US sending new special ops force to fight Islamic State

[webfact]

US sending new special ops force to fight Islamic State
By DEB RIECHMANN

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. military will deploy a new special operations force to Iraq to step up the fight against Islamic State militants who are unleashing violence and are determined to hold territory they have seized in Iraq and Syria, Defense Secretary Ash Carter told Congress on Tuesday.

The introduction of the assault force puts U.S. combat troops on the ground in a more permanent role in Iraq and Syria for the first time in the year-plus fight against IS. It comes as Republicans have called for more U.S. boots on the ground, while war-weary Americans stand divided about the prospect of greater military involvement.

Carter, who testified alongside Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, faced skeptical lawmakers who argued that the U.S. needs to be more forceful in countering the threat from IS, credited with attacks in Paris and Beirut and the downing of a Russian airliner.

Carter told the House Armed Services Committee that over time, the special operations force will be able to conduct raids, free hostages, gather intelligence and capture IS leaders. Carter said that will improve intelligence and generate more targets for attacks.

There currently are about 3,300 U.S. troops in Iraq, and President Barack Obama had previously announced he was sending fewer than 50 special operations forces to Syria.

Carter said the number in the new expeditionary force will be "larger" than 50. He said it will be a "standing" force, meaning it will be stationed in Iraq. He said it would focus on helping Iraq defend its borders and build its security forces, but also would be in position to conduct unilateral operations into Syria.

"This is an important capability because it takes advantage of what we're good at," Carter said. "We're good at intelligence, we're good at mobility, we're good at surprise. We have the long reach that no one else has. And it puts everybody on notice in Syria. You don't know at night who's going to be coming in the window. And that's the sensation that we want all of ISIL's leadership and followers to have."

According to a U.S. official, the force could total up to a couple hundred troops, including the assault teams, aviation units and other support units. It would likely be based in Irbil. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the individual was not authorized to publicly discuss military planning.

Obama has set the maximum number of U.S. troops at 3,550, but it was not clear whether the president will increase that number to accommodate the force, or whether the teams would have to be built within the current limit.

Polling after the attacks in Paris and Beirut found Americans divided over sending U.S. ground troops to fight IS. A Gallup survey said 47 percent of Americans favored sending more ground troops to Iraq and Syria and 46 percent were opposed.

Republican Sen. John McCain called the move a "belated step forward" in the fight against IS. Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy warned that "the slow buildup of U.S. combat soldiers inside Syria and Iraq risks repeating the mistake of the Iraq War - believing that extremism can be defeated by U.S. troops absent local political and military capacity."

Carter said the force might be American-only, but more likely would be mixed with Kurdish troops or others who are fighting the militants. He said the new force would conduct operations similar to two conducted earlier this year.

In October, U.S. special operations troops and Iraqi forces raided a compound in northern Iraq, freeing about 70 Iraqi prisoners who were facing execution. One U.S. service member was killed in the raid, the first American combat death in Iraq since the U.S. began its campaign against IS in August 2014.

In May, a Delta Force raid in Syria killed IS financier Abu Sayyaf, yielding intelligence about the group's structure and finances. His wife, held in Iraq, has been cooperating with interrogators.

Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, the chairman of the committee, said the U.S. military effort must be bolstered and directed by the military and not "White House aides micromanaging" military operations.

"If we're going to be serious about ISIS, the president needs to assign the military a clear mission and then allow the military to carry it out," Thornberry said, using another acronym for the militant network.

Rep. Adam Smith of Washington state, the top Democrat on the committee, said the group needs to be defeated, not just contained. He said IS gains strength by claiming to be fighting against Western aggression.

"If all we have is Western aggression, we will never win," he said.

Carter said air strikes in recent weeks have destroyed IS oil wells, processing facilities and nearly 400 oil tanker-trucks. Dunford said about 43 percent of the revenue that IS derives from oil has been affected by the recent strikes and said the U.S. also is targeting cement and other industries from which IS draws funds.

Carter said U.S-backed local forces in Syria are engaging IS fighters in the last remaining pocket of access between Syria and Turkey to the north. The U.S. also is helping a coalition of Syrian Arabs in northeastern Syria, fighting alongside Kurdish forces, that has pushed IS out of the town of al-Hawl and at least 347 square miles of surrounding territory.
___

Associated Press writers Lolita C. Baldor and Robert Burns contributed to this report.


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-12-02

[ukrules]

Carter said U.S-backed local forces in Syria are engaging IS fighters in the last remaining pocket of access between Syria and Turkey to the north. The U.S. also is helping a coalition of Syrian Arabs in northeastern Syria, fighting alongside Kurdish forces, that has pushed IS out of the town of al-Hawl and at least 347 square miles of surrounding territory.

Yeah, I'm sure thats what's really happening.

[craigt3365]

Carter said U.S-backed local forces in Syria are engaging IS fighters in the last remaining pocket of access between Syria and Turkey to the north. The U.S. also is helping a coalition of Syrian Arabs in northeastern Syria, fighting alongside Kurdish forces, that has pushed IS out of the town of al-Hawl and at least 347 square miles of surrounding territory.

Yeah, I'm sure thats what's really happening.

Why wouldn't it be happening?

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

The United States and its coalition partners have targeted ISIS with 8,216 airstrikes -- 5,383 in Iraq and 2,833 in Syria, through November 16, the Pentagon says.

Through the end of October, the United States struck ISIS 5,473 times, compared with 1,574 strikes by other countries in the coalition, including Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Jordan, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates.

[KC 71]

Ahh the new world order eh !

[klauskunkel]

We're good at intelligence, we're good at mobility, we're good at surprise.

We are not so good at identifying targets, we are a bit shitty at understanding the whole picture, we are <deleted> at follow through.

[retarius]

I'm wondering if Mr Putin hasn't gone into Syria with the objective of dragging US boots back into Iraq and Syria for a really, really long war.

Most of the population is in the West, and Assad supported by Putin is rapidly consolidating there, yesterday the last fighters in Homs negotiated a safe passage out. The rebel fighters left in the villages are increasingly isolated and difficult to resupply, and it is reported in ME press that many are surrendering with their lives in exchange for a pledge to cease their part in the rebellion and/or to join the Syrian army. Putin's force is really very small 100 or so planes and a bit of support, but they are stunningly efficient and make hundreds of strikes per day, (compared to the US coalition which made 13 strikes yesterday from hundreds of aircraft) so for a relatively small expenditure he, Putin, is setting the pace.

IS hold the east of Syria which is desert, and where there are very few major towns. I suspect the US already know they cannot defeat IS with airpower in the desert. IS positions are small collections of fighters in small villages and towns along major highways; there isn't a large troop concentration anywhere to bomb, you literally have to bomb hundred of small towns and villages...death by 1000 cuts. Boots on the ground is the only cure for this and after winning back villages and towns, then a long guerrilla warfare campaign of many years a al VietNam where in every village you pass through you don't know whether the locals are supporting you or not. The quagmire...and the US is walking right into it.

[ToddinChonburi]

Go get them boy,s !!!

[craigt3365]

We are not so good at identifying targets, we are a bit shitty at understanding the whole picture, we are <deleted> at follow through.

Are you talking about Russia? LOL

[craigt3365]

I'm wondering if Mr Putin hasn't gone into Syria with the objective of dragging US boots back into Iraq and Syria for a really, really long war.

Most of the population is in the West, and Assad supported by Putin is rapidly consolidating there, yesterday the last fighters in Homs negotiated a safe passage out. The rebel fighters left in the villages are increasingly isolated and difficult to resupply, and it is reported in ME press that many are surrendering with their lives in exchange for a pledge to cease their part in the rebellion and/or to join the Syrian army. Putin's force is really very small 100 or so planes and a bit of support, but they are stunningly efficient and make hundreds of strikes per day, (compared to the US coalition which made 13 strikes yesterday from hundreds of aircraft) so for a relatively small expenditure he, Putin, is setting the pace.

IS hold the east of Syria which is desert, and where there are very few major towns. I suspect the US already know they cannot defeat IS with airpower in the desert. IS positions are small collections of fighters in small villages and towns along major highways; there isn't a large troop concentration anywhere to bomb, you literally have to bomb hundred of small towns and villages...death by 1000 cuts. Boots on the ground is the only cure for this and after winning back villages and towns, then a long guerrilla warfare campaign of many years a al VietNam where in every village you pass through you don't know whether the locals are supporting you or not. The quagmire...and the US is walking right into it.

13 strikes yesterday? 280 were reported the day before.

[klauskunkel]

We are not so good at identifying targets, we are a bit shitty at understanding the whole picture, we are <deleted> at follow through.

Are you talking about Russia? LOL

same, same, but different accent

[arjunadawn]

Carter said U.S-backed local forces in Syria are engaging IS fighters in the last remaining pocket of access between Syria and Turkey to the north. The U.S. also is helping a coalition of Syrian Arabs in northeastern Syria, fighting alongside Kurdish forces, that has pushed IS out of the town of al-Hawl and at least 347 square miles of surrounding territory.

Yeah, I'm sure thats what's really happening.

Why wouldn't it be happening?

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

The United States and its coalition partners have targeted ISIS with 8,216 airstrikes -- 5,383 in Iraq and 2,833 in Syria, through November 16, the Pentagon says.

Through the end of October, the United States struck ISIS 5,473 times, compared with 1,574 strikes by other countries in the coalition, including Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Jordan, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates.

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.

[Dap]

For chissakes, why can't these idiots in charge just

do it and shut the <deleted>up! Too much like Thai Pol

media releases. Stop blowin' yer horns, jeopardizing

our guys lives and show us nothing but results.

Explanations can come later.

[up-country_sinclair]

While Daesh does pose a threat to the US, this is not America's problem to solve.

The militaries of the Gulf nations are armed to the teeth and have a massive number of soldiers, but most importantly, this is really their problem.

[AlexRRR]

I'm wondering if Mr Putin hasn't gone into Syria with the objective of dragging US boots back into Iraq and Syria for a really, really long war.

Most of the population is in the West, and Assad supported by Putin is rapidly consolidating there, yesterday the last fighters in Homs negotiated a safe passage out. The rebel fighters left in the villages are increasingly isolated and difficult to resupply, and it is reported in ME press that many are surrendering with their lives in exchange for a pledge to cease their part in the rebellion and/or to join the Syrian army. Putin's force is really very small 100 or so planes and a bit of support, but they are stunningly efficient and make hundreds of strikes per day, (compared to the US coalition which made 13 strikes yesterday from hundreds of aircraft) so for a relatively small expenditure he, Putin, is setting the pace.

IS hold the east of Syria which is desert, and where there are very few major towns. I suspect the US already know they cannot defeat IS with airpower in the desert. IS positions are small collections of fighters in small villages and towns along major highways; there isn't a large troop concentration anywhere to bomb, you literally have to bomb hundred of small towns and villages...death by 1000 cuts. Boots on the ground is the only cure for this and after winning back villages and towns, then a long guerrilla warfare campaign of many years a al VietNam where in every village you pass through you don't know whether the locals are supporting you or not. The quagmire...and the US is walking right into it.

Im so surprised you think like that...............its god dam obvious to half the world whats going on.

[Morch]

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.

[arjunadawn]

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.

[Morch]

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.

[arjunadawn]

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.

[Morch]

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).