War Against ISIS

[barney41]

Hmmm...


ISIS seems intent on avoiding a decisive defeat by throwing more resources into the battle for Kobane following reversals in other areas. Not exactly a Stalingrad but huge implications in the psychological war being waged. Also an interesting tidbit re infighting within ISIS between Syrian and foreign jihadists.



http://rudaw.net/english/middleeast/syria/261020141

ISIS sends Chechen commander to Kobane
QAMISHLI, Syria - The Islamic State leadership has ordered a prominent Chechen commander to Kobane, according to a Rudaw source inside ISIS-controlled territory.
The source, in the town of Tepke in the Islamic State’s heartland of Syria’s Raqqa province, said Abu Omar al-Shishani, a known Chechen fighter, has been ordered to leave Shingal area in Iraq, where ISIS forces are currently laying siege to thousands of Yezidi civilians protected by Yezidi brigades and Kurds from Iraq, Syria, and Turkey.

More..

 

[STURM]

ISIS seems intent on avoiding a decisive defeat by throwing more resources into the battle for Kobane following reversals in other areas.]

Even if ISIS fails to take Kobane, it still controls a large parts of Iraq, not to mention parts of Syria. Then again if failure to take Kobane leds to reverses elsewhere and heralds the start of the Iraqis and Kurds continuing to push back ISIS; then perhaps we can agree that Kobane was '' decisive'' in the sense that it was the start of ISIS going on the defensive due to changing circumstances.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-battle-of-kobani-is-nearly-over-9824356.html

Then there's always the issue of how to defeat an ideology, which to all extents and purposes, ISIS is. Unfortunately, ISIS is still able to attract volunteers and sympathy worldwide and this is a major problem that will take time and a lot of effort to address.

Robert Fisk on Isis: Propaganda war of Islamic extremists is being waged on Facebook and internet message boards, not mosques - Comment - Voices - The Independent

Again, everything is related to Syria. From the very start, Iraqi officials stated that the war in Syria would eventually affect Iraq, and this has happened. It will be interesting to see whether or how the current strategy in place to deal with ISIS will be revamped if Assad starts to rapidly lose ground.

Isis attack on Idlib: Assad's army leaders 'slaughtered' as jihadists nearly take Syrian provincial capital - Middle East - World - The Independent

 

[My2Cents]

Even if ISIS fails to take Kobane, it still controls a large parts of Iraq, not to mention parts of Syria. Then again if failure to take Kobane leds to reverses elsewhere and heralds the start of the Iraqis and Kurds continuing to push back ISIS; then perhaps we can agree that Kobane was '' decisive'' in the sense that it was the start of ISIS going on the defensive due to changing circumstances.

Kobane has become the center of a propaganda war. If ISIS can take Kobane the West will be seen as defeated and more groups will rally to their banner, while the Iraqi’s will lose faith in US airpower. If ISIS fails to take Kobane then it shows that US airpower can be decisive, Iraqi forces will believe they can win, but ISIS will not be defeated, only somewhat discredited.

 

[bdique]

Kobane has become the center of a propaganda war. If ISIS can take Kobane the West will be seen as defeated and more groups will rally to their banner, while the Iraqi’s will lose faith in US airpower. If ISIS fails to take Kobane then it shows that US airpower can be decisive, Iraqi forces will believe they can win, but ISIS will not be defeated, only somewhat discredited.

That's good enough in my book. The whole point about ISIS is that it's a grassroots-based movement, with people spontaneously joining because they see no other purpose in life. If you can discredit it, at least those still sitting on the fence will make a smart decision and decide against joining ISIS or any other similar movements.

You can't quite fight an ideology, but you can diminish the numbers of those embracing such an ideology, dissuade those considering joining such an ideology and destroy their resources until they are effectively not able to cause any harm to the community at large.

 

[CheeZe]

You're assuming that (1) these people have the education and access to information to make such a decision and (2) a meaningful alternative exists. Having worked with students in the US below the poverty line and other social hardships, they've admitted to doing things simply because its fun and they can't see anything better to do with their lives. Same thing with those who feel marginalised and are joining IS from around the world. If they know nothing better and don't see anything better that they can accomplish, these people will still join IS despite all the bombs, rockets and bullets we throw at them.

It's clearly a deeper problem and all of this military action is merely addressing symptoms of the problem rather than its roots. I've never heard of guns and bombs and jet fighters being a very good means of stopping an ideology.

If anything, history shows us that those things usually tend to strengthen the ideology and cause people to take sides. Indochina/Vietnam comes to mind. For all of the French and American airpower and firepower, who ended up winning that one?

Good enough isn't "good enough." We knock IS about... in ten years, our kids will just be dealing with a new terror group that's adapted to current US methods. Same reason why Israel is always being attacked by various terrorist groups - the Israelis refuse to address the root causes and go so far as to exacerbate them. You want to get those fence-sitters onto your side? Give them positive incentive rather than negative.

What that is, however, I'm not qualified or knowledgeable enough to say.

On that note, I really gotta ask... what would it take for Turkey to actually DO something?

 

[STURM]

On that note, I really gotta ask... what would it take for Turkey to actually DO something?

First we have to look at things from a Turkish perspective and undertand that Turkey has different concerns and long term national interests to watch out for. Then we have to ask whether it was reasonable for Turkey to be criticised for not doing more. How can we expect Turkey to makes moves that can be detrimental to its long term interests?

 

[swerve]

Turkey has bad memories of 1990-91. It helped, by closing its border & providing bases, & was made promises of reimbursement, just as the USA got, in the form of vast sums from the Gulf states. The war caused the Turkish economy to slump, costing it vast sums. But most of the money didn't materialise.

Turks felt they'd been swindled. They saw the Saudis, Kuwait, et al handing over unimaginable amounts of cash to the USA, & to a lesser extent the UK, France, etc, in straightforward cash transfers & in purchases of weapons (doled out according to an informal rationing system, so once the UK had got an order for Warriors from Kuwait the USA had to get the tank order), pretty much covering their war costs, but the Turks lost heavily. It's conditioned their foreign policy ever since.

In 2003, Turkey refused to allow US use of its territory because of that, & there's a continuing lack of trust.

 

[STURM]

Some pictures here of what could possibly be parts of a TOW. If it's not a TOW what it could possibly be? Interestingly it's marked '1989'. I would assume that the missile would have time expired years ago but has probably been sent to its manufacturer to be worked on?

Syrians troops also spoke of a ''thermal heat-seeking missile'' and aircraft from the direction of Turkey flying into Syria.

How did Islamists receive American weapons? See the evidence from guided missile that exploded near Syrian front line - Middle East - World - The Independent

 

[bdique]

You're assuming that (1) these people have the education and access to information to make such a decision and (2) a meaningful alternative exists. Having worked with students in the US below the poverty line and other social hardships, they've admitted to doing things simply because its fun and they can't see anything better to do with their lives. Same thing with those who feel marginalised and are joining IS from around the world. If they know nothing better and don't see anything better that they can accomplish, these people will still join IS despite all the bombs, rockets and bullets we throw at them.

Yes I made an assumption, but maybe students under the poverty line is not quite the demographic I had in mind. This is an ideology, and while it makes the economically underprivileged vulnerable to believing for their call to arms, the main factor here is that these are people who are committed to a cause. Nothing else, not even a stable family, political climate or job matters. They are not likely to back out of IS and regret joining. They may feel regret, but these people are somehow going to end up bearing arms and committing atrocities for IS anyway.

It's clearly a deeper problem and all of this military action is merely addressing symptoms of the problem rather than its roots. I've never heard of guns and bombs and jet fighters being a very good means of stopping an ideology.

Would better social support in each of the many, many countries whose citizens have joined IS prevented this from happening? Probably. These social support measures can be implemented today, but it will only reduce the number of future recruits. Something, however, has to be done to today's fighters making a mess of Syria and Iraq.

If anything, history shows us that those things usually tend to strengthen the ideology and cause people to take sides. Indochina/Vietnam comes to mind. For all of the French and American airpower and firepower, who ended up winning that one?

The British also did a very good job of eliminating militant Communism in Malaya by isolating them from population centres, starving them of materiel and popular support while constantly hunting them down in the jungles until they could no longer function as an organisation.

I'm not really clear, but from what I recall, the French did not have enough air assets to really turn the tide. In America's case, it was a political decision to withdraw. I won't be so quick to say that firepower won't achieve anything. The short term effect is destruction of IS warfighting capabilities. The longer term effect will be to get those thinking of joining the fight to think twice.

 

[Feanor]

Turkey has bad memories of 1990-91. It helped, by closing its border & providing bases, & was made promises of reimbursement, just as the USA got, in the form of vast sums from the Gulf states. The war caused the Turkish economy to slump, costing it vast sums. But most of the money didn't materialise.

Turks felt they'd been swindled. They saw the Saudis, Kuwait, et al handing over unimaginable amounts of cash to the USA, & to a lesser extent the UK, France, etc, in straightforward cash transfers & in purchases of weapons (doled out according to an informal rationing system, so once the UK had got an order for Warriors from Kuwait the USA had to get the tank order), pretty much covering their war costs, but the Turks lost heavily. It's conditioned their foreign policy ever since.

In 2003, Turkey refused to allow US use of its territory because of that, & there's a continuing lack of trust.

Interesting. It sounds like the Turks lack of trust is well founded, and quite justified. What was the reason for this treatment? Clearly it's hurt the US and the west in the long term.

 

[swerve]

There was no formal agreement, just non-binding, unenforceable promises, & keeping them needed positive action, including congressional votes. With the war won, it just seems to have slid down the priority list. It doesn't seem to have been deliberate policy, just that nobody with clout was actively pushing it. Two years later, both countries had different heads: Bush lost an election, & Turgut Özal died of a heart attack.

Turkey got something, but nowhere near what it expected. Özal was heavily criticised at the time for allowing access in exchange for promises, & I think the Turkish attitude now is that everything has to be nailed down. They won't take anything on trust. Deals have to be public & precise.

 

[My2Cents]

Would better social support in each of the many, many countries whose citizens have joined IS prevented this from happening? Probably. These social support measures can be implemented today, but it will only reduce the number of future recruits. Something, however, has to be done to today's fighters making a mess of Syria and Iraq.

A major problem with social support is that many of the people you would be trying to reach are fanatical about avoiding western education and ideas. It is hard to help someone who feels a religious duty to kill you for trying.

 

[STURM]

It is hard to help someone who feels a religious duty to kill you for trying.

Hence the need for Western countries, with the help and cooperation of regional countries, to address long standing grievances the locals have with the West and for an attempt to be made to put right or re-address some of decades of flawed policy towards the region.

That this has not happened and that there is no political will to do so us because it will involve some hard and uncomfortable questions and will be contrary to the national interests of many countries. As a result, it won't be surprising if over the next 3 decades or so, [more than 100 years after the RAF first dropped bombs on Iraq], we will still see Western aircraft striking targets in the Middle East with no end in sight and we will still hear about terrorists groups and extremists posing a danger to the world ....

 

[Feanor]

There was no formal agreement, just non-binding, unenforceable promises, & keeping them needed positive action, including congressional votes. With the war won, it just seems to have slid down the priority list. It doesn't seem to have been deliberate policy, just that nobody with clout was actively pushing it. Two years later, both countries had different heads: Bush lost an election, & Turgut Özal died of a heart attack.

Turkey got something, but nowhere near what it expected. Özal was heavily criticised at the time for allowing access in exchange for promises, & I think the Turkish attitude now is that everything has to be nailed down. They won't take anything on trust. Deals have to be public & precise.

Of course. Occam's razor. Don't look for malice, when incompetence suffices. Makes sense.

 

[RobWilliams]

British Reapers in Iraq have released their first weapon, a Hellfire against insurgents planting IEDs.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/raf-reaper-performs-first-hellfire-strike-in-iraq-405894/
BBC News - UK drone carries out first strike in Iraq

Expect to see more UK drones over Iraq, the UK Govt wants somewhere to base them which isn't the UK and this crisis is the ideal place to send them as Afghan winds down.

 

[barney41]

British Reapers in Iraq have released their first weapon, a Hellfire against insurgents planting IEDs.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/raf-reaper-performs-first-hellfire-strike-in-iraq-405894/
BBC News - UK drone carries out first strike in Iraq

Expect to see more UK drones over Iraq, the UK Govt wants somewhere to base them which isn't the UK and this crisis is the ideal place to send them as Afghan winds down.

A Griffin could likely have done the job a lot more cheaply. No reason why they can't carry both types of missiles to cater to whatever target of opportunity presents itself, right?

 

[swerve]

Yeah, but we haven't bought Griffin.

If integration with Reaper is given priority, we could be using LMM next year.

 

[bdique]

Yeah, but we haven't bought Griffin.

If integration with Reaper is given priority, we could be using LMM next year.

What's LMM? Also, why not Brimstone? I'd thought that would be a good alternative to the Hellfire/Griffin

 

[swerve]

If you want to use something cheaper than Hellfire, don't use Brimstone.

LMM is a 13 kg British missile which can be fired from helicopters, UAVs, ground vehicles & boats. In production, due to be in service next year.

Thales LMM

 

[barney41]

Yeah, but we haven't bought Griffin.

If integration with Reaper is given priority, we could be using LMM next year.

I would hope so. Downsizing weapons, in particular for UAV carriage, just makes sense. When the coalition starts taking the fight to ISIS in a more aggressive and coordinated way, UAVs should benefit from having a deeper magazine with weapons that are better suited for use against targets within urban environments.