alone are sufficient. Unfortunately, ISIS [despite setbacks in Kolbane] continues not only to gain ground in other areas but also to draw recruits and support; not only from within the region but also elsewhere

[2] In addition to military efforts, political efforts are also needed to deny ISIS recruits and funding and to ensure the Sunnis in Iraq don't continue to feel marginalised. Is there a long term and realistic plan to do so?

[3] Pressure has to be made on the Sunni Gulf countries to contribute troops in Iraq to work alongside the Iraqi government [irrespective of the fact that it's a Shia dominated government]. Until this is done, the fight against ISIS will be seen as a mostly Western fight and the Arab countries will just sit back and watch. We heard about Arab countries joining or supporting the air strikes but where are their planes now? If there's another humanitarian crisis, will UAE C-17s join in the effort or will it be left solely to the U.S, Britain and Australia? At least Iran has Pasdaran on the ground in Iraq trying to contain ISIS.

[4] Given that the situation in Iraq is linked to Syria; how will the West pursue it's anti-ISIS campaign, given that other countries [friends, partners and allies] have different agendas and concerns. Realpolitik would dictate that some kind of back channel dealing be conducted with Assad to deal with ISIS. What Assad has been saying all the while about how support for his enemies will lead to the growth of extremism has come true ...

[5] If the so-called ''moderates'' in Syria - despite outside training and support - fail to make a difference, what then? Who will the West work with in Syria to defeat ISIS and other groups like it? And what happens if the ''moderates'' later turn out to be not so '' moderate''?

There are unconfirmed reports that ISIS has started to train fighters to fly some of the MiGs it captured in Syria using ex Iraqi AF pilots as instructors.

 

[RobWilliams]

The key facts remain:

[1] There has to be a realistic and long term plan if air strikes do not roll back ISIS. IMO all the statements made would suggest that there is no such plan and that the hope - despite evidence to the contrary - is that air strikes alone are sufficient.

Absolutely not.

The hope is that air strikes will be sufficient enough to dent IS in such a way as to allow the Kurds and IA some kind of parity. Air strikes alone is not the goal - at least in Iraq - the goal is to support the Iraqis in getting the job done themselves.

 

[STURM]

There are unconfirmed reports that ISIS has started to train fighters to fly some of the MiGs it captured in Syria using ex Iraqi AF pilots as instructors.

Yes, I read the reports. To me at least I'm not sure why ISIS would even go through all the trouble and effort given that any aircraft it manages to put in the air won't last more than 5 minutes against the USN, and RAF and Iraqi aircraft. Unless off course, the ISIS aircraft are intended for other purposes.

Air strikes alone is not the goal - at least in Iraq - the goal is to support the Iraqis in getting the job done themselves.

But if the air strikes do not achieve what was intended, what next? I have no doubt that air strikes will to some extent help roll back ISIS [like what apparently happened at Kolbane] but will it enable the Iraqi army, Shia militias and Kurds to actually regain lost ground? And what political and other steps will be taken - in parallel with air strikes - to ensure that ISIS in the long term is severely weakened to the extent that it can no longer attract volunteers and has funding difficulties that in turn affects it ability to sustain operations?

 

[John Fedup]

There are unconfirmed reports that ISIS has started to train fighters to fly some of the MiGs it captured in Syria using ex Iraqi AF pilots as instructors.

Ex-Iraqi pilot instructors? What is the training, how to fly to Iran? Seriously, what are the chances they have the necessary maintainence crew and parts to get these Migs into the air? Any non coalition jet flying over Iraq would be attacked immediately, not sure about over Syria.

 

[RobWilliams]

But if the air strikes do not achieve what was intended, what next? I have no doubt that air strikes will to some extent help roll back ISIS [like what apparently happened at Kolbane] but will it enable the Iraqi army, Shia militias and Kurds to actually regain lost ground? And what political and other steps will be taken - in parallel with air strikes - to ensure that ISIS in the long term is severely weakened to the extent that it can no longer attract volunteers and has funding difficulties that in turn affects it ability to sustain operations?

My only comment was that your statement that the objective was air strikes alone to target IS is factually incorrect, not the repercussions or what-ifs, just that the idea that we think we're just bombing them and that's the extend of our intentions is false.

IMO as manned air strikes push IS 'underground' then the requirement for manned aircraft will drop in favour of MALE/HALE drones.

The effort to support the Iraqis will last for while yet, but the manner will change.

Politically the current Iraqi Government is meant to be more inclusive (or at least less detrimental) than the previous government.

 

[barney41]

Ex-Iraqi pilot instructors? What is the training, how to fly to Iran? Seriously, what are the chances they have the necessary maintainence crew and parts to get these Migs into the air? Any non coalition jet flying over Iraq would be attacked immediately, not sure about over Syria.

All they need to know is how to take off, navigate to a target then crash into it... lots of the high profile targets to choose from..civilian and military.. perhaps a USN ship? US embassy in the region?

 

[John Fedup]

All they need to know is how to take off, navigate to a target then crash into it... lots of the high profile targets to choose from..civilian and military.. perhaps a USN ship? US embassy in the region?

Big difference in the skill set between wearing a suicide vest and piloting a military jet, even if the mission is to crash into something. Again, how does this potential ISIL pilot even get into the air for his training before his jet is detected and shot down?

 

[barney41]

The Syrian Observatory on Hman Rights cited eyewitnesses who claimed seeing captured aircraft flying at low level over a captured airfield at Al jarrah. Big question is veracity of the report. Best to simply drop some JDAMS on them and nip any potential threat in the bud.

 

[John Fedup]

The Syrian Observatory on Hman Rights cited eyewitnesses who claimed seeing captured aircraft flying at low level over a captured airfield at Al jarrah. Big question is veracity of the report. Best to simply drop some JDAMS on them and nip any potential threat in the bud.

Exactly right on!

 

[RobWilliams]

UK Deploys Reaper To The Middle East

UK is to deploy 'some' Reaper UAVs to overfly Iraq, it doesn't say it in this article but I read elsewhere that there's a plan to joint base them where the US bases their drones for this operation.

 

[STURM]

My only comment was that your statement that the objective was air strikes alone to target IS is factually incorrect, not the repercussions or what-ifs, just that the idea that we think we're just bombing them and that's the extend of our intentions is false.

Indeed, I was wrong to say that air strikes alone are intended to defeat ISIS.

The plan is for air strikes to roll back and weaken ISIS to some extent, whilst giving the Iraqi army and Kurds some breathing space and the chance to build their strenght before eventually going on the offensive to retake lost ground and to ultimately defeat ISIS. At the same time, in conjunction with the air strikes and other measures taken, it is hoped that the Iraqi leadership will take concrete steps to narrow the political and social gap that currently divides the Shia and Sunni populace in the country; and that other countries will also take steps to help further isolate and weaken ISIS by denying it funding and recruits.

 

[barney41]

The news emanating from Kabane in recent days has been encouraging. The courage of the Kurds is incredible and ISIS face major defeat and loss of credibility. Sunnis who are allies of convenience or sitting on the fence are looking at Kobane and probably reevaluating their positions.

Kobane appears to be significantly in ruins, a heavy price that had to be paid. But it does seem to show a model for defeating ISIS, ie. local boots on the ground supported by air power.

Ironically, this isn't the force that Obama foresaw, one that was organized and trained and equipped by the coalition. The Pentagon kept predicting that Kobane would fall, despite air strikes since the Kurds would not be able to coordinate air strikes. Also, they were heavily outgunned and were running short on ammo and supplies.Things looke dire indeed.

So the current positive outlook is a welcome development. The US is said to have finally made direct contact with the Syrian Kurds. Perhaps it's a fortuitous coincidence but the Kurds are somehow now able to provide strike aircraft with precise targeting information. Ammo and supplies would seem to be adequate. But the credit must really go to the brave Kurds who are demonstrating incredible bravery and resilience.

 

[John Fedup]

The news emanating from Kabane in recent days has been encouraging. The courage of the Kurds is incredible and ISIS face major defeat and loss of credibility. Sunnis who are allies of convenience or sitting on the fence are looking at Kobane and probably reevaluating their positions.

Kobane appears to be significantly in ruins, a heavy price that had to be paid. But it does seem to show a model for defeating ISIS, ie. local boots on the ground supported by air power.

Ironically, this isn't the force that Obama foresaw, one that was organized and trained and equipped by the coalition. The Pentagon kept predicting that Kobane would fall, despite air strikes since the Kurds would not be able to coordinate air strikes. Also, they were heavily outgunned and were running short on ammo and supplies.Things looke dire indeed.

So the current positive outlook is a welcome development. The US is said to have finally made direct contact with the Syrian Kurds. Perhaps it's a fortuitous coincidence but the Kurds are somehow now able to provide strike aircraft with precise targeting information. Ammo and supplies would seem to be adequate. But the credit must really go to the brave Kurds who are demonstrating incredible bravery and resilience.

The utter failure of the Iraqi army and the Kurds actions at Kobane and elsewhere will mean a separate Kurdish state carved out of from portions of Iraq and Syria. The Kurds deserve this for their efforts against ISIL. Screw Turkey as they are not our ally.

 

[barney41]

AFAIK Obama's strategy calls for a legitimate Syrian opposition to be organized, trained and equipped. This would seem to be the Free Syrian Army plus whoever else they can scrounge up,and would take at least a year according to the talking heads on TV. Until this part of the strategy materializes, the coalition would concentrate on attriting ISIS C2, financial infrastructure, etc. Air Power in a CAS role was not deemed viable until such a force was available.

Perhaps Kobane shows there is an alternative, a quicker approach to confronting ISIS.

 

[Waylander]

There is a huge problem with using the Kurds (be it Iraqis or Syrians) as the premier ground force against ISIS.

Besides grapping some important infrastructure like oil installations near by, why should the Kurds be motivated to blood heavily in an attempt to destroy ISIS? I can believe them fighting ISIS on their home turf but not much further.

 

[barney41]

There is a huge problem with using the Kurds (be it Iraqis or Syrians) as the premier ground force against ISIS.

Besides grapping some important infrastructure like oil installations near by, why should the Kurds be motivated to blood heavily in an attempt to destroy ISIS? I can believe them fighting ISIS on their home turf but not much further.

Good point. The Syria situation is much more nebulous than Iraq. I would still see value in exploring the Kurdish card and playing it to the extent that they are willing to commit their forces. At the very least it will bleed ISIS and have propaganda value to counter it‘s recruitment drive and embolden those who would oppose it. ISIS is waging sophisticated psychological warfare, projecting the image of an irresistible, all-conquering force. Kobane belies that.


I think Washington will see the value in actually confronting ISIS more directly and forcefully in Syria until the other pieces of the strategy can take effect.

 

[STURM]

Screw Turkey as they are not our ally.

Yes and no. From a Turkish perspective, why should it be expected to get directly involved, given that it's allies have maintained there will be no ''boots on the ground''? The Turks have said they will only get directly involved if it's in concert with other countries; they are being prudent and are watching out for their national interests. What's good for the West and others, may not necessarily be good for Turkey.

[nomedia]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nl_GJg7XsgE[/nomedia]

But the credit must really go to the brave Kurds who are demonstrating incredible bravery and resilience.

Indeed and the Kurds have been confronting ISIS for a while now; long before the air strikes. The Kurds will also be very wary, in that they have been played out before by various players and as Waylander suggests, might not be soo keen to venture out of theie territory.

I think Washington will see the value in actually confronting ISIS more directly and forcefully in Syria until the other pieces of the strategy can take effect.

It would really help if the ''moderates'' are able to counter ISIS. Unfortunately, at present, the ''moderates'' are weak and have been sidelined by ISIS. Over the next few months, it will be seen if support to the ''moderates'' will produce any results. The hope is that they will emerge as a powerful counter to ISIS.

Then there is the question of what policy to undertake with regards to Assad. Countries like Turkey and Saudi Arabia insist that steps be taken to do away with Assad as he poses a greater danger. Others maintained that the collapse of Assad will benefit ISIS and will lead to even more instability. It goes without saying that realpolitik dictates that some deal be made with Assad as both the West and Assad share a common enemy - just last year we awere told that the U.S. was close to striking Assad; and now the U.S. is striking Assad's enemies. It won't be the first time that countries - when it suits their national interests - have made a deal with dictators they had previously tried to overthrow ...

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kceZTBDX06E"]ISIL losing ground in Iraq - YouTube[/nomedia]


[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v51TaEbcWZk"]Heading to the front lines against ISIL - YouTube[/nomedia]


[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofz243MyimU"]The Middle East's new era of militarisation - YouTube[/nomedia]

 

[ngatimozart]

Ex-Iraqi pilot instructors? What is the training, how to fly to Iran? Seriously, what are the chances they have the necessary maintainence crew and parts to get these Migs into the air? Any non coalition jet flying over Iraq would be attacked immediately, not sure about over Syria.

I wouldn't knock them. I was watching a doco on the 1st Gulf War air war and a USAF F15 pilot said that the Iraqi pilots were good and willing to fight if given the choice. Do not forget they had been fighting the Iranians. It was a political decision to send their aircraft to Iraq.

 

[STURM]

Do not forget they had been fighting the Iranians. It was a political decision to send their aircraft to Iraq.

For how well the Iraqi air force performed, I would recommend 'Arabs At War' [Pollock]. Bear in mind the Iraqis had no problems getting new gear and benefited from the support provided by numerous countries. At one stage USN ships in the Gulf even provided Iraq with early warning on Iranian air raids. This was in contrast with the Iranians who as the war dragged on had serious difficulties getting new gear and who were largely isolated.