[quote]Bismark wrote:
Patton was a brilliant tactical commander and an inspired leader. He lacked strategic vision and political acumen, however. Any reincarnation of him would be woefully unsuited for strategic command in the twenty first century.[/quote]
Bullshit. His strategic vision was spot on at the time. There was little stomach for the correct action at the time though. That’s probably why he died.
[/quote]
Care to elaborate on Patton’s “spot on” views regarding grand strategy? You’re asserting that Patton was assassinated? That’s a bold claim that must be evidenced. [/quote]
Grand strategy is the purview of the statesman not the general.[/quote]
Yes, but Patton’s myopic and foolish desire to invade the USSR blurred the distinction between the two. [/quote]
It wasn’t a “foolish desire” it was merely impractical as the Russians had a 4:1 superiority in men and a 2:1 superiority in tanks at the end of hostilities.[/quote]
Without a doubt. Such a war would have cost the U.S. dearly without benefiting it proportionally. Containment was clearly the superior option and history vindicated the doctrine. [/quote]
Yes, but it wasn’t a zero sum game of the respective size and positions of the powers. The statesman firstly must consider the morale of the population. And then the stability of his own regime and his own power and influence domestically and abroad; the economy; his industrial potential and natural resources; the skill of his generals etc. And from there craft a coherent and consistent grand strategy. It’s the first and most important of these - morale - that the West lacks today. Just as it lacked it in 1945. However the stakes changed with the thermonuclear bomb at the end of the year.
If the United States and Britain had had a Machiavellian Prince instead of an Attlee, a parliament, a Truman and a Congress then undoubtably a first strike on the Soviet Union in 1946 would have been the wisest course to follow. As it turned out the Jacobins and the Stalinists quickly set about annihilated the morale of the West from within which is why we now find ourselves in the predicament we’re in. Fortunately the end will be quick as our civil societies have fractured and the old guard is busy drinking up Nietzsche’s sea.
Dude, he is one of our new trolls…don’t waste your breath.
But really good post, FTR.[/quote]
Um, yea, I probably wasted my breath. I’m a critic of my country as any reasonable person should be but I also have a lot of pride and when people talk nonsense and disrespect our contributions I get a bit fired up. I’m horrible with concise posts too. The thing is there are definitely a lot of people out there that hold those views, troll or not.[/quote]
While I agree with your post that America ( American people) have been responsible for many great things, why do you care if people criticise it, be proud of yourself and your achievements, not the piece of rock you live on.
It is like when I see people bragging about their ancestors and I ask are you proud of slavery too and obviously the answer is no. I then ask why it is legitimate to take pride and hold up the achievements of the good people of our past without doing the same and feeling shame for the bad ones.
Don’t get me wrong I feel no guilt over slavery because i didn’t take part in it, but i also don’t take credit or feel pride in the good people we had who did great stuff, because that was not me either.
[/quote]
Fair enough and you’re correct that there are many things we are not to be proud of. My posts got into a tangent responding to the squathench guy. My initial point was that we shouldn’t be afraid to call out governments that are either directly supporting IS radicals or allowing their wealthy citizens to do it without fear of reprisal.
All the US stuff was brought into the discussion to show that we are NOT slaves to Saudi Arabia or Qatar and we have no reason to feel that way. Especially when we’re not afraid of sanctioning Russia or criticizing real allies like Israel. Why should the Gulf monarchies be immune to criticism? That spun into shitting on the US and saying we would be destroyed if we dared speak out against the people funding IS.
A lot of the stuff I was saying was concerning energy, one of the few topics I consider myself well informed on. There are so many misconceptions about the energy market, particularly the US market, and I like to present the truth when I can.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Patton was a brilliant tactical commander and an inspired leader. He lacked strategic vision and political acumen, however. Any reincarnation of him would be woefully unsuited for strategic command in the twenty first century.[/quote]
Bullshit. His strategic vision was spot on at the time. There was little stomach for the correct action at the time though. That’s probably why he died.
[/quote]
Care to elaborate on Patton’s “spot on” views regarding grand strategy? You’re asserting that Patton was assassinated? That’s a bold claim that must be evidenced. [/quote]
I’m saying there’s speculation that he was assassinated. There’s plenty of evidence out there if you care to look. However my post helped take this thread on a tangent that’s not appropriate and for that I apologize.
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
I wonder how George S. Patton would have dealt with the Islamists?? We need a commander who said things like this:
“From time to time there will be some complaints that we are pushing our people too hard. I don’t give a good Goddamn about such complaints. I believe in the old and sound rule that an ounce of sweat will save a gallon of blood. The harder WE push, the more Germans we will kill. The more Germans we kill, the fewer of our men will be killed. Pushing means fewer casualties. I want you all to remember that.”
“Men, this stuff that some sources sling around about America wanting out of this war, not wanting to fight, is a crock of bullshit. Americans love to fight, traditionally. All real Americans love the sting and clash of battle…Americans love a winner. Americans will not tolerate a loser. Americans despise cowards. Americans play to win all of the time. I wouldn’t give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed. That’s why Americans have never lost nor will ever lose a war; for the very idea of losing is hateful to an American.”
"My men don’t surrender, I don’t want to hear of any soldier under my command being captured unless he has been hit. Even if you are hit, you can still fight back. That’s not just bull shit either. The kind of man that I want in my command is just like the lieutenant in Libya, who, with a Luger against his chest, jerked off his helmet, swept the gun aside with one hand, and busted the hell out of the Kraut with his helmet…
“We’ll win this war, but we’ll win it only by fighting and by showing the Germans that we’ve got more guts than they have; or ever will have. We’re not going to just shoot the sons-of-bitches, we’re going to rip out their living Goddamned guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks. We’re going to murder those lousy Hun cocksuckers by the bushel-fucking-basket. War is a bloody, killing business. You’ve got to spill their blood, or they will spill yours. Rip them up the belly. Shoot them in the guts. When shells are hitting all around you and you wipe the dirt off your face and realize that instead of dirt it’s the blood and guts of what once was your best friend beside you, you’ll know what to do!”
“I don’t want to get any messages saying, “I am holding my position.” We are not holding a Goddamned thing. Let the Germans do that. We are advancing constantly and we are not interested in holding onto anything, except the enemy’s balls. We are going to twist his balls and kick the living shit out of him all of the time. Our basic plan of operation is to advance and to keep on advancing regardless of whether we have to go over, under, or through the enemy. We are going to go through him like crap through a goose; like shit through a tin horn!”
"There is one great thing that you men will all be able to say after this war is over and you are home once again. You may be thankful that twenty years from now when you are sitting by the fireplace with your grandson on your knee and he asks you what you did in the great World War II, you WON’T have to cough, shift him to the other knee and say, “Well, your Granddaddy shoveled shit in Louisiana.” No, Sir, you can look him straight in the eye and say, “Son, your Granddaddy rode with the Great Third Army and a Son-of-a-Goddamned-Bitch named Georgie Patton!”[/quote]
Patton was a brilliant tactical commander and an inspired leader. He lacked strategic vision and political acumen, however. Any reincarnation of him would be woefully unsuited for strategic command in the twenty first century.[/quote]
Ha. I can tell you never served from that statement. Same was said in some quarters about Schwarzkopf. We need a atypical leader for an atypical enemy. This enemy will require ground troops at some point. How many, we will see. The solider on the ground, and the leaders who command them, is quite different that academic theory. [/quote]
Conventional ground forces will be required, but not American ones. U.S. SOF should be the extent of American assets on the ground, conducting kill/capture missions once U.S. Air power forces ISIS to devolve from a relatively conventional army to insurgents embedded with the populace. Where did I refer to "academic theory " in my post? [/quote]
Is this opinion coming from personal experience or a book?[/quote]
Small minds can’t help but to avoid addressing the merit of the argument itself.[/quote]
If you were in charge, we’d all sleep better at night.
Q: Is your opinions from personal experience? Yes or no.[/quote]
Address the substance of my post and I will answer your question. I have extended the same courtesy to you.
US Army is only half a million strong and dropping. It’s at its lowest level since pre-WWII.
[/quote]
This isn’t necessarily an unwelcome development. [/quote]
Well it’s not unwelcome to our enemies that’s true.[/quote]
The U.S. military doesn’t need to maintain the same force structure as it has in the past. America is also blessed geographically. To the north and south lie friendly and weak states. To the west and east vast oceans significantly stymie the power projection capabilities of potential adversaries. The lack of contiguous geography with a rival great power allows the U.S. to act as an offshore balancer to prevent the establishment of peer regional hegemons.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
The U.S. military doesn’t need to maintain the same force structure as it has in the past. America is also blessed geographically.[/quote]
If anything, it needs to maintain a greater force now, because the geographic advantages are no longer relevant.
At the very least, the U.S. needs to maintain a very strong naval and air presence.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
To the north and south lie friendly and weak states. To the west and east vast oceans significantly stymie the power projection capabilities of potential adversaries. The lack of contiguous geography with a rival great power allows the U.S. to act as an offshore balancer to prevent the establishment of peer regional hegemons.
[/quote]
The development of carriers and modern naval and aerial capacities have made this not really relevant anymore. Look at WWII and the Japanese…
I mean, there’s a very good reason why the U.S. maintains such an enormous naval advantage over all its competitors and take it seriously whenever said competitors attempt to increase their own naval capacities.
Dude, he is one of our new trolls…don’t waste your breath.
But really good post, FTR.[/quote]
Um, yea, I probably wasted my breath. I’m a critic of my country as any reasonable person should be but I also have a lot of pride and when people talk nonsense and disrespect our contributions I get a bit fired up. I’m horrible with concise posts too. The thing is there are definitely a lot of people out there that hold those views, troll or not.[/quote]
While I agree with your post that America ( American people) have been responsible for many great things, why do you care if people criticise it, be proud of yourself and your achievements, not the piece of rock you live on.
It is like when I see people bragging about their ancestors and I ask are you proud of slavery too and obviously the answer is no. I then ask why it is legitimate to take pride and hold up the achievements of the good people of our past without doing the same and feeling shame for the bad ones.
Don’t get me wrong I feel no guilt over slavery because i didn’t take part in it, but i also don’t take credit or feel pride in the good people we had who did great stuff, because that was not me either.
[/quote]
Fair enough and you’re correct that there are many things we are not to be proud of. My posts got into a tangent responding to the squathench guy. My initial point was that we shouldn’t be afraid to call out governments that are either directly supporting IS radicals or allowing their wealthy citizens to do it without fear of reprisal.
All the US stuff was brought into the discussion to show that we are NOT slaves to Saudi Arabia or Qatar and we have no reason to feel that way. Especially when we’re not afraid of sanctioning Russia or criticizing real allies like Israel. Why should the Gulf monarchies be immune to criticism? That spun into shitting on the US and saying we would be destroyed if we dared speak out against the people funding IS.
A lot of the stuff I was saying was concerning energy, one of the few topics I consider myself well informed on. There are so many misconceptions about the energy market, particularly the US market, and I like to present the truth when I can. [/quote]
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Conventional ground forces will be required, but not American ones. U.S. SOF should be the extent of American assets on the ground, conducting kill/capture missions once U.S. Air power forces ISIS to devolve from a relatively conventional army to insurgents embedded with the populace. Where did I refer to "academic theory " in my post? [/quote]
[quote]
Address the substance of my post and I will answer your question. I have extended the same courtesy to you. [/quote]
I will regurgitate what I posted in the Iraq thread.
U.S. conventional forces will be needed. We would lead a coalition of personnel including forcing from other nations a dissident fighters within the region.
– We have to get the Sunni tribes on our side, but to do that we have to convince them of their future safety, most of the Sunni are siding with the ISIS for protection from the current government.
– Replace the current government, who they know cannot be trusted to live up to any agreements. This will trigger a war with the Shia militias (probably happen anyway when you have to stop them from massacring any Sunni they can). So this will take ground troops, from all Western nations.
– Pay/bribe Sunni tribe leaders in Iraq and Syria to help us. Pay them whatever it fucking takes. (oh, like we did previously). State dept. can handle that.
– I agree on the special forces. Use SF to train moderate opposition forces in Syria and the Kurds to better fight the Khilafah forces.
– Go after their financial infrastructure, their transportation infrastructure, their means of production, etc.
– Use air AND ground forces to deprive them of their crude oil production and refinery assets as well as the dam. Put them all on foot.
– Go after anyone helping them to smuggle oil out to a market.
– Destroy their warehouses and ammo dumps. Again, U.S. troops and airpower.
We also need some kind of enforcement mechanism to keep things from falling apart again and starting all over again. The restriction will be abrogated as soon as possible by succeeding Shia government. So figure on having to stay a good deal longer, say 20 years. But of course, Obama would never commit to this. That’s why containment would be our only option by default. Obummer lacks the leadership and the balls to do what it takes to defeat ISIL. And that’s to eradicate them.
So what, we should be the moral equivalent of the Mongols and wipe out entire populations…
[/quote]
Ahhh, evidence you don’t know your history. I thought as much.
The Mongols were noted for leaving infrastructure and civilian populations intact.
This might be the most insane statement on the Mongols ever, they were known for leaving civilians populations intact! Holy shit that is not the case. Before some of the Chinese advisors from the conquered lands started to act as advisors to the Khan he would simply wipe out the native population and clear the lands for Mongol farming. It took the chinese explaining if he left some of the population alive he could tax them.
Modern historians put the death toll from the genocide committed in the siege of Baghdad at 200,000 to 1 million! Others count as high as two million factoring in those who died afterwards from starvation and other related deaths.
They rounded up the civilian population and executed the in front of the Caliph and plundered the city, destroyed all the literature and most of the great achievements of what was at the time, the most progressive place on earth.
The river Tigris ran black with ink from the books from the grand library, they killed all the Caliph’s sons, executed all the philosophers and scientists and then killed the Calih by rolling him up in a carpet and trampling him to death with their horse.
They then left. However squads on horseback were sent back days later to catch the survivors who hid while they came out to bury their dead and try and survive in the aftermath of the slaughter, thousands more were killed.
They purposefully ruined the irrigation systems and canals and lay waste to the agriculture, the overall destruction and ruin is the main reason most modern historians give for the stunted development of the Islamic world.
They wiped out millions of civilians and their brutality has never been matched, for example the population of Iran only reached its pre mongol invasion levels in the mid twentieth century!
I don’t claim to be the smartest person around, I am still learning and reading and developing but one subject I have done more than my fair share of reading and research on is the step people, their rise to arguably the biggest empire ever and their eventual decline. Their customs and intra-conflicts.
If you don’t wish to go to as great of a level of research of the mongols as I did I would recommend an American conservative’s podcast called Dan Carlin’s horrible histories. He has a few 3-5 hour podcasts where he goes over the entire timeline of the mongols and only uses information he has sources for and names them as he goes through the history.
The mongols were huge fans of flaying, specific cases are cited by Carlin where the mongols flayed the skin from civilians and made other civilians eat the skin.
He also goes over how when times were really tough they would kill a horse and drink the blood and eat the organs and intestines raw, when they got even tougher they would pick straws and eat soldiers. They might be some of the toughest sons of bitches in history.
However to say we should emulate them, is Anti American anti freedom and generally puts you in the same category as people who say we should emulate Mao, Stalin, Hitler, the British Empire, Rome, Vandal and Visigoth rule.
You can’t support the constitution and support being like an empire simultaneously, they are mutually exclusive.[/quote]
Mongol farming? Lol. They didn’t farm they were hunter gatherers who lived in tents.
[/quote]
This really shows you have pretty much zero knowledge of the Mongol empire. In the lands they conquered they would kill the local inhabitants and mongols would settle there and either kill all the local farmers and take their farm land and turn it into pastures for grazing or they would force them to farm and the farm would belong to the Mongols.
As the might of the Mongol empire grew and grew, they grew in turn, with mongol settlers farming crops and he formerly savage looking warriors now dressing in fine silks and often converting to Christianity or Islam.
Basically, like most other nomadic peoples who were successful in their attempts to conquer, ended up assimilating with the people they conquered, just like the goths and the Romans.
To think the Mongols never grew past the savage nomad archetype is to display a distinct lack of understanding of their evolution as a people.[/quote]
Please show me a painting of a Mongol farmer. Not saying they didn’t assimilate into the local population. The people they conquered probably were forced to farm, but I seriously doubt they became farmers themselves. They still lived a nomadic life style when the Russians attacked their ancestors the Khazakhs, Kyrghiz and Uzbegs. There’s accounts of this.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
The U.S. military doesn’t need to maintain the same force structure as it has in the past. America is also blessed geographically.[/quote]
If anything, it needs to maintain a greater force now, because the geographic advantages are no longer relevant.
At the very least, the U.S. needs to maintain a very strong naval and air presence.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
To the north and south lie friendly and weak states. To the west and east vast oceans significantly stymie the power projection capabilities of potential adversaries. The lack of contiguous geography with a rival great power allows the U.S. to act as an offshore balancer to prevent the establishment of peer regional hegemons.
[/quote]
The development of carriers and modern naval and aerial capacities have made this not really relevant anymore. Look at WWII and the Japanese…
I mean, there’s a very good reason why the U.S. maintains such an enormous naval advantage over all its competitors and take it seriously whenever said competitors attempt to increase their own naval capacities.[/quote]
This is a question of what’s known in international relations as the “offense-defense balance.” Basically, it is a question whether offensive or defensive weapon systems and tactics have an advantage over their counterpart. For example, WWI took place in an era of defensive dominance, which explains the stalemate on the western front. The widespread development and deployment of sophisticated area denial/anti-access (AD/A2) weapon systems in the twenty fest century will likely make this century one where defense also has a marked advantage over offense.
So what, we should be the moral equivalent of the Mongols and wipe out entire populations…
[/quote]
Ahhh, evidence you don’t know your history. I thought as much.
The Mongols were noted for leaving infrastructure and civilian populations intact.
This might be the most insane statement on the Mongols ever, they were known for leaving civilians populations intact! Holy shit that is not the case. Before some of the Chinese advisors from the conquered lands started to act as advisors to the Khan he would simply wipe out the native population and clear the lands for Mongol farming. It took the chinese explaining if he left some of the population alive he could tax them.
Modern historians put the death toll from the genocide committed in the siege of Baghdad at 200,000 to 1 million! Others count as high as two million factoring in those who died afterwards from starvation and other related deaths.
They rounded up the civilian population and executed the in front of the Caliph and plundered the city, destroyed all the literature and most of the great achievements of what was at the time, the most progressive place on earth.
The river Tigris ran black with ink from the books from the grand library, they killed all the Caliph’s sons, executed all the philosophers and scientists and then killed the Calih by rolling him up in a carpet and trampling him to death with their horse.
They then left. However squads on horseback were sent back days later to catch the survivors who hid while they came out to bury their dead and try and survive in the aftermath of the slaughter, thousands more were killed.
They purposefully ruined the irrigation systems and canals and lay waste to the agriculture, the overall destruction and ruin is the main reason most modern historians give for the stunted development of the Islamic world.
They wiped out millions of civilians and their brutality has never been matched, for example the population of Iran only reached its pre mongol invasion levels in the mid twentieth century!
I don’t claim to be the smartest person around, I am still learning and reading and developing but one subject I have done more than my fair share of reading and research on is the step people, their rise to arguably the biggest empire ever and their eventual decline. Their customs and intra-conflicts.
If you don’t wish to go to as great of a level of research of the mongols as I did I would recommend an American conservative’s podcast called Dan Carlin’s horrible histories. He has a few 3-5 hour podcasts where he goes over the entire timeline of the mongols and only uses information he has sources for and names them as he goes through the history.
The mongols were huge fans of flaying, specific cases are cited by Carlin where the mongols flayed the skin from civilians and made other civilians eat the skin.
He also goes over how when times were really tough they would kill a horse and drink the blood and eat the organs and intestines raw, when they got even tougher they would pick straws and eat soldiers. They might be some of the toughest sons of bitches in history.
However to say we should emulate them, is Anti American anti freedom and generally puts you in the same category as people who say we should emulate Mao, Stalin, Hitler, the British Empire, Rome, Vandal and Visigoth rule.
You can’t support the constitution and support being like an empire simultaneously, they are mutually exclusive.[/quote]
Mongol farming? Lol. They didn’t farm they were hunter gatherers who lived in tents.
[/quote]
This really shows you have pretty much zero knowledge of the Mongol empire. In the lands they conquered they would kill the local inhabitants and mongols would settle there and either kill all the local farmers and take their farm land and turn it into pastures for grazing or they would force them to farm and the farm would belong to the Mongols.
As the might of the Mongol empire grew and grew, they grew in turn, with mongol settlers farming crops and he formerly savage looking warriors now dressing in fine silks and often converting to Christianity or Islam.
Basically, like most other nomadic peoples who were successful in their attempts to conquer, ended up assimilating with the people they conquered, just like the goths and the Romans.
To think the Mongols never grew past the savage nomad archetype is to display a distinct lack of understanding of their evolution as a people.[/quote]
Please show me a painting of a Mongol farmer. Not saying they didn’t assimilate into the local population. The people they conquered probably were forced to farm, but I seriously doubt they became farmers themselves. They still lived a nomadic life style when the Russians attacked their ancestors the Khazakhs, Kyrghiz and Uzbegs. There’s accounts of this.
[/quote]
The Mongols were smart. They became farmers of… exotic women.
I will regurgitate what I posted in the Iraq thread.
U.S. conventional forces will be needed. We would lead a coalition of personnel including forcing from other nations a dissident fighters within the region.
– We have to get the Sunni tribes on our side, but to do that we have to convince them of their future safety, most of the Sunni are siding with the ISIS for protection from the current government.
– Replace the current government, who they know cannot be trusted to live up to any agreements. This will trigger a war with the Shia militias (probably happen anyway when you have to stop them from massacring any Sunni they can). So this will take ground troops, from all Western nations.
– Pay/bribe Sunni tribe leaders in Iraq and Syria to help us. Pay them whatever it fucking takes. (oh, like we did previously). State dept. can handle that.
– I agree on the special forces. Use SF to train moderate opposition forces in Syria and the Kurds to better fight the Khilafah forces.
– Go after their financial infrastructure, their transportation infrastructure, their means of production, etc.
– Use air AND ground forces to deprive them of their crude oil production and refinery assets as well as the dam. Put them all on foot.
– Go after anyone helping them to smuggle oil out to a market.
– Destroy their warehouses and ammo dumps. Again, U.S. troops and airpower.
We also need some kind of enforcement mechanism to keep things from falling apart again and starting all over again. The restriction will be abrogated as soon as possible by succeeding Shia government. So figure on having to stay a good deal longer, say 20 years. But of course, Obama would never commit to this. That’s why containment would be our only option by default. Obummer lacks the leadership and the balls to do what it takes to defeat ISIL. And that’s to eradicate them.
[/quote]
So, basically the Shia (not matter how creepy they are) are the anti-ISIS faction, and you would want to wage war against them? Smart.
The US of A tried that and it spectacularly failed. After that failure, they relented and gave the Iraqi government to the Shias. Don’t kid yourself, the current “Iraqi army” is the shia sectarian army, which has no interest in defending sunni towns.
This clusterfuck in the Middle East is the direct consequence of decades that the US of A was doing the Saudi Arabia bidding and spending billions and billions of dollars, men and materiel to achieve Wahabbist goals and paradoxically strengthen its enemies.
Ten years later and one American military power spent, you go from a secular murdering dictator to a safe haven for a bunch of apocalyptic incredibly brutal lunatics who want to take over the world.
Only you guys can wage wars FOR your enemies, not against them (the Saudis, Pakistan…)
Now, only when the shit hits the fan, do you revert (but only for a split second) to your natural allies in the Middle East - Assad and the Iranians. Naturally, after initial overtures, the Saudi and the Qataris start their hysterical theatrical act (“stop them before we stop them ourselves”)and step up their lobbying efforts and ta-da - fighting Iran and shia becomes priority once again, against all common logic.
Just to be clear - Assad is a brutal mass murderer, and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards (who actually run the country) are ruthless thugs, whose behavior is very similar to the Soviet Union of old but in the Middle Eastern framework. But they are rational, despite paying lip service to the standard anti-USA anti-Israel vocabulary.
If you want to deal with ISIS, cut their funding and cripple them financially and root them out, you have to go in the glitzy skyscrapers of Doha and the palaces in Riyadh, where the proverbial checks are being written and organization and strategic issues are decided. Who is paying for the Chechen mercenaries and the recruiting networks in the mosques throughout Europe?
Otherwise, you’ll have the same situation you had in Pakistan - where the US military envoys were discussing fighting the Taliban with the Pakistanis, while at the precisely the same moment ISIS chiefs were actively coordinating actions against coalition forces just a few hundred yards away.
As we all tend to do, I decided to sit down earlier today and do a bit more ‘research’ on the current situation. One of the things which struck me the most is, broadly speaking, the sheer level of infighting, division and downright hostility between IS and various other militant factions. I knew it existed - it invariably always does - but I just didn’t realize how significant it was.
As just one example, I was reading about one of the semi-independant Chechen factions out there; this bunch have been instrumental in some serious rebel victories but while IS respects its military prowess and contributions so far it is extremely unhappy about the group’s apparent unwillingness to completely embrace the IS transnational fold and drop their own distinctive character and cultural/ethnic ties…
This kind of division is a blessing. Long may it last…
On a separate note, my thoughts are still with the family of James Foley. Have watched a few more clips of them on the news and am simply overcome with their dignity, bearing and even eloquence in the face of their terrible loss…
I will regurgitate what I posted in the Iraq thread.
U.S. conventional forces will be needed. We would lead a coalition of personnel including forcing from other nations a dissident fighters within the region.
– We have to get the Sunni tribes on our side, but to do that we have to convince them of their future safety, most of the Sunni are siding with the ISIS for protection from the current government.
– Replace the current government, who they know cannot be trusted to live up to any agreements. This will trigger a war with the Shia militias (probably happen anyway when you have to stop them from massacring any Sunni they can). So this will take ground troops, from all Western nations.
– Pay/bribe Sunni tribe leaders in Iraq and Syria to help us. Pay them whatever it fucking takes. (oh, like we did previously). State dept. can handle that.
– I agree on the special forces. Use SF to train moderate opposition forces in Syria and the Kurds to better fight the Khilafah forces.
– Go after their financial infrastructure, their transportation infrastructure, their means of production, etc.
– Use air AND ground forces to deprive them of their crude oil production and refinery assets as well as the dam. Put them all on foot.
– Go after anyone helping them to smuggle oil out to a market.
– Destroy their warehouses and ammo dumps. Again, U.S. troops and airpower.
We also need some kind of enforcement mechanism to keep things from falling apart again and starting all over again. The restriction will be abrogated as soon as possible by succeeding Shia government. So figure on having to stay a good deal longer, say 20 years. But of course, Obama would never commit to this. That’s why containment would be our only option by default. Obummer lacks the leadership and the balls to do what it takes to defeat ISIL. And that’s to eradicate them.
[/quote]
So, basically the Shia (not matter how creepy they are) are the anti-ISIS faction, and you would want to wage war against them? Smart.
The US of A tried that and it spectacularly failed. After that failure, they relented and gave the Iraqi government to the Shias. Don’t kid yourself, the current “Iraqi army” is the shia sectarian army, which has no interest in defending sunni towns.
This clusterfuck in the Middle East is the direct consequence of decades that the US of A was doing the Saudi Arabia bidding and spending billions and billions of dollars, men and materiel to achieve Wahabbist goals and paradoxically strengthen its enemies.
Ten years later and one American military power spent, you go from a secular murdering dictator to a safe haven for a bunch of apocalyptic incredibly brutal lunatics who want to take over the world.
Only you guys can wage wars FOR your enemies, not against them (the Saudis, Pakistan…)
Now, only when the shit hits the fan, do you revert (but only for a split second) to your natural allies in the Middle East - Assad and the Iranians. Naturally, after initial overtures, the Saudi and the Qataris start their hysterical theatrical act (“stop them before we stop them ourselves”)and step up their lobbying efforts and ta-da - fighting Iran and shia becomes priority once again, against all common logic.
Just to be clear - Assad is a brutal mass murderer, and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards (who actually run the country) are ruthless thugs, whose behavior is very similar to the Soviet Union of old but in the Middle Eastern framework. But they are rational, despite paying lip service to the standard anti-USA anti-Israel vocabulary.
If you want to deal with ISIS, cut their funding and cripple them financially and root them out, you have to go in the glitzy skyscrapers of Doha and the palaces in Riyadh, where the proverbial checks are being written and organization and strategic issues are decided. Who is paying for the Chechen mercenaries and the recruiting networks in the mosques throughout Europe?
Otherwise, you’ll have the same situation you had in Pakistan - where the US military envoys were discussing fighting the Taliban with the Pakistanis, while at the precisely the same moment ISIS chiefs were actively coordinating actions against coalition forces just a few hundred yards away.[/quote]