Morch

Israel faces a bunch of cruddy choices. All of them have serious downsides and major risks, potentially existential ones. So it's not exactly surprising that for the time being the status quo is winning the day. The OP listing issues with different paths was informative. If there was an obvious great choice with a high chance of bringing peace and low chance of risking Israel's existence, it would have been taken already.

A bunch of cruddy choices that they created for themselves.

But even if they didn't create the cruddy choices, why should the Palestinians have to suffer because poor little Israel has cruddy choices?

The Palestinians are ought to be held accountable for their part in shaping their own misfortune. It does not mean Israel did not play its part, of course, Constantly depicting of the Palestinians as being helpless to take charge of their own destiny does nothing to support confidence that they could uphold agreements, let alone run a functioning state. Acknowledging that multiple factors lead to the present situation is essential, even without agreeing on each and every one of them.

Not a question of "should". International relations do not run on school yard level concepts of fairness and justice (well, second thoughts about that reflecting on some schools I attended...).

But the Islamic militants of Hamas seized control of Gaza, periodically firing rockets at Israel and leading the sides to three mini-wars to date. Many Israelis fear the West Bank will face a similar fate if Israeli withdraws​

Not entirely correct. The Islamic terrorists of Hamas were ELECTED by the Palestinians. If they can not make peace with Israel, they should never have a country of their own.

The duty of making peace does not only lay on the Palestinians even Israel have to make an effort to make peace. A lot of younger Israelis want piece but the right wing are not able to accept the Palestinians.

Peace is made between two parties, not one. So anything to the effect that its this side's or that side's responsibility is pretty nonsensical.

Not quite sure where the notion of pro-peace younger Israelis vs. the right-wing comes from. There are young people supporting whatever political agenda out there, and as often is the case with youngsters, they tend to go for the radical versions of whichever. Unless mistaken, if current demographic trends remain unchanged, it actually means more younger voters for religious and right-wing parties.

The same, by the way, can be said (as a generalization, of course) on the Palestinian society - the ones participating in the current riots, attacks and demonstrations are for the most part young, for the most part disenchanted with Palestinian politics and hold radical, if not always clearly defined, agendas.

But the Islamic militants of Hamas seized control of Gaza, periodically firing rockets at Israel and leading the sides to three mini-wars to date. Many Israelis fear the West Bank will face a similar fate if Israeli withdraws​

Not entirely correct. The Islamic terrorists of Hamas were ELECTED by the Palestinians. If they can not make peace with Israel, they should never have a country of their own.

That's a two-way street.

Israel holds all the cards. The Palestinians are the ones living in a purgatory of their own making with no economy and a bumbling military.

No, it doesn't. Any two societies so intertwined got mutual effects and holds on each other.

The Palestinians are responsible and should be held accountable for much that had led to their present predicament, but this by itself does not mean Israel gets total absolution of its own contribution to the situation.

But the Islamic militants of Hamas seized control of Gaza, periodically firing rockets at Israel and leading the sides to three mini-wars to dyate. Many Israelis fear the West Bank will face a similar fate if Israeli withdraws​

Not entirely correct. The Islamic terrorists of Hamas were ELECTED by the Palestinians. If they can not make peace with Israel, they should never have a country of their own.

Israelis elected Netanyahu, and there's been nothing but trouble since they did so..wars, intifadas..maybe time Israelis tried a different strategy to coexist with their geographic neighbors for eternity.

Netanyahu was not the Prime Minister during the two previous Intifadas. He was also not the Prime Minister of Israel during any major war. You might be referring to the 2012 and 2014 fighting in Gaza. If that was the scope of the claim, such took place under other Israeli Prime Ministers in the past, not specifically a Netanyahu thing.

As you often seem to forget, Israel does have long standing peace agreements with two of its neighbors. Pinning it all on Israel simply doesn't hold well with the facts.

They are burying their heads in the sand, refusing to face reality, hoping that soon the weight of all the illegal settlements will make it impossible to hand the West Bank back to the rightful owners and ignoring the inevitable.

Perhaps they even think that the world will support them when next they (ahem) "defend" themselves.

As usual, missing the point by using a wide brush "they". The article does make several observations on the ways which the issues are seen by Israelis, hardly as monolithic as suggested.

Applying the above ideas to the Palestinians, how is their past, present and, apparently, future approach differ much?

But the Islamic militants of Hamas seized control of Gaza, periodically firing rockets at Israel and leading the sides to three mini-wars to date. Many Israelis fear the West Bank will face a similar fate if Israeli withdraws​

Not entirely correct. The Islamic terrorists of Hamas were ELECTED by the Palestinians. If they can not make peace with Israel, they should never have a country of their own.

Having peace with Israel, is not, by itself, a criteria for having a state.

Israel could, and rightly so, reject the creation of a Palestinian state that would be openly hostile from the start. I do not believe anyone imagines this to be a real proposition.

By the same rational (unless I misunderstood something), Israel having elected officials who deny the Palestinian right for self-determination, and being openly hostile to the Palestinians would mean Israel does not have a right to exist?

The article is exactly what I have been saying for the last 2 years on this forum.

Israel should either annex the whole of the West Bank, end the apartheid situation, and grant equal citizenship to Palestinians, or end the occupation and move towards creating a 2 state solution with an economically viable contiguous Palestinian state with Gaza eventually connected via a rail tunnel. While at the same time addressing Israel's security concerns for several years to come, with some sort of demilitarization and a US/Israeli/UN/EU/NATO presence in the Jordan Valley?

As Kerry has said previously: the status quo is unsustainable. Israel cannot remain a Jewish state and a democracy if it annexes the West Bank. And it cannot have a Jewish state unless Jews are a majority, and the only way it could do that is to ethnically cleanse Palestinians, which it has done twice already. The whole world is watching this time via international and social media. So it won't get away with that ploy again.

What's left? Bite the bullet and get down to some serious peace talks. A moratorium on colony building and release of political prisoners would create some goodwill, and at the same time ease tensions and the current round of violence, giving Palestinians some hope for a better future.

Yes, I know all easier said than done. Maybe we will have to wait for fresh Israeli elections and/or Abbas to be replaced.

By "exactly" you meant sans the ever-present vilifying and demonization of Israel typical of your posts? Amazingly a point can be made without them. The one obvious similarity is that there is not much said about the Palestinian side, which is treated as essentially passive.

That the situation is not sustainable for the long term is obvious to most rational people. It can be made to seem possible to maintain by applying short/medium term frameworks. This, in turn, leads to a lessened imperative to discuss long term issues.

The argument that Israel can not be both a democratic and Jewish state will not be put aside by a two-state solution. It would simply morph into Israel not being democratic as it supports a large minority which is not Jewish. The premise, of course, is that democracies come in set shapes and sizes.

New Israeli elections would not necessarily bring about a more pro-peace coalition, or one that could deliver even if had the will. Same goes for Abbas being "replaced" (got to love dancing around that one).

On what basis are these people claiming refuge in Europe?

Why don't they just stay in Iran? There is no war there.

They might be a repressed minority like Ba'Hai.

I was under the impression that the current opening of the gates in Europe was meant to address the plight of those running away from IS and such, not a general policy applied to any repressed minority on the planet.

What a lovely couple.

Living the American Islamist Jihadist terrorist dream!

I'm somewhat surprised we haven't heard terrorist sympathizer protesting "police brutality" for them being killed by police.

Just married, and a daughter of 6 months old. He worked for 5 years as health inspector and earned a yearly salary of 70.000 USD.

He drove a late Ford Expedition worth 50.000 USD. He lived in a middle class house.

He went as a Muslim to a Christmas party and left earlier.

After that, some 20 or 40 minutes later, we have to believe that he and his wife became radical Jihadi's in 'full tactical camo battle dress' armed with semiautomatic machine guns making 14 fatalities and 18 injured in a mum of time. Nobody saw them coming, nobody saw them leaving.

He and his wife were neutralised after +4 hours of search at 700 m from the first crime scene. The whole area was secured by road blockades. He had to pass one of these road blockades to arrive at the second crime scene.

Pipe bombs have been found all over his place according to latest reports. All this from a guy who was living 'the American dream'...

Let's wait for the outcome of the investigation and the witnesses who come forward...

There's no need for conspiracy theories.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/875612-at-least-14-people-are-reported-dead-in-shooting-at-disabled-centre-in-southern-california/?p=10152869

Just another act on the Lebanese puppet show. Would be a wonder if he could do much even if he gets elected.

Sad thing for the Lebanese is that no one outside the neighborhood really cares much one way or the other.

Hariri junior making a comeback to play PM? Right.... Not suicidal, enough money to stay safely away, and unless his memory got erased, knows who was the minister in charge of the inconclusive investigation looking into his Dad's murder.

Defeating IS can be defined now as the destruction of its fortifications, the scattering of its fighters, the decapitation or running to ground of its leadership, the disruption of its logistical trains, the fracture in morale, the severance of sources of funding, obliterating command and control and communications, and rolling up the mess into prisons (and as Arnold would say in Conan "...the lamentation of the women.") This can be done quite quickly. Cleaning up and holding the ground of course is a matter of afterbirth. But conquest can be accomplished within 3-5 days, for certain. If it is argued than that the locals can hardly secure the peace afterward then they should never be introduced into the equation as a military solution in the now.

Rapid Dominance is a self evident theory of war. In essence, just the name is new, the principle is eternal- get into the battle by surprise, violence of action, unrelenting pressure, prevent enemy re-consolidation, and deny enemy holding terrrain. Something pretty much like this underlies the theory behind 72 hours (above) and it seem correct enough to me, perhaps another 100hours but not much more. One errs by considering the consolidation/reconstruction phase a part of initial conquest; they are mutually supporting, but in no way the same.

"Ullman and Wade identify four vital characteristics of rapid dominance:^Wikipedia

1. near total or absolute knowledge and understanding of self, adversary, and environment;
2. rapidity and timeliness in application;
3. operational brilliance in execution; and
4. (near) total control and signature management of the entire operational environment."

These are basic premises of violence of action, the purest form of warfare inculcated into every SEAL, Ranger, SF, SAS, and Force Recon. At a national level for the US, few adversaries could stand 100 hours or so.

Of course the US and its laughable 62 nation coalition could defeat even this "jayvee" team if they wanted to. The US could destroy these clowns as easily as Russia could. In Russia's case the calculus involves concern about the US, otherwise its conventional forces too could march over IS within days. This is and is not like Afghanistan. DAESH is holding territory. Fracture their grip on territory and you fracture the subordination of the tribes, who just want to survive, and will break from IS as the Awakening Councils (SOI) previously did. In the US case the calculus basically involves their murdering their child. When DAESH has no more utility the US will turn on it. The US always gives its allies enough assistance to lose a war. But IS still holds some fulcrum the US wishes to evidence. At a minimum, IS as a standing threat can leverage a seat at a table that enables the US to exist its morass and others take the blame for the debacle. The US cannot win if IS loses.

The obvious fault would have to do with with U&W's first characteristic. I doubt that such conditions exist when it comes to conflicts between democracies and non-state players.

The notion of "conquest" is somewhat off-key, unless one de-facto bestows statehood status on IS. That they hold territory (with varying degrees of consolidation and control) is not necessarily the key element of their existence. And that's besides the fact that in one form or another, they maintain a presence in other parts of the world.

Granted, that if the full (ok, some exaggeration, we're not talking WWII level here) military might of the USA was brought to bear, and discarding domestic, economic and political consideration - a lot could be achieved. My point is that this is almost never the case, and that constraints are always present. Even so, I maintain that the time frame cited (with or without the extension) is unrealistic.

There will be no victory by knockout. More like a lengthy war of attrition, regardless of territory being taken/conquered/liberated. Crippling some of IS ability to carry out actions is not the same as defeating it altogether.

That's without getting into the question of what comes after this supposed rapid military victory is achieved.

Great points, and I agree mostly. DAESH is only a symptom of the problem. Insofar as Syria/Iraq, refugees, etc., pose an immediate threat, than I assert IS should have military resources marshaled accordingly; they are not applied proportionate to the problem. Any war has multiple aspects, thus there is a follow on that is traditionally asserted to be easily lost unless ground held- agreed. But it is this first unaddressed phase that is at issue. Why? Because firstly the Obama administration refuses to recognize the underlying pathology. Moreover, when it does, it assigns to DAESH an attribute of the "Levant" which is more suggestive than descriptive; after all, the Levant includes Israel. Only Obama does this. His assertions as to why could be accepted if they were not so disjointed from his haphazard approach to actually dealing with DAESH. Obama does not fight DAESH. Turkey and the US manage DAESH to extend its shelf life toward non articulated but clear goals; or so it is my opinion, and now clearly Russia as well.

I do not believe the initial phase of destroying IS would have great attrition. When local actors role up and hold territory this then is their issue. This day can never come about unless DAESH is obliterated. Should the days follow where no actors hold territory, but the tribes will- then we should continue stand off operations can kill anything that moves out of a cave. Special Forces are primarily guerrilla warfare/insurgency/COIN operators. Since there is hardly any forces to force multiply that are not already allied with DAESH or Assad then our forces are doing DA, Direct Action. If they are doing DA and are not part of a larger conventional approach than it is only surgical in nature and reflects the lack of commitment I assert. When so many- estimated at over 70%- of sorties do not drop ordinance then the SpecOps could hardly be considered to be Laser Target Designating targets. They are doing DA and related work. It is the wrong tool, or a tool poorly used.

I could be led to another point of view militarily. I just have not heard it offered by the West yet. In fact, nor have numerous field grade officers or pilots or specops people.

IS is a threat, sure enough. How much of a direct threat to the USA, on a level that would necessitate investing a huge amount of resources suggested, is debatable.

Considering the outcome of previous USA interventions, and what seems to be a reluctance on the part of the American public to get entangled in yet another dubious military adventure, it is not all that surprising that efforts in countering IS are less than comprehensive. There is, apparently, less support for playing the thankless role of World Cop. Especially with outcomes being not clear cut, guilt trips aplenty after each episode and the costs, ultimately falling on public shoulders. Having a stance which can be portrayed as liberal, pro-democracy, promoting humane values etc. can be a hindrance when conducting warfare against an enemy who doesn't play by the same rules. It doesn't matter much if these concepts are adhered to or not, more to do with damaging the USA's self image as righteous. Call it getting caught in its own rhetoric and losing the way in the maze of contradictions presented by reality.

To a large extent the argument is more about assessing the USA's policy in the Middle East as contrived, per-planned and having clear definite goals, OR seeing it as a series of miscalculations, failure to address changing conditions and debacles originating from misguided notions. My standing position is that ignorance, stupidity and self-delusion provide more common explanations than conspiracy, malice and subterfuge. A staunch believer in Baldrick-ism here. A new addition to Tuchman's The March of Folly seems like an apt description.

Obama was elected, at least partially, running on a pro-peace, bring-the-boys-home platform. Granted that the execution of these notions been taken for a ride by reality, but still, not realistic to expect a complete public about-face. Obama ain't going to subscribe to your own views on these matters, nor probably to even less extreme versions. A USA president publicly taking up a position which will essentially denounce and offend a huge portion of the World's population is neither a realistic prospect, nor something which will benefit the USA. This goes back to them constraints mentioned earlier.

The way I see it, the USA is not fully engaging IS due to several reasons, chief among are lack of domestic support for massive intervention and a realization that whatever cunning plans or idealistic notions guided policy makers, things got "complicated". What someone might have imagined to be manageable situation quickly escalated into an unpredictable scenario. That other players operate according to similarly complex considerations makes things even more unstable. Turkey, for example, got its own agendas (which do not fully parallel with the USA's), plus a megalomaniac ruler, who doesn't always seem to act rationally, or even in his people's best interest.

We would have to remain in disagreement over the ease IS could be dispatched with. Can't off-hand think of an example which supports this notion, and yes, including in the equation them constraints the USA often operates under. Clearing off IS and then saying it's up to the natives to sort things out, is a sure recipe for ongoing strife. One which will come to roost sooner or later. If that's the concept, might as well pull out now, and let all sides batter themselves silly on their own, deal with the consequences later. Usually a better approach to enter a fight with some realistic ideas regarding the shapes of things to come once it is over. Vacuum and uncertainty are not healthy propositions under any conditions, when it comes to the Middle East.

We have no argument that the current mode of operations, regarding both special forces and air strikes, is not effective and leads nowhere. Without massive presence of committed and capable ground forces (whether USA's or otherwise), it would continue to be an exercise in futility. I view this as stemming from confusion and indecision, rather than representing a clear agenda or policy.

The USA's predicament with regards to boots on the ground is that it is reluctant sending in its own troops (again) into the fray, allies are either similarly reluctant (for various reasons) or are incapable. The supposed local good guys are a dodgy bunch at best, and there's no turning about and supporting Assad. In short - no good options, no magic solutions - and that's without getting into how messy things could get with even more parties operating on the ground.

I do not see an easy way for the USA to achieve a positive outcome (assuming there's a clear notion of what positive means in this case). Providing no major changes, dealing with the mess will be the next president's task. A gloomy prospect, considering the current crop of candidates (regardless of affiliation).

It's the Middle East. Believing any odd number of rumors, not necessarily based on hard facts, and often contradictory - is practically the way of life.

That is so true.

I recently read a report of some random interviews with Syrian refugees in Germany. They mostly believed in all kinds of wild conspiracy theory garbage (mostly about the USA and Israel). No, they're mostly not terrorists, but their political views are ignorant at best, and certainly some are very recruitable.

People have access to information from the information that is disseminated. Most ordinary people get their information from their local press and government.

You get to hear what your government wants you to hear. It is called propaganda, public relations or opinion development.

Your particular view based on what the Western press say, is no better guide to the 'truth' that what Syrian refugees believe.

Obama, Cameron, Erdogan, NATO and the Pentagon have lied so many times that it is impossible now to believe anything that comes out of their mouth.

What on earth are all those lorries doing hauling oil from the Syrian oilfields and going into Turkey doing? Give a better explanation that Putin's, and yet yesterday Obama denied that Turkey has ever armed our bought oil from IS? Previously he had said they dodn;t bomb the oil convoys because of concern for civilians ie the truckers lives, and now he says that they weren't smuggling oil. Well if they are not smuggling oil to Turkey and Turkey isn't buying oil, well why start bombing them now? Explanations please.

Intelligent people now use the internet to canvas a broad range of opinions rather than relying on their governments' propaganda as the intellectually lazy and ignorant do. Getting a range of opinion is not even hard to do....it would open your eyes...there was a photo on FARS of an Apache helicopter escorting a convoy of IS white Toyotas with black flags...could it have been photoshopped? Yes, but it could equally well be real. We didn't know where all the white Toyotas came from until we learned the CIA might have bought them for IS.

This is a dirty war, and truth is the first casualty of war. Personally I would be more inclined to give greater weight to those that had actually experienced it, than those who sit and read propaganda thousands of miles away.

Err...no. In the Middle East, rumors have lives of their own. Sure, sometimes they are intentionally spread to advance certain agendas, but on many occasions, they just pop up in order to serve as simple explanations to complex events.

For some reason, people seem to imagine that the range of information sources available to the average citizen in the West is limited compared to those living in the Middle East (or for that matter, Russia). That if a far cry from the actual state of things, even if one assumes that internet access, literacy and education levels are similar (they are not, though).

The only reasons Western leaders are more often caught by media is that the option to criticize exists, and the relative ease in which related information is accessed makes it possible. Imagining that Putin does not have an agenda which got nothing (or little) to do with IS, or that Middle Eastern leaders got a better take on things, are choices, not facts. Taking most things publicly said by politicians at face value is a mistake. And that goes for almost of of them, regardless of side.

The situation in the Middle East is not static. Former allies become enemies, necessities often dictate strange bedfellows, and greed plays its part as well. The thing is that many times people get hung on something which happened (or was said to have happened) and continue treating it as solid reality, even as related and relevant conditions change.

Getting information from a wide spectrum of sources is great. Assuming that a given refugee actually got a better handle on things is not necessarily a sound proposition. People on the run and under duress do not normally have time to analyze and follow all related events. On the other hand, many of those posting here have years of experience in the Middle East under their belts, which many times comes with a wider scope of assessment.

How about listening to what's publicly stated by US military and intelligence services ?

They have all confirmed the information !!!

Or maybe listen to General Clark:

Quote:

General Wesley Clark admits “allies” created ISIS to fight Hezbollah

FEBRUARY 27, 2015 AT 10:10 AM

General Wesley K. Clark, former presidential candidate and NATO supreme allied commander during the NATO war against Yugoslavia, stated in a recent interview on CNN that “ISIS got started through funding from our friends and allies.” He did not specify exactly which US allies he was talking about. It has been widely reported that much of the funding had come from the oil-rich elites of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies, which of course are de facto allies of Israel. Clark did say that ISIS “is part of a strategy to destroy Hezbollah with an army of extremists.” Hezbollah was formed to drive Israel out of Lebanon, and Israel is the only country with an interest in destroying it.

... believe it now ?

About as much as I believe any conspiracy theory copied from David Duke's website

http://davidduke.com/general-wesley-clark-admits-allies-created-isis-fight-hezbollah/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Duke

The Russian bomber's Black Box data was examined in Syria.

It has revealed that the Russian airplane did not enter the Turkish airspace.

At the nearest point the Russian airplane stayed in Syrian airspace at the distance of 1 kilometer from the Turkish border.

America knows about this and prefers to keep low profile.

Where was this reported? The evidence so far points to the plane being in Syrian airspace. But only for a very short time.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-confirms-downed-russian-plane-entered-turkish-airspace-n471481

What evidence do you mean?

There is no evidence to prove the fact that the Russian plane entered the Turkish airspace.

If you mean the Turkish audio recording:

•We don't know when this particular audio recording was made. It might have been made several weeks before the recent incident, or even months or years before.

•We don't know exactly what airplane this particular warning was given to. It might have been given to any other airplane that was approaching the Turkish airspace.

•Even if we assume that this warning was given to the same Russian plane that was shot down, there is no evidence that this warning was received clearly (without radio interference) by the pilot.

•Even if we assume that this warning was given to the same Russian plane that was shot down, there is no evidence that it was given 10 times as Turkey is claiming.

•Even if we assume that this warning was given to the same Russian plane that was shot down and if we assume that it was received clearly by the pilot, there is no evidence that the airplane indeed entered the Turkish airspace. Normally such warnings are given on a daily basis to every airplane that is approaching the foreign airspace, even at the distance of 10 kilometers or more. This warning can not prove the fact that the airplane did in fact enter the foreign airspace.

Well you haven't even supplied a link to support the original post, kinda hard to take it seriously. But then again, who would doubt the word of Russia or Syria on this matter. eh? Not like they got vested interests. right?

Other than taking supposed Russian statements and findings at face value, let me propose that the it might also indicate that Made in Russia gear is not always that reliable or accurate. Yes, despite the notions some members have regarding the supposed superiority of their military technology.

The Russian aircraft was surely monitored by at least 5 countries (perhaps 6). There are pretty solid relevant USA and NATO assets in the area, and no doubt this applies to monitoring communications as well. Not standard procedure for most countries to expose such information to potential rivals.

A lot of "if we assume", and very little by way of providing anything to the contrary.

Think on this: The purpose of a Special Forces Team is to be... unknown, undetected, un celebrated. Obama has variously used these people as an extension of his press office for a long time, certainly since Abbattabad. Can any recall any other state on earth who uses the words Special Forces so often in press statements? This is for a very long time. In fact, the mere mention that "Special Forces [ops]" are in an area of operation does two things:

It increases the likelihood that they will die

It decreases any effectiveness they may have

Announcing Special Ops will be sent to fight the Islamic State is not a tactical consideration, it is a strategic psyops and our population is the target. To Obama SF have capes. He can manage time by announcing SpecOps are on the ground. He presumes this buys time. It makes no difference what they are actually doing. The goal is not to defeat IS. If it was, SpecOps would attached to a conventional force.

Air strike numbers are noise, like announcing Special Forces are going in. It provides cover and time to manage the debacle Obama has created. No, he is not trying to defeat IS. Even an elementary knowledge of war reveals this. Everyone knows this. IS would be gone in 72 hours if the choice was to end IS.

Agreed that politicians making statements regarding both Special Forces and airstrikes are merely engaging in politics. That it often got little positive bearing on such military efforts (and sometimes a detrimental one), is a painful truth. Then again, political leaders deal with several levels of a conflict, PR and diplomacy are part and parcel of that. Of course, some of it may relate to issues which got nothing to do with national security.

As per the last two sentences:

- I do not know this, and I think it is, at best, a very simplified version of things.

- placing definite time frames on such endeavors is more befitting when proclaimed by Thai politicians. Quoting ridiculous time frames does nothing for the credibility of the argument.

That much more could have been done? Obviously. But the USA does not operate in a vacuum, and there are certain constraints (domestic and foreign) on what it can and cannot do.

Defeating IS can be defined now as the destruction of its fortifications, the scattering of its fighters, the decapitation or running to ground of its leadership, the disruption of its logistical trains, the fracture in morale, the severance of sources of funding, obliterating command and control and communications, and rolling up the mess into prisons (and as Arnold would say in Conan "...the lamentation of the women.") This can be done quite quickly. Cleaning up and holding the ground of course is a matter of afterbirth. But conquest can be accomplished within 3-5 days, for certain. If it is argued than that the locals can hardly secure the peace afterward then they should never be introduced into the equation as a military solution in the now.

Rapid Dominance is a self evident theory of war. In essence, just the name is new, the principle is eternal- get into the battle by surprise, violence of action, unrelenting pressure, prevent enemy re-consolidation, and deny enemy holding terrrain. Something pretty much like this underlies the theory behind 72 hours (above) and it seem correct enough to me, perhaps another 100hours but not much more. One errs by considering the consolidation/reconstruction phase a part of initial conquest; they are mutually supporting, but in no way the same.

"Ullman and Wade identify four vital characteristics of rapid dominance:^Wikipedia

1. near total or absolute knowledge and understanding of self, adversary, and environment;
2. rapidity and timeliness in application;
3. operational brilliance in execution; and
4. (near) total control and signature management of the entire operational environment."

These are basic premises of violence of action, the purest form of warfare inculcated into every SEAL, Ranger, SF, SAS, and Force Recon. At a national level for the US, few adversaries could stand 100 hours or so.

Of course the US and its laughable 62 nation coalition could defeat even this "jayvee" team if they wanted to. The US could destroy these clowns as easily as Russia could. In Russia's case the calculus involves concern about the US, otherwise its conventional forces too could march over IS within days. This is and is not like Afghanistan. DAESH is holding territory. Fracture their grip on territory and you fracture the subordination of the tribes, who just want to survive, and will break from IS as the Awakening Councils (SOI) previously did. In the US case the calculus basically involves their murdering their child. When DAESH has no more utility the US will turn on it. The US always gives its allies enough assistance to lose a war. But IS still holds some fulcrum the US wishes to evidence. At a minimum, IS as a standing threat can leverage a seat at a table that enables the US to exist its morass and others take the blame for the debacle. The US cannot win if IS loses.

The obvious fault would have to do with with U&W's first characteristic. I doubt that such conditions exist when it comes to conflicts between democracies and non-state players.

The notion of "conquest" is somewhat off-key, unless one de-facto bestows statehood status on IS. That they hold territory (with varying degrees of consolidation and control) is not necessarily the key element of their existence. And that's besides the fact that in one form or another, they maintain a presence in other parts of the world.

Granted, that if the full (ok, some exaggeration, we're not talking WWII level here) military might of the USA was brought to bear, and discarding domestic, economic and political consideration - a lot could be achieved. My point is that this is almost never the case, and that constraints are always present. Even so, I maintain that the time frame cited (with or without the extension) is unrealistic.

There will be no victory by knockout. More like a lengthy war of attrition, regardless of territory being taken/conquered/liberated. Crippling some of IS ability to carry out actions is not the same as defeating it altogether.

That's without getting into the question of what comes after this supposed rapid military victory is achieved.

Think on this: The purpose of a Special Forces Team is to be... unknown, undetected, un celebrated. Obama has variously used these people as an extension of his press office for a long time, certainly since Abbattabad. Can any recall any other state on earth who uses the words Special Forces so often in press statements? This is for a very long time. In fact, the mere mention that "Special Forces [ops]" are in an area of operation does two things:

It increases the likelihood that they will die

It decreases any effectiveness they may have

Announcing Special Ops will be sent to fight the Islamic State is not a tactical consideration, it is a strategic psyops and our population is the target. To Obama SF have capes. He can manage time by announcing SpecOps are on the ground. He presumes this buys time. It makes no difference what they are actually doing. The goal is not to defeat IS. If it was, SpecOps would attached to a conventional force.

Air strike numbers are noise, like announcing Special Forces are going in. It provides cover and time to manage the debacle Obama has created. No, he is not trying to defeat IS. Even an elementary knowledge of war reveals this. Everyone knows this. IS would be gone in 72 hours if the choice was to end IS.

Agreed that politicians making statements regarding both Special Forces and airstrikes are merely engaging in politics. That it often got little positive bearing on such military efforts (and sometimes a detrimental one), is a painful truth. Then again, political leaders deal with several levels of a conflict, PR and diplomacy are part and parcel of that. Of course, some of it may relate to issues which got nothing to do with national security.

As per the last two sentences:

- I do not know this, and I think it is, at best, a very simplified version of things.

- placing definite time frames on such endeavors is more befitting when proclaimed by Thai politicians. Quoting ridiculous time frames does nothing for the credibility of the argument.

That much more could have been done? Obviously. But the USA does not operate in a vacuum, and there are certain constraints (domestic and foreign) on what it can and cannot do.

It's the Middle East. Believing any odd number of rumors, not necessarily based on hard facts, and often contradictory - is practically the way of life.

I suggest that a rational defense of a curtailment of free speech is that in certain circumstances free speech can be harmful. For example, if I incorrectly accuse somebody of rape and damage their reputation that free speech should be curtailed. Similarly, if I incite someone to riot then my free speech may lawfully be curtailed. In the case of Nazi followers issuing offensive statements in favor of the regime and particularly its attitude towards its perceived enemies including Jews, then it is perfectly reasonable to curtail this free speech, particularly in Germany. The barbaric treatment of not only homosexuals, Gypsies, communists trade unionists and especially Jews warrants this curtailment on any number of grounds. Firstly the Nazi ideology including their theories of Untermenschen has long been dicredited on any rational basis. Secondly, the ongoing trauma to the victims of Nazism including their relatives and friends by someone expressing their free speech, can be horrific. The Nazis not only killed their victims but the survivors were permanently damaged. That alone justifies a curtailment of free speech. Thirdly most of this sort of crap isn't a rational debate on the racial theory, if such a thing exists, but pathetic sloganeering, displaying Nazi emblems and posturing. I do hope this is rational enough for you.

This is such an odd anomaly. Western democracies are proud of their freedom of speech and freedom of expression....unless that speech or expression is about Jewish themes. Then, nobody can say anything.

Why is that?

Not a rhetorical question, and not one seeking emotive answers. Just rational answers. (Hint: key word "rational".)

I can stand on my soap box and announce that I hate (Christians, Muslims, gays....). But I can not say anything against Jews.

I don't understand the inconsistency.

You aren't going to hear a logical defense of such practice, because there isn't one.

" ... the ongoing trauma to the victims of Nazism including their relatives and friends by someone expressing their free speech, can be horrific. "

Seriously? The ongoing trauma for friends and relatives is horrific?

Wow. I can accept that actual survivors suffered and were victims, and that the children of those that died are victims. But the children of those that survived are not victims themselves, nor are their friends, nor are the majority of Jews whose only connection to the tragedy is a common religion or ethnicity.

This is classic "victim card".

I don't know about "horrific", but that there are a plethora of psychological effects related to children of Holocaust survivors is true. Not necessarily specific, but more a greater likelihood of exhibiting issues concerning depression, stress and anxiety (for example). There is also a body of research which indicates that there are trans-generational physiological effects, again, most are related to stress and anxiety issues.

As far as I am aware this is not a phenomenon restricted to Jews. There is simply more long term research available of Jewish survivors. Related research suggests that the similar trans-generational effects could be found among other populations, other than Holocaust survivors. There are, apparently, certain differences with regard to outcomes, which are related to gender and the nature of the trauma.

Obviously, offspring of Holocaust survivors are not victims in the way their parents were. Then again, seems like it does leave a lasting mark on a person.

Have a read of the link you provided regarding "To each his own", and see that many think the phrase is harmless as it has been used by large companies for advertising campaigns, if it were not for German Council of Jews objecting to it.

So, this is proof of my bias? Very shaky proof of something unclear. What bias would that be, pray tell?

I don't think you should predict what I would be at the forefront of.....your not very good at it, and it is projecting somewhat.

I did not make it a topic about Jews. I quite rightly mentioned Jews, and some people tried to take me to task about it, as you are too, Hows that?

Not quite sure where in the link you found "many think the phrase to be harmless". It was used by several companies and it caused an public reaction on almost every occasion (and not always led by Jewish organizations). Same goes for a certain student protest. So yes, proof of bias even in reading a short link.

Predicting your posts is about is not much of a challenge, actually. Not that many variations on certain themes.

Of course, you ignore that the phrase appeared in the tattoo with a certain imagery - not much imagination needed as to the reference. Of course, you ignore that those killed in Buchenwald were not only Jews. One of the prisoners, by the way was code-named "Seahorse"...quite a story there. You did not "mention" the Jews, but rather, the whole premise of your original argument would be pointless without the undue focus on the Jews.

"not much imagination needed as to the reference."

On the one hand you concede what the reference is about, yet on the other you condemn me for raising the subject of that reference. Make up your mind, is the background of the OP an issue regarding Jews or not?

If several big companies saw nothing sinister in the phrase, why should I be singled out for being naive about it? A bit picky, you are.

Still no "proof of bias" and still not clear what bias you're referring to.

Come again? You are the one who tried to present the phrase as having no context, although hard to see how that could be managed considering the tattoo. The reference to the Nazis is obvious, but as all but apparently yourself agree, the Jews were not the only victims of the Nazis. Buchenwald, with which the phrase is connected, serves as a good example,

The background of the OP is a fatso neo-Nazi displaying Nazi symbols in public. This is against the law in Germany, and for good reasons, not all of them having to do with the Jewish victims of the Nazis. There were other victims and there are other lessons (moral, political, social) which serve as grounds for these rules.

Many of the the instances in which the phrase was used for commercial (and otherwise) purposes were met with negative public reaction, which usually led to said organizations dropping its use. Such things happen in advertising, all over the world, and in more than one context. You are not being "singled out", the context of the reference is clearly pointed at, and yet you simply refuse to acknowledge it (which is the opposite of what happened in most cases described).

As for bias, seems like you hardly miss a chance to negatively post about Jews, whether or not the topic at hand is actually related. My impression is that the only positive attitude you express on such topics is when a Jewish view going against the grain is presented. Not alone in that position, and frankly, not that different from those applying a similar bias toward other groups or religions.

Enlighten me as to the point I missed, please.

Guy has a tattoo that says "each to his own" (or interpreted as "They get what they deserve"...must be a German idiosyncrasy because I can't see how the one equates to the other...no matter), and he is asked to leave a public place.

Seems like discrimination and suppression of freedom of expression.

Please enlighten me.

If you wish to treat it as a meaningless, out of context phrase, it would only be further proof of your usual bias. These were the words appearing over Buchenwald's gate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedem_das_Seine

Actually, "smarty pants" YOU are the one who introduced Israel to the thread. Completely off-topic.

Any subject to do with "offense" + "Buchenwald" + "neo-nazi", it is more than reasonable, in fact almost imperative to think of Jews. But not Israel.

Please, quote the derogatory thing I said about Jews.

Go on...quote me.

Otherwise...shoosh, or apologise.

So "Offense" + "Buchenwald" + "neo-Nazi" makes it almost imperative to think of Jews....and no doubt, on another Holocaust related topic, you'll be at the forefront, complaining how others who were targeted and murdered by the Nazis do not get enough recognition. Have a read and clear some of the apparent fuzziness over who were imprisoned and killed at Buchenwald:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buchenwald_concentration_camp

Making it a topic about Jews is your own creation and reflects your usual bias and obsession.

Have a read of the link you provided regarding "To each his own", and see that many think the phrase is harmless as it has been used by large companies for advertising campaigns, if it were not for German Council of Jews objecting to it.

So, this is proof of my bias? Very shaky proof of something unclear. What bias would that be, pray tell?

I don't think you should predict what I would be at the forefront of.....your not very good at it, and it is projecting somewhat.

I did not make it a topic about Jews. I quite rightly mentioned Jews, and some people tried to take me to task about it, as you are too, Hows that?

Not quite sure where in the link you found "many think the phrase to be harmless". It was used by several companies and it caused an public reaction on almost every occasion (and not always led by Jewish organizations). Same goes for a certain student protest. So yes, proof of bias even in reading a short link.

Predicting your posts is about is not much of a challenge, actually. Not that many variations on certain themes.

Of course, you ignore that the phrase appeared in the tattoo with a certain imagery - not much imagination needed as to the reference. Of course, you ignore that those killed in Buchenwald were not only Jews. One of the prisoners, by the way was code-named "Seahorse"...quite a story there. You did not "mention" the Jews, but rather, the whole premise of your original argument would be pointless without the undue focus on the Jews.

Our debates here are futile; our opinions are baseless, and our comments ill-informed because our prejudices have been formed by propaganda provided by our governments and reported without critique by our supine press.

I have seen the numerous daily lies coming out of Washington and no longer believe anything they say; no rationale they give can be considered to be a real reflection of what they think or can be use to predict what they will do next. Can anyone seriously believe that a nation that has bombed weddings and hospitals with a callous disregard for human life, didn't bomb an IS oil convoy because of a threat to civilians?

Cameron, another inotorious liar, said in Parliament there were 70,000 moderate rebels whom he implied, were willing to spring into action against IS if Britain were start Syrian airstrikes. Total nonsense. He was rightly ridiculed in parts of the press, but this notion of just generating 'facts' that bear no resemblance to the truth has become so commonplace nowadays; and likewise notion the US airstrikes rarely kill anyone but the terrorists and that they didn't shut down the oil trade because of risk to civilians is likewise nonsense...a PR story used as a fig leaf to cover their obvious complicity.

Whatever else I know or don't know is that Putin, love him or hate him, is more likely to do as he says and what he says is more likely to be true, good or bad, than any western leader. Indeed Putin is a true leader, popular at home and abroad and vastly superior, as a leader, to anything in the EU or US.

Putin's response to the Turkey shooting has been sober, measured and scary. It has been a logical response aimed at avoiding a potential clash with NATO and doing as much longer term harm to the Turkish economy as Russia can do. When the Turkish economy goes south, Erdgogan will be unpopular as pooh in a perfume factory, whereas Putin remained popular in Russia despite a huge downturn in GDP as a result of EU/US sanctions.

It actually doesn't matter whether Erdgogan apologises or not, he has lost this round with Putin, he's been totally outsmarted and the next round coming up will be much much worse, with Putin either allying with and arming the Kurds, closing the borders, or shooting down his jets in Syrian airspace. Erdogan's giant ego will compound the problem and I very much doubt that NATO will go to war over this maverick.

Not clear if the assumption is that Putin's (or Russia, interesting that the two get interchanged that often) actions are not guided by some underlying agenda, or simply that such an agenda is deemed irrelevant. Same goes for claiming Western media is a sham - doesn't exactly make the other side of the fence a beacon of truth and accuracy.

Putin has a big ace up his sleeve, the gas he supplies to Turkey for all it's domestic needs,

should he turn this off, me think the Turkish sultan will very quickly gravel and apologies to

the Russian tsar...

Nnnnooppe .... Turkey wont apologize and USSR wont cut that gas supply .... Turkey have a good gas supply else where ... ( read into some oil and gas business and you would know) turkey can get the fuel from (guess who!)and USSR can shove that gas up it's ..... [emoji33] ... At a $18 billion that gets into the Russian economy ... I don't think it's Putin own decision to just cut it off .... And hey Mr.? Going into war against a country like turkey is not like going into war against country like Afghanistan [emoji6]

As far as I understand (and could be wrong), Turkey is bound by their gas deal with Russia. Meaning they have to pay whether they use it or not. Less clear on whether payment was already made, in which case guess a refund will not be forthcoming. The main reason for Turkey being eager to sign those deals were the low prices offered by the Russians. Don't think that there is a handy alternative source, at similar costs, which could supply all the Turkish demand.

These are still early days for this Turkey-Russia tension, and based on both sides previous incidents, the rhetoric displayed is as expected. There would have to be some serious pressure on Erdogan, rather than Turkey, if any apology is to materialize. The list of all countries and leaders he managed to fight with is quite extensive, and most were rather friendly before things got pear shaped. Seems to be less focused on Turkey, and more on Turkey-under-Erdogan. Dragging the country through yet another damaging conflict is not beyond his pride.

Enlighten me as to the point I missed, please.

Guy has a tattoo that says "each to his own" (or interpreted as "They get what they deserve"...must be a German idiosyncrasy because I can't see how the one equates to the other...no matter), and he is asked to leave a public place.

Seems like discrimination and suppression of freedom of expression.

Please enlighten me.

If you wish to treat it as a meaningless, out of context phrase, it would only be further proof of your usual bias. These were the words appearing over Buchenwald's gate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedem_das_Seine

Actually, "smarty pants" YOU are the one who introduced Israel to the thread. Completely off-topic.

Any subject to do with "offense" + "Buchenwald" + "neo-nazi", it is more than reasonable, in fact almost imperative to think of Jews. But not Israel.

Please, quote the derogatory thing I said about Jews.

Go on...quote me.

Otherwise...shoosh, or apologise.

So "Offense" + "Buchenwald" + "neo-Nazi" makes it almost imperative to think of Jews....and no doubt, on another Holocaust related topic, you'll be at the forefront, complaining how others who were targeted and murdered by the Nazis do not get enough recognition. Have a read and clear some of the apparent fuzziness over who were imprisoned and killed at Buchenwald:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buchenwald_concentration_camp

Making it a topic about Jews is your own creation and reflects your usual bias and obsession.

If you support the mayhem, murder and destruction the US has left in its wake of regime change then you are probably against Russian involvement.

If you think enough is enough then you are probably for it.

Since their involvement there are a lot of dead ISIS thugs, the US obviously was never bombing it's own creation or their oil cargoes making Turks rich. See Obama just promised another half billion dollars to support terrorists.

On the downside is whether the neocons will be mad enough to start WW3 if their plans are ruined.

Of course closer to home is what mischief the US will do next on the China front, hopefully the ME is distracting them for now.

Are you sure US & coalition forces have not been striking Daesh? Some months back claimed around 15,000 Daesh have been killed by the coalition.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/10/12/islamic-state-pentagon/73840116/

Below is more info on the number of strikes in Iraq & Syria

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/20/world/war-on-isis-whos-doing-what/index.html

Your comment reminds me how killed vietkongs had been reported 40 to 50 years back. Every killed vietnamese became a dead vietkong but my wife who grow up close to the border knows that this wasn't the truth.

Whereas the Russian's claimed/reported success is based on more discriminate counts and procedures?

I think the EU have got it wrong. They should be banning all goods produced in Israel not just the illegal colonies.

That would be a far more effective form of resistance than violence and may bring Israel to its senses to negotiate a just peace agreement with its neighbors.

Or it would further enhance the religious right-wing's prominence in Israel, and encourage Israel to adopt an even more hardliner policies.

Nice twist there - the violence is not carried out by the EU, but by the Palestinians. The EU is not "resisting" anything. violently or otherwise. No mention of the Palestinians in the post, obviously they play a passive role again, with everything to be affected by the EU and Israel. Not a very pro-Palestinian position there.

Israel got standing peace agreements with two of its five neighbors. As for the other three, might be irritating for some to recall, but they are all currently deeply divided or in complete disarray. May want to sort that out first, before having the faction of the day sign a treaty on behalf of the whole.