US general: Ground troops option if anti-IS strategy fails

[webfact]

US general: Ground troops option if anti-IS strategy fails

WASHINGTON: -- US ground forces could be deployed against Islamic State (IS) militants if the current US-led strategy fails, top US General Martin Dempsey has said.

President Barack Obama has repeatedly said that US ground troops would not have a combat mission in Iraq under the strategy outlined last week.

The US earlier carried out its first air strike under the strategy, which seeks to "degrade and destroy" IS.

The jihadists control huge areas of Syria and Iraq.

Meanwhile, Kurdish peshmerga forces backed by US surveillance jets and drones have been advancing against IS positions in northern Iraq.

An attack into the IS-held plain of Mosul, east of the city, began at dawn while on the other side of Mosul, the Kurds have also been pressing towards the town of Zumar.

Source: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29225367


-- BBC 2014-09-17

[NeverSure]

It won't work. It never works. Won't they learn? These bad guys hide among the population and if a non-combatant is killed the bad guys become the good guys.

I don't know of a single incident in history where a guerilla army was defeated on its own soil. Maybe it's happened. Certainly not in N. Korea or 'Nam or any of these ME conflicts.

The last time the US and/or allies outright won a war was WWII and that was pretty much "no holds barred" bombing of Germany and nuking Japan with no concern for civilians. The allies were at war with nations and that included the people who put the leaders in power or allowed them to stay in power.

It doesn't matter that we have air power and technology with stealth and drones and smart bombs and satellites and so forth. When we "namby pamby around" and don't hit hard, fast, and continuously with the intent to win, and understand it's a war, we won't win.

Boots on the ground just lose lives and we still don't win.

Edited September 17, 2014 by NeverSure

[ABCer]

I am very sceptical about the outcome of this confrontation.

The methods used by opponents are not conventional, not even equivalent.

As it stands today the two opposing ideologies are 'Militant Islam' and 'Political Correctness'.

The bombs cannot win over ideology.

Thus there can be no winner at the end.

In fact I cannot see the end unless the opposing sides aknowledge the obvious facts.

The examples of USA/Iraq, USA/Iran, USA/Afghanistan, USA/Osama bin Laden, Israel/"Palestinians" spring to mind.

Edited September 17, 2014 by ABCer

[NeverSure]

-snip-

As it stands today the two opposing ideologies are 'Militant Islam' and 'Political Correctness'.

Exactly. Very well said.

[Publicus]

Gen Dempsey specifically ruled out committing large unit forces such as tank an infantry divisions, so it's a relief to know the U.S. isn't going to replay undeclared wars from Korea to Vietnam to George Bush's Iraq.

The general referred only to special forces and special ops troops that are currently advisers to local friendly forces. CIA and special ops forces presently on the ground are officially advisors but just about anyone knows they are in fact participants. So are German SK Kommando units that are also on the ground with the U.S. as "advisors."

I'm not as concerned as I was on first reports about using U.S. forces on the ground if it becomes necessary to accomplish the mission. For instance, retaking Mosul from ISIS may require U.S. "advisors" to openly fight alongside local friendlies, according to what Gen Dempsey said.

Gen Dempsey said he'd have to seek the approval of Prez Obama to pursue any such adaptation of the current policy and its rules of engagement. It doesn't sound as bad after looking in to it as it could sound on the first hearing of it.

[ABCer]

Gen Dempsey specifically ruled out committing large unit forces such as tank an infantry divisions, so it's a relief to know the U.S. isn't going to replay undeclared wars from Korea to Vietnam to George Bush's Iraq.

The general referred only to special forces and special ops troops that are currently advisers to local friendly forces. CIA and special ops forces presently on the ground are officially advisors but just about anyone knows they are in fact participants. So are German SK Kommando units that are also on the ground with the U.S. as "advisors."

I'm not as concerned as I was on first reports about using U.S. forces on the ground if it becomes necessary to accomplish the mission. For instance, retaking Mosul from ISIS may require U.S. "advisors" to openly fight alongside local friendlies, according to what Gen Dempsey said.

Gen Dempsey said he'd have to seek the approval of Prez Obama to pursue any such adaptation of the current policy and its rules of engagement. It doesn't sound as bad after looking in to it as it could sound on the first hearing of it.

Gen. Dempsey...

Gen. Dempsey...

Gen. Dempsey...

With all due respect why do I hear the song: "Who's f-cking Alice?..."

The problem is, Publicus, nowadays we go to war with a shield and come back on a shield. Just like the Ancient Greeks.

Friendly forces become hostile, arms and advices are turned around, CIA projects fail, Prezzies come and go, current policies change, Generals get dismissed, etc.

Deaths are certain. On all sides. It's OK if it wouldn't be so futile...

[arjunadawn]

It won't work. It never works. Won't they learn? These bad guys hide among the population and if a non-combatant is killed the bad guys become the good guys.

I don't know of a single incident in history where a guerilla army was defeated on its own soil. Maybe it's happened. Certainly not in N. Korea or 'Nam or any of these ME conflicts.

The last time the US and/or allies outright won a war was WWII and that was pretty much "no holds barred" bombing of Germany and nuking Japan with no concern for civilians. The allies were at war with nations and that included the people who put the leaders in power or allowed them to stay in power.

It doesn't matter that we have air power and technology with stealth and drones and smart bombs and satellites and so forth. When we "namby pamby around" and don't hit hard, fast, and continuously with the intent to win, and understand it's a war, we won't win.

Boots on the ground just lose lives and we still don't win.

Great post; but there have been successfully defeated insurgencies. But in those cases, which you've also covered, they were not "namby pamby-" I am supposing that means "pussies."

[coma]

I will go out on a limb and and declare that ground troops in a combat role are a certainty. Australia doesn't deploy SASR to conduct airfield security of its aircraft contingent. Nor to brief and debrief foriegn forces like the Iraqi army or the Kurds. They will be in amongst them. Fighting side by side. Taking down HVT's and calling in airstrikes.

[arjunadawn]

Gen Dempsey specifically ruled out committing large unit forces such as tank an infantry divisions, so it's a relief to know the U.S. isn't going to replay undeclared wars from Korea to Vietnam to George Bush's Iraq.

The general referred only to special forces and special ops troops that are currently advisers to local friendly forces. CIA and special ops forces presently on the ground are officially advisors but just about anyone knows they are in fact participants. So are German SK Kommando units that are also on the ground with the U.S. as "advisors."

I'm not as concerned as I was on first reports about using U.S. forces on the ground if it becomes necessary to accomplish the mission. For instance, retaking Mosul from ISIS may require U.S. "advisors" to openly fight alongside local friendlies, according to what Gen Dempsey said.

Gen Dempsey said he'd have to seek the approval of Prez Obama to pursue any such adaptation of the current policy and its rules of engagement. It doesn't sound as bad after looking in to it as it could sound on the first hearing of it.

I will tell you what happens when they employ "advisers" in this manner. They are provided a training and supervision authority that does not include offensive action, initially. They are of course permitted any defensive actions. They train, lets say, a small force in basic desert tactics. The train them up and then provide them training targets, which of course are designed for them to be successful, even if they suck (confidence, esprit de corp). Next, the evaluation through intel and imagery of real world enemy encampments and look for "confidence targets." Once one is established they take the indigenous leadership through real planning work, and prepare for the mission. Now, they are not to be directly engaged; I am pretty damn sure of this here. Initially, a newly trained unit will not be part of any larger tactical play.

What will happen is that the advisers will either be authorized to go as far as the objective rally point (near the target), and later re-consolidate with the trained forces on the other side of the objective once the trained soldiers fight through the target and win (as their training exercise informed them they would). Problems start getting tricky from this point on. US forces are required to be on target or close to do a BDA - battle damage assessment. It is this mechanism we learn if the troops were trained, and the impact on the enemy. At this point US forces can be exposed to counter attack, etc. But this is manageable.

What is not manageable is the invariable reality that the trained soldiers will be incompetent. I have rarely seen an example where soldiers in this neighborhood were able to get to any standard of operational strength overnight- or even ever. The following conversation always takes place amongst "advisers" on the ground (who actually want to be in the fight). "They are going to f...k it up. Are we sure we cant get authority for... What if we... And cant we tell them we... " The fact is, the advisers need to be in the fight and as many times as DC avoids this fact, DC overturns this fact and allows advisers in the fight. This is the subtle mission creep of advisers in indigenous armies. These forces simply cannot win otherwise. They dont have the capacity for disseminated leadership, self initiative, accomplish the mission at any cost mindset. Moreover, even if it is their own land, they dont want to do this. This does not apply to the Kurds.

[Kasset Tak]

If only G.W. had stayed away from Iraq!

Maybe Saddam Hussein was a bad man but since the day G.W. and Tony invaded and took him out of the picture there have been fighting between the different groups in Iraq. So he was a hard man ruling as a dictator and breaking the international rules big time but in retrospect we can see that he was actually the glue and nails that hold Iraq together. ISIS would have been bombed with WMDs or mortar shells by Saddam as soon as they started to move against him, instead US killed Saddam and did let the religious fanatics run freely and now they are a major threat to our society...

Even one of my friends back home is a refuge from Iraq, he is Christian and he told me that he and his family had to flee after US attacked as it was no longer safe for them to stay there. He said that life was better under Saddam then its now in Iraq!

1. Al-qaida was supported and trained by US in the CCCP-Afghan war so that problem we can blame US.

2. ISIS could never have grown strong in Iraq if Saddam Hussein or his family would still be ruling as dictators so that we can blame US.

3. Iran was working well and was evolving then CIA got involved so we can blame it on US.

And so on...

So my opinion is that US should start clean up all the messes that they are responsible for without complaining, and then stop making new messes!!!

[Publicus]

Gen Dempsey specifically ruled out committing large unit forces such as tank an infantry divisions, so it's a relief to know the U.S. isn't going to replay undeclared wars from Korea to Vietnam to George Bush's Iraq.

The general referred only to special forces and special ops troops that are currently advisers to local friendly forces. CIA and special ops forces presently on the ground are officially advisors but just about anyone knows they are in fact participants. So are German SK Kommando units that are also on the ground with the U.S. as "advisors."

I'm not as concerned as I was on first reports about using U.S. forces on the ground if it becomes necessary to accomplish the mission. For instance, retaking Mosul from ISIS may require U.S. "advisors" to openly fight alongside local friendlies, according to what Gen Dempsey said.

Gen Dempsey said he'd have to seek the approval of Prez Obama to pursue any such adaptation of the current policy and its rules of engagement. It doesn't sound as bad after looking in to it as it could sound on the first hearing of it.

I will tell you what happens when they employ "advisers" in this manner. They are provided a training and supervision authority that does not include offensive action, initially. They are of course permitted any defensive actions. They train, lets say, a small force in basic desert tactics. The train them up and then provide them training targets, which of course are designed for them to be successful, even if they suck (confidence, esprit de corp). Next, the evaluation through intel and imagery of real world enemy encampments and look for "confidence targets." Once one is established they take the indigenous leadership through real planning work, and prepare for the mission. Now, they are not to be directly engaged; I am pretty damn sure of this here. Initially, a newly trained unit will not be part of any larger tactical play.

What will happen is that the advisers will either be authorized to go as far as the objective rally point (near the target), and later re-consolidate with the trained forces on the other side of the objective once the trained soldiers fight through the target and win (as their training exercise informed them they would). Problems start getting tricky from this point on. US forces are required to be on target or close to do a BDA - battle damage assessment. It is this mechanism we learn if the troops were trained, and the impact on the enemy. At this point US forces can be exposed to counter attack, etc. But this is manageable.

What is not manageable is the invariable reality that the trained soldiers will be incompetent. I have rarely seen an example where soldiers in this neighborhood were able to get to any standard of operational strength overnight- or even ever. The following conversation always takes place amongst "advisers" on the ground (who actually want to be in the fight). "They are going to f...k it up. Are we sure we cant get authority for... What if we... And cant we tell them we... " The fact is, the advisers need to be in the fight and as many times as DC avoids this fact, DC overturns this fact and allows advisers in the fight. This is the subtle mission creep of advisers in indigenous armies. These forces simply cannot win otherwise. They dont have the capacity for disseminated leadership, self initiative, accomplish the mission at any cost mindset. Moreover, even if it is their own land, they dont want to do this. This does not apply to the Kurds.

Thank you for the details as I'd never been there.

All the same, in this situation it definitely sounds like a plan rather than mission creep as in the past. Mission creep sounds like what it is, insidious, a less than conscious drawing in, pernicious, sort of an inevitable momentum toward an unforeseen and unhappy fate. You're doing your stuff every 24/7 then all of a sudden all you know is that you're screwed. That sinking feeling.

I of course could be wrong but it sounds and seems a lot less likely this time. Being aware and having lessons learned along with effective tactics and strategy does count for something significant.

The real variable is very likely to be in your reference to the fighters of the region. Extremist fanatics anywhere will constitute a formidable force, in their own ball park especially. The reputation of the regular armed forces of the region is considerably less than stellar. When someone asked the late General Moshe Dayan about his breathlessly astonishing 6-Day War Israeli victory, Dayan noted it was against the Arabs.

[Publicus]

Gen Dempsey specifically ruled out committing large unit forces such as tank an infantry divisions, so it's a relief to know the U.S. isn't going to replay undeclared wars from Korea to Vietnam to George Bush's Iraq.

The general referred only to special forces and special ops troops that are currently advisers to local friendly forces. CIA and special ops forces presently on the ground are officially advisors but just about anyone knows they are in fact participants. So are German SK Kommando units that are also on the ground with the U.S. as "advisors."

I'm not as concerned as I was on first reports about using U.S. forces on the ground if it becomes necessary to accomplish the mission. For instance, retaking Mosul from ISIS may require U.S. "advisors" to openly fight alongside local friendlies, according to what Gen Dempsey said.

Gen Dempsey said he'd have to seek the approval of Prez Obama to pursue any such adaptation of the current policy and its rules of engagement. It doesn't sound as bad after looking in to it as it could sound on the first hearing of it.

Gen. Dempsey...

Gen. Dempsey...

Gen. Dempsey...

With all due respect why do I hear the song: "Who's f-cking Alice?..."

The problem is, Publicus, nowadays we go to war with a shield and come back on a shield. Just like the Ancient Greeks.

Friendly forces become hostile, arms and advices are turned around, CIA projects fail, Prezzies come and go, current policies change, Generals get dismissed, etc.

Deaths are certain. On all sides. It's OK if it wouldn't be so futile...

You know what happens don't you when you put your hands up and say don't shoot.

Military commanders and politicians do learn no matter how long it may take, and perhaps both have learned something going in to this. I know you aren't saying those barbarians over there are more intelligent or more strategically agile than we are.

If this one turns out to be yet another bust the USA will have to stand alongside you hands up pleading ISIS not to shoot. I don't need to say what that would mean.

The issue is whether this time place and circumstance is the turning point. It was pointed out to the Congress yesterday that this is a generational war rather than another one of these swift and decisive cut and dry mission accomplished victories. The approach in this one is military, political, joining with effective partner allies, the local and regional ones most centrally and more that is comprehensive.

I need to find out about this one for sure because the threat here is real.

Throwing in the towel is not much of an alternative to our national survival.

[ABCer]

Sorry, Publicus, but you have missed the thrust of my argument.

Never did I mean to throw in the towel. Never did I mean to raise hands and ask not to shoot. Never did I mean to say the enemy is stupid.

Never did I worry about your national survival.

You are right, the threat is real. To the World, not to any particular Nation.

You, your Gov't and your Generals are worried about ISIS and a couple of rolled heads.

You are talking about tactics. I am talking about strategy.

Identify the threat. The very roots of it. Than go to a fight till you eliminate the threat completely. Otherwise the deaths are futile.

I am afraid we are not talking on the same level. No offence meant.

Edited September 17, 2014 by ABCer

[kamahele]

The media has been hyping this all day. What he said was that if he felt it was necessary to have advisers accompany the Iraqi and Kurdish troops in battle to advise them, he would go back to the President and make that request. He didn't say that we are sending troops to fight on the ground. He didn't even say he was thinking of it at all at the present time.

[arjunadawn]

The problem is, Publicus, nowadays we go to war with a shield and come back on a shield. Just like the Ancient Greeks.

Friendly forces become hostile, arms and advices are turned around, CIA projects fail, Prezzies come and go, current policies change, Generals get dismissed, etc.

Deaths are certain. On all sides. It's OK if it wouldn't be so futile...

This is a poignant and accurate observation, ABCer (Thank you). Everything after "The problem is..." sums it all up. "If it wouldn't be so futile" actually breaks my heart. Men and women from so many countries dying, war after muslim and nothing changes, only the inexorable march of jihad advances.

[belg]

somebody will start to regret they ousted saddam ...

why aren't there any ISLAMIC forces combatting the terrorists ?

mmhh... maybe same reasons idians and others are building the cities of dubai or in UAE

you know when SAUDI ARABIA will do something against them ? if IS will start to threathen the power/money/oil of their kings / princes / sultans

those regions are not democratic , a small minority owns everything and gets the oil proceeds ...

maybe if that day comes, they even might ask ISRAEL, to come and help

Edited September 17, 2014 by belg

[Suradit69]

It won't work. It never works. Won't they learn? These bad guys hide among the population and if a non-combatant is killed the bad guys become the good guys.

I don't know of a single incident in history where a guerilla army was defeated on its own soil. Maybe it's happened. Certainly not in N. Korea or 'Nam or any of these ME conflicts.

The last time the US and/or allies outright won a war was WWII and that was pretty much "no holds barred" bombing of Germany and nuking Japan with no concern for civilians. The allies were at war with nations and that included the people who put the leaders in power or allowed them to stay in power.

It doesn't matter that we have air power and technology with stealth and drones and smart bombs and satellites and so forth. When we "namby pamby around" and don't hit hard, fast, and continuously with the intent to win, and understand it's a war, we won't win.

Boots on the ground just lose lives and we still don't win.

"It won't work. It never works. Won't they learn?"

Well the learning curve for some of our elected officials (& failed presidential candidates) has little relationship to logic or a sense of history.

[BATHIK]

This is a poignant and accurate observation, ABCer (Thank you). Everything after "The problem is..." sums it all up. "If it wouldn't be so futile" actually breaks my heart. Men and women from so many countries dying, war after muslim and nothing changes, only the inexorable march of jihad advances.

It's not like the US hadn't been warned that this is exactly what their "war on terror" would produce but they act like gambling addicts - double down on everything after each loss. "Oh, the surge in Iraq worked in 2007, there's still hope."

[arjunadawn]

This is a poignant and accurate observation, ABCer (Thank you). Everything after "The problem is..." sums it all up. "If it wouldn't be so futile" actually breaks my heart. Men and women from so many countries dying, war after muslim and nothing changes, only the inexorable march of jihad advances.

It's not like the US hadn't been warned that this is exactly what their "war on terror" would produce but they act like gambling addicts - double down on everything after each loss. "Oh, the surge in Iraq worked in 2007, there's still hope."

I presume the "war on terror" precludes Iraq and Afghanistan; yet you address Iraq as part of the war on terror. Even the false narrative to invade Iraq didnt indicate it was due to terrorists. Are you saying that all the efforts to respond to jihad over the past 14 years should not have taken place at all (excluding hot wars)?

[BATHIK]

I presume the "war on terror" precludes Iraq and Afghanistan; yet you address Iraq as part of the war on terror. Even the false narrative to invade Iraq didnt indicate it was due to terrorists. Are you saying that all the efforts to respond to jihad over the past 14 years should not have taken place at all (excluding hot wars)?

Yes, I included Iraq into "war on terror", lots of people believed Saddam was complicit in 9/11 in those days, and after the initial invasion is was a war with Iraqi terrorists all along, that's where ISIL was born, after all.

Was there any other way to deal with Al Qaeda threat? I don't know, not actually being the Great Satan could have helped. Also ideology could have been fought with ideology, not with unmanned drones, they don't convince anyone.

The US were right that it was an asymmetrical warfare but not in the way they thought of it - it was not cruise missiles going after camels but it was bombs vs ideology. They thought bombs would scare people off jihad but it could be argued that this in itself was also terrorism - using "shock and awe" to force people to abandon their beliefs. Instead it bred resentment and determination.

Btw, "been warned" doesn't mean there was a better way, it means they should have had better expectations.

[H1w4yR1da]

Was there any other way to deal with Al Qaeda threat? I don't know, not actually being the Great Satan could have helped. Also ideology could have been fought with ideology, not with unmanned drones, they don't convince anyone.

So you believe the silly nickname given to the U.S. by some crazed ayatollah legitimises Al Qaeda? And you believe religious terrorists can be fought with ideology? How old are you? 12?

Reality attack needed here!

These people understand only one thing: force.

Its just that liberal wet lefties in the west didn't have the stomach to use enough of it.

Yeah! It's the Great Satan's fault that a bunch of Islamic crazies are running around beheading, butchering and raping their way across the middle east.

Usual apologist leftwing BS!

Edited September 17, 2014 by H1w4yR1da

[wabothai]

So what do you all suggest? We need to stop the mofos today.

[BATHIK]

These people understand only one thing: force.

Perfect example of asymmetrical approach. They tell you about all the injustices US inflicted on Muslims, you respond with force.

It is impossible to untie this knot, find the root cause, fix it, and have all jihadis in the world cheering for you. It started small, probably by Brits, and then one thing led to another until it snowballed to "Kill them all! More force! More bombs!" insanity.

There's no solution, only, perhaps, a way to manage this descend into chaos a little more skilfully.

IS could be left to fight its own battles with its fellow Iraqis, for example, and global jihadis would lose interest in those local issues pretty fast.

It would be also easier to crack down on them back home in Europe where they are all on file anyway.

Ultimately, though, it's the insatiable desire to control the whole world that creates these intractable problems. They just can't mind their own business, can they? And the amount of their hypocrisy is sickening - from Iraq to Libya to Egypt, the list is long.

[Benmart]

I'm not tactian nor a politician. Just a modern-day plebeian without any answers or useful input to a monstrously complex issue.

I ask my higher power for a peaceful resolution and continue to enjoy most of the postings from those with more insight on the matter.

[Benmart]

These people understand only one thing: force.

Perfect example of asymmetrical approach. They tell you about all the injustices US inflicted on Muslims, you respond with force.

It is impossible to untie this knot, find the root cause, fix it, and have all jihadis in the world cheering for you. It started small, probably by Brits, and then one thing led to another until it snowballed to "Kill them all! More force! More bombs!" insanity.

There's no solution, only, perhaps, a way to manage this descend into chaos a little more skilfully.

IS could be left to fight its own battles with its fellow Iraqis, for example, and global jihadis would lose interest in those local issues pretty fast.

It would be also easier to crack down on them back home in Europe where they are all on file anyway.

Ultimately, though, it's the insatiable desire to control the whole world that creates these intractable problems. They just can't mind their own business, can they? And the amount of their hypocrisy is sickening - from Iraq to Libya to Egypt, the list is long.

This situation is indeed a Gordian Knot.

The simple solution is to simply use force and cut it. Then the dilemma is to contend with the myriad of consequences that will result.

More war. More Jihads. More Fatwahs. More desire by various camps to convert, control and dominate. More hate. More medals, decorations and parades. More militarization by all concerned. More senseless deaths, graves and sorrow added to an already full vessel of despair.

[ableguy]

Gen Dempsey specifically ruled out committing large unit forces such as tank an infantry divisions, so it's a relief to know the U.S. isn't going to replay undeclared wars from Korea to Vietnam to George Bush's Iraq.

The general referred only to special forces and special ops troops that are currently advisers to local friendly forces. CIA and special ops forces presently on the ground are officially advisors but just about anyone knows they are in fact participants. So are German SK Kommando units that are also on the ground with the U.S. as "advisors."

I'm not as concerned as I was on first reports about using U.S. forces on the ground if it becomes necessary to accomplish the mission. For instance, retaking Mosul from ISIS may require U.S. "advisors" to openly fight alongside local friendlies, according to what Gen Dempsey said.

Gen Dempsey said he'd have to seek the approval of Prez Obama to pursue any such adaptation of the current policy and its rules of engagement. It doesn't sound as bad after looking in to it as it could sound on the first hearing of it.

It takes boots to guide the smart bombs, special forces, these guys are not advertised.

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been deleted.

[hawker9000]

These people understand only one thing: force.

Perfect example of asymmetrical approach. They tell you about all the injustices US inflicted on Muslims, you respond with force.

It is impossible to untie this knot, find the root cause, fix it, and have all jihadis in the world cheering for you. It started small, probably by Brits, and then one thing led to another until it snowballed to "Kill them all! More force! More bombs!" insanity.

There's no solution, only, perhaps, a way to manage this descend into chaos a little more skilfully.

IS could be left to fight its own battles with its fellow Iraqis, for example, and global jihadis would lose interest in those local issues pretty fast.

It would be also easier to crack down on them back home in Europe where they are all on file anyway.

Ultimately, though, it's the insatiable desire to control the whole world that creates these intractable problems. They just can't mind their own business, can they? And the amount of their hypocrisy is sickening - from Iraq to Libya to Egypt, the list is long.

This situation is indeed a Gordian Knot.

The simple solution is to simply use force and cut it. Then the dilemma is to contend with the myriad of consequences that will result.

More war. More Jihads. More Fatwahs. More desire by various camps to convert, control and dominate. More hate. More medals, decorations and parades. More militarization by all concerned. More senseless deaths, graves and sorrow added to an already full vessel of despair.

Jihads. Fatawa. Forced conversion. You almost got it. But it's fatally non-PC to mention the 800lb gorilla in the room. Shhhhhh! Nobody is allowed to say who or what we're really fighting... Or should I say, is fighting us. Wonder how many more caputectomies we'll have to see on youtube, and what parts of the body they have to start probing at the airport, before the light finally comes on.

Edited September 17, 2014 by hawker9000

[Publicus]

Sorry, Publicus, but you have missed the thrust of my argument.

Never did I mean to throw in the towel. Never did I mean to raise hands and ask not to shoot. Never did I mean to say the enemy is stupid.

Never did I worry about your national survival.

You are right, the threat is real. To the World, not to any particular Nation.

You, your Gov't and your Generals are worried about ISIS and a couple of rolled heads.

You are talking about tactics. I am talking about strategy.

Identify the threat. The very roots of it. Than go to a fight till you eliminate the threat completely. Otherwise the deaths are futile.

I am afraid we are not talking on the same level. No offence meant.

"The approach in this one is military, political, joining with effective partner allies, the local and regional ones most centrally, and more that is comprehensive."

You are wrong and in serious error to cherry pick my post to ignore a central statement in it, which is brought forward above, instead preferring to declare arbitrarily and to pronounce summarily I somehow fail to think geostrategically. Wrong.

The mission I support has my support because it is an inclusive strategic coalition of more than 40 diverse nations to include ME Muslim nations and which extends beyond strictly military means. The U.S. and the allies of the long term working coalition are for example going after ISIL in the same way Nato are shutting Russia out of the markets of global banking and global trade. I say this as the ruble today nosedives towards becoming a rubble due to sanctions that include a sudden decrease in the price of oil.

In geostrategic terms China and Iran are watching this comprehensive campaign and Iran is anyway much more than an observer, each of which factors you ignore in your flippant post. U.S. treaty allies and friendly countries in the Indo-Pacific strategic region are watching the resolve and efficacy of the United States in this campaign which, as I point out in my post, is strategically a generational campaign rather than a dreamland "Mission Accomplished" order of battle.

I'm afraid that whatever insidious purposes you like to try to cook up, petty and pernicious right-left political divisions are out of place in this broadly international campaign.

It's not a matter of whether I take offense to your ill-considered post. I in fact take no offense. This is primarily because the important matter is that your post be properly confronted, analyzed and appropriately disposed of, forthwith.

[Publicus]

Gen Dempsey specifically ruled out committing large unit forces such as tank an infantry divisions, so it's a relief to know the U.S. isn't going to replay undeclared wars from Korea to Vietnam to George Bush's Iraq.

The general referred only to special forces and special ops troops that are currently advisers to local friendly forces. CIA and special ops forces presently on the ground are officially advisors but just about anyone knows they are in fact participants. So are German SK Kommando units that are also on the ground with the U.S. as "advisors."

I'm not as concerned as I was on first reports about using U.S. forces on the ground if it becomes necessary to accomplish the mission. For instance, retaking Mosul from ISIS may require U.S. "advisors" to openly fight alongside local friendlies, according to what Gen Dempsey said.

Gen Dempsey said he'd have to seek the approval of Prez Obama to pursue any such adaptation of the current policy and its rules of engagement. It doesn't sound as bad after looking in to it as it could sound on the first hearing of it.

It takes boots to guide the smart bombs, special forces, these guys are not advertised.

That's what I said.

The general referred only to special forces and special ops troops that are currently advisers to local friendly forces. CIA and special ops forces presently on the ground are officially advisors but just about anyone knows they are in fact participants. So are German SK Kommando units that are also on the ground with the U.S. as "advisors."

I'm not as concerned as I was on first reports about using U.S. forces on the ground if it becomes necessary to accomplish the mission. For instance, retaking Mosul from ISIS may require U.S. "advisors" to openly fight alongside local friendlies.,

It could seem that you and I are on some measure of a common ground.