Like
:soldier :sniper
War Against ISIS
- Thread starter spikehades
- Start date
:soldier :sniperIIRC DoD has downgraded JAGM so it won‘t be supported on fast jets. SDB-2 should do pretty much the same thing as Brimstone.
A total of 1,700 ''bombs'' dropped so far in Iraq and Syria. Arab sates conducted 79 of 632 ''raids''.
More than 1,700 bombs dropped in war on ISIL - Middle East - Al Jazeera English
More than 1,700 bombs dropped in war on ISIL - Middle East - Al Jazeera English
The crew's an instant goner. You can thank Soviet design philosophy of storing ammo in a ring around the turret basket for the dramatic, flying turret.
If true, the Arab participation in the air campaign is turning out to be something of a fig leaf, to fend off labeling this as America's War. Any single Arab air force could have racked up 79 raids if they really wanted to. Even the PR campaign touting Arab participation has slackened.
Republicans are increasingly vocal espousing ‘boots on the ground. I think Obama will resist the idea and ride out his term leaving the problem to his successor.
Poll: Americans want boots on the ground against ISIS | MSNBC
Well in my previous posts; I did mention that the Arabs have to do more if they indeed are serious about combating ISIS and being part of Obama's ''coalition of the willing''.
To really show that they are serious, the Arabs should deploy a ground force in Iraq to fight alongside the Iraqis [never mind that the Iraqi government is Shia one] and Kurds - after all the Arab Gulf states have spent billions on defence [against the Iranians off course] and now is the time to put their militaries to good use [never mind that ISIS is also Sunni and that their ideology is based on Saudi Wahhabism]. Problem here is that different countries have diffferent long term concerns and different objectives which are at odds with what the West wants or what is actually good for the Iraqi and Syrian population. The whole situation in Iraq is tied to Syria and the Arab Gulf states want Assad gone not because he's not a liberal democrat but because doing away with him severely weakens Iran.
From a Gulf Arab perspective; why do more than the minimum and take the risk when they can sit back and let the West do it? The Malaysian Defence Minister last week said : ''the silence from Arab states is quite deafening when it comes to the IS issue''.
http://www.rappler.com/world/regions/asia-pacific/72278-malaysia-southeast-asian-cooperation-isis
http://www.rappler.com/nation/65199-abu-sayyaf-leader-oath-isis
Last edited:
the concerned
Active Member
I hope I don't upset too many people but the most capable ground force in the area right now would be Hezbollah. But that would inherit many risks especially Israel. I'm sure Iraq and other partners could try and get Iran to pressure Hezbollah to tackle Isis.
The last thing the West and the Sunni Arab Gulf states would want is Hezbollah and its main backer, Iran, getting too involved in Iraq. At it is, Pasdaran elements are already there [long before others decided to get involved] and the U.S. and the Arab Gulf states watched with dismay as to how - thanks to the U.S. 2003 invasion - Iran managed to cement ties with its Shia brethren in Iraq; to the extent that Iran/Iraq ties are at an all time high. Saddam is probably rolling in his grave, the whole idea behind his disastrous invasion of Iran - backed by many countries - was to roll back and weaken the Iranians.
Also, Hezbollah's main focus is southern Lebanon and it's already involved in Syria. It simply can't afford to get tied down in Iraq as it doesn't have the resources. I also wouldn't go so far as labelling Hezbollah ''the most capable ground force in the area right now''.
Also, Hezbollah's main focus is southern Lebanon and it's already involved in Syria. It simply can't afford to get tied down in Iraq as it doesn't have the resources. I also wouldn't go so far as labelling Hezbollah ''the most capable ground force in the area right now''.
the concerned
Active Member
Sorry about that I should have been more clear. What I mean't was against Isis in Syria as they are already helping out assad.
The same arguments I put forth about Hezbollah in Iraq apply in Syria. Remember how certain countries protested when there were reports about Hezbollah in Syria and how it was propping up Assad? We were told about how Iran was''meddling'' in Syria [there was no word about ''meddling'' by other countries off course and about the strategic relationship between Iran and Syria which dates back to the 1980's when Syria was the only friend Iran had in the Arab world].
Hezbollah's involvement in Syria was at a time when we kept hearing about how the ''moderates '' would - with support - hopefully overthrow Assad. The West and the Sunni Arab states do not want to see a greater Hezbollah/Iranian connection there as it might benefit Assad and in turn strengthen Iran. Hezbollah also can't afford to divert greater resources to Syria as this would affect its force levels in southern Lebanon.
I don't think comparing the 79 strikes by Arab nations versus the strikes from others is really meaningful. We've got to cater for the fact that the USAF has extremely capable force regeneration capabilities, so that could skew the data, making everyone else's contribution look small. A more meaningful statistic would be sorties done by the aircraft of various nations.
Also, I think we can stop expecting to see a significant ground troop contribution beyond the present security personnel and SF troopers. I don't think the ground forces of the Arab nations are in a position to conduct expeditionary missions in a country whose army they are expected to fight alongside despite not having done any joint exercises beforehand. There are a lot of deployment issues i.e. logistical, organisational, and there's no rush to put troops on the ground (from the Arab nations' perspective, ISIS isn't at any of their doorsteps, or will not be a serious threat to them), so we can put that idea to rest.
Personally, I think it's a good call on US CentCom to stop publishing more of such data to the public. This isn't an Airstrike Olympics. And in general, lets just remember that much more goes on behind the scenes that is often not reported i.e. ISR efforts. For all you know, the intelligence agencies of the Arab states are pulling all-nighters, but how on earth is this info supposed to go into the public domain anyway?
But yeah, will agree that it can't be as simple as just stopping ISIS. Still, with ISIS being rolled back, it makes the deployment of ground troops much less likely. (I know Republicans whose sole purpose of living is just to oppose whatever Obama does.)
hmm
i am thinking what if the western military aka NATO excep turkey sent their ground forces into iraq to fight ISIS..
what kind of force would the NATO use to defeat ISIS ? the massive conventional military campaign like in desert storm ? or the method used to topple taliban (spec ops mixed with local allies and airpower) ?
whats holding up the approval of ground troops ? opposition by local goverments ? opposition from UNSC ? should Western military seek approval / mandate from UNSC before sending troops ?
and assuming the ground troops is approved, what stopping ISIS use chemical weapons and how do you retaliate against such organization(assuming the rumors is true that ISIS looted old iraqi chemical arsenal)
i am thinking what if the western military aka NATO excep turkey sent their ground forces into iraq to fight ISIS..
what kind of force would the NATO use to defeat ISIS ? the massive conventional military campaign like in desert storm ? or the method used to topple taliban (spec ops mixed with local allies and airpower) ?
whats holding up the approval of ground troops ? opposition by local goverments ? opposition from UNSC ? should Western military seek approval / mandate from UNSC before sending troops ?
and assuming the ground troops is approved, what stopping ISIS use chemical weapons and how do you retaliate against such organization(assuming the rumors is true that ISIS looted old iraqi chemical arsenal)
wild_Willie2
Member
Well, defeating Isis in the countryside could be done relatively easily by a few well trained, equipped and supplied Mech infantry brigades with sufficient airpower, I really expect Isis to melt away in the face of serious opposition.
The problems however would be how to defeat Isis in urban areas where it has obvious support from the Sunni population and where they cans snipe and bomb away under urban and civilian cover (under such circumstances, raw firepower is almost useless and you will need raw manpower ). To clear these areas, you will need a lot more manpower then a few Mech infantry bridges can provide.
And even after clearing the mayor urban areas of Isis, keeping them secure would be a nightmare requiring a multitude of police, army and intelligence assets which will have to be provided by the Iraqi government. But as we have seen, the Iraqi government currently simply isn’t capable of providing these forces and as virtually the entire western world is fed up with pouring lives and money into this bottomless pit of incompetence, they will thus no longer provide these ground forces to combat Isis without the Iraqi government finally stepping up to the plate and gets its act together.
If the Iraqi government ever gets its act together, defeating Isis on the battlefield will be relatively easy, but even then they would still have an enormous Sunni rebellion on their hands that can only be quelled by vigorous police work and by giving the Sunni majority a meaningful representation in the government.
This is a problem you can't solve by firepower alone.
The problems however would be how to defeat Isis in urban areas where it has obvious support from the Sunni population and where they cans snipe and bomb away under urban and civilian cover (under such circumstances, raw firepower is almost useless and you will need raw manpower ). To clear these areas, you will need a lot more manpower then a few Mech infantry bridges can provide.
And even after clearing the mayor urban areas of Isis, keeping them secure would be a nightmare requiring a multitude of police, army and intelligence assets which will have to be provided by the Iraqi government. But as we have seen, the Iraqi government currently simply isn’t capable of providing these forces and as virtually the entire western world is fed up with pouring lives and money into this bottomless pit of incompetence, they will thus no longer provide these ground forces to combat Isis without the Iraqi government finally stepping up to the plate and gets its act together.
If the Iraqi government ever gets its act together, defeating Isis on the battlefield will be relatively easy, but even then they would still have an enormous Sunni rebellion on their hands that can only be quelled by vigorous police work and by giving the Sunni majority a meaningful representation in the government.
This is a problem you can't solve by firepower alone.
Positive outlook in Kobane while in Iraq the Army still in rebuilding mode. Some optimism that it may actually be able to take the fight to ISIS within a year's time.
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/New...allies-step-up-air-campaign-against-ISIS.html
U.S. officials: Kobane no longer on the brink
Thursday, 23 October 2014
The Northern Syrian city of Kobane is no longer on the brink of falling to the control of Islamist State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and the Kurdish fighters there likely will be able to hold out indefinitely, U.S. officials said on Thursday.
The front lines between ISIS and Kurdish forces have not moved for more than a week and “I think the Kurdish defenders ...are going to be able to hold,” a defense official at U.S. Central Command was quoted by AFP on condition of anonymity...
A U.S. military official told AFP on Thursday that the Iraqi army is still months away from staging a major offensive to retake territory lost to ISIS.
“It's well within their capability to do that, on the order of months, not years,” said a military official, speaking on condition of anonymity. But he added: “It’s not imminent.”
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/New...allies-step-up-air-campaign-against-ISIS.html
U.S. officials: Kobane no longer on the brink
Thursday, 23 October 2014
The Northern Syrian city of Kobane is no longer on the brink of falling to the control of Islamist State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and the Kurdish fighters there likely will be able to hold out indefinitely, U.S. officials said on Thursday.
The front lines between ISIS and Kurdish forces have not moved for more than a week and “I think the Kurdish defenders ...are going to be able to hold,” a defense official at U.S. Central Command was quoted by AFP on condition of anonymity...
A U.S. military official told AFP on Thursday that the Iraqi army is still months away from staging a major offensive to retake territory lost to ISIS.
“It's well within their capability to do that, on the order of months, not years,” said a military official, speaking on condition of anonymity. But he added: “It’s not imminent.”
You raised a good point but if the Arabs are serious about ISIS, they will do more. I'll be impressed if UAE C-17s start dropping supplies to the Kurds and if Saudi training teams assist Iraqi units in the field.
Air arms like the UAE have spent billions on training and gear and have benefited from bilateral training opportunities with Western air arms. If the political leadership of the UAE desired, they could do more. Nobody is expecting the UAE or other Sunni Arab countries to operate by themselves. Any operations will be conducted in parallel and be supported by the U.S. and will demonstate that the U.S. has real ''partners'' who are serious in their intent of defeating ISIS and helping Iraq. Qatari Mirages operated over Libya. Where are they now?
The reason a Sunni Arab ground force has not been deployed to northern Iraq is political; not because they are unable to do so or because of logistical or other challenges. For one thing, deploying to northern Iraq to help a Shia Iraqi government against a Sunni ISIS may not go down well with segments of the Sunni Gulf Arab population which might have some level of sympathy for ISIS. Secondly, deploying troops to Iraq will mean the Sunni Arabs are actively fighting a enemy which is also considered an enemy of Iran. Don't underestimate the Iranian factor and the fact that there is Sunni/Shia cold war being waged.
Granted, they played a supporting role and the U.S. military ensured they dind't get into any trouble but certain Arab countries had no problems deploying troops [up to division level] to Saudi Arabia in 1991, against Saddam whom they had previously supported - the difference was that it was more rewarding for them to do so and there was much less risks, when compared to deploying troops to fight IS.
We are not talking about a Corps size formation here. If Iran could deploy small sized Pasdaran formations, surely the Gulf Arab countries can do the same. After all, the Arab militaries are better equipped and funded. Surely, their militaries are not only intended to be used against ''heretic'' Iran? Problem here again, it's poltical, not because it's beyond their ability. And why take so much trouble and effort, when they can rely on the west - again - to sort this mess out?
Until Arab countries take a more overtly active role [such as deploying troops to demonstrate solidarity with Iraq] the campaign will continue to look as mainly Western one; irrespective of any covert or behind the scenes assistance provided by the Arabs.
Off course a lot is going on behind the scenes. Countries will cooperate behind the scenes when it suits their national interests and at times will want to be seen cooperating but in reality will not be cooperating fully. The fact remains: different countries have different concerns and objectives [we saw this in Afghanistan during the 1980's and in Pakistan and in Afghanistan after September 11th, where supposed '' friends'' and ''allies'' said one thing but did something completely different when in was in their interests to do so]; and some of these objectives may not only be at odds to what the West wants but might be counter productive to the Iraqi and Syrian population.
Look at the bigger picture. As I've mentioned before, the situation in Iraq is tied to Syria. Despite the threat posed by ISIS and public statements; the aim of certain countries is to first do away with the Baathist government in Damascus as a means of weakening and isolating Iran. As such, policy over Iraq/ISIS is coloured or is driven by policy over Syria .....
When much of Anbar province, as well as other areas controlled by ISIS are regained; and when ISIS has difficulty getting recruits and support worldwide, then I'll agree it has been ''rolled back''.
Last edited:
The biggest impediment is the fact that none of the Western governments really want to put ground troops in. All the capability in the world doesn't matter if the will isn't there.
Iraq has also flatly rejected any ideas of deploying foreign troops into Iraq on any sort of scale.
We need Iraq to be liberated by Iraqis. If our purpose is best served in the air then so be it, probably a better position to be in.
We need Iraq to be liberated by Iraqis. If our purpose is best served in the air then so be it, probably a better position to be in.
The impression I got from news reports is rejoicing from Syrian Kurds that Peshmerga fighters would bolster their ranks. Erdogan's statements reveal the depth of his enmity for the PHD and why he is loathe to help the SyIran Kurds.
What surprises me is the large force that the FSA seems willing to commit to Kobane.There were reports out of Kobane ofincreased cooperation between the Kurds and FSA but with the FSA besieged in Aleppo from both ISIS and Assad, this is a significant commitment.
Defense News Mobile - Erdogan Says Syrian Kurds 'Don't Want' Peshmerga in Kobane
Erdogan Says Syrian Kurds 'Don't Want' Peshmerga in Kobane
AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
Posted: Sunday Oct 26, 2014
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan accused the main Kurdish party in Syria of not wanting Kurdish peshmerga fighters from Iraq to help it fight Islamic State jihadists trying to overrun the town of Kobane, reports said Sunday.
Erdogan said that the Syrian Kurdish party the Democratic Union Party (PYD), which has been leading the defense of Kobane, fears losing its influence in northern Syria when the peshmerga arrive in the coming days.
His comments underlined the extent of Turkey's animosity towards the PYD, which Erdogan described as a terror group linked to Kurdish militants in Turkey.
"The PYD does not want the peshmerga to come," Erdogan said in comments published by newspapers including the Milliyet and Hurriyet dailies.
"They don't want the peshmerga to come to Kobane and dominate it," he told reporters returning on his presidential plane after a visit to Estonia.
"The PYD thinks its game will be spoilt if the peshmerga come. Their scheme will be ruined," he said.
He said that the peshmerga had been willing to send some 500 fighters as a first deployment but this had been reduced to 155 at the insistence of the PYD, who were even reluctant to accept this number...
Erdogan said last week that the peshmerga would be joined in the defense of Kobane by 1,300 fighters from the anti-Assad Free Syrian Army (FSA).
He hailed the expected arrival of the FSA as a "beneficial step" which would spoil the PYD's "scheme and trap" in Kobane.
What surprises me is the large force that the FSA seems willing to commit to Kobane.There were reports out of Kobane ofincreased cooperation between the Kurds and FSA but with the FSA besieged in Aleppo from both ISIS and Assad, this is a significant commitment.
Defense News Mobile - Erdogan Says Syrian Kurds 'Don't Want' Peshmerga in Kobane
Erdogan Says Syrian Kurds 'Don't Want' Peshmerga in Kobane
AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
Posted: Sunday Oct 26, 2014
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan accused the main Kurdish party in Syria of not wanting Kurdish peshmerga fighters from Iraq to help it fight Islamic State jihadists trying to overrun the town of Kobane, reports said Sunday.
Erdogan said that the Syrian Kurdish party the Democratic Union Party (PYD), which has been leading the defense of Kobane, fears losing its influence in northern Syria when the peshmerga arrive in the coming days.
His comments underlined the extent of Turkey's animosity towards the PYD, which Erdogan described as a terror group linked to Kurdish militants in Turkey.
"The PYD does not want the peshmerga to come," Erdogan said in comments published by newspapers including the Milliyet and Hurriyet dailies.
"They don't want the peshmerga to come to Kobane and dominate it," he told reporters returning on his presidential plane after a visit to Estonia.
"The PYD thinks its game will be spoilt if the peshmerga come. Their scheme will be ruined," he said.
He said that the peshmerga had been willing to send some 500 fighters as a first deployment but this had been reduced to 155 at the insistence of the PYD, who were even reluctant to accept this number...
Erdogan said last week that the peshmerga would be joined in the defense of Kobane by 1,300 fighters from the anti-Assad Free Syrian Army (FSA).
He hailed the expected arrival of the FSA as a "beneficial step" which would spoil the PYD's "scheme and trap" in Kobane.
TOS-1A in action, Iraq. Not sure if this is combat, or just training, but I have to how effective they will be. So far Iraq only got 4 of them, with transporter loaders.
Берлога Бронемедведа - Ирак, жарко. ÐаÑтоÑщий "Солнцепек"
Берло³Ð° Бронемедведа - ИракÑкий "Солнцепек"
Берлога Бронемедведа - Ирак, жарко. ÐаÑтоÑщий "Солнцепек"
Берло³Ð° Бронемедведа - ИракÑкий "Солнцепек"