Well, here we go again (ISIS/ISIL/Daesh War)

[Ragnar Hogbrok]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/11/us-mideast-crisis-congress-authorization-idUSKBN0LF1KP20150211

The President has requested authorization from Congress to wage a war against ISIS/ISIL/Daesh that would be "limited" in size and last three years.

QUAGMIRE here we come.  This "limited" business always results in stalemate and unnecessary loss of American lives, equipment, and money.

I wish all of us well in this future endeavor, if it's authorized as requested.

[TuckFexas]

I don't understand why it's a hard concept for politicians to understand. If we're not going to wage an "all out" war, then there's no sense in waging war at all. You'd think we'd learn from all of our experience from "limited" wars that they're nothing short of disaster. I think it's time we propose an amendment that all those voting in favor of limited wars get embedded with an infantry unit.

[Old Tusk]

Explain WHat an all out war would look like.

[Ragnar Hogbrok]

Explain WHat an all out war would look like.

I know you're not asking me, but I would define it as a joint force-able entry with 3-1 boots on the ground number superiority after extensive IPB and Air Force softening.  A main effort of infantry expanding the lodgement and conducting Decisive Action operations both swiftly and deadly.

Once the commander's intent had been met (which should be to attrit/neutralize/destroy only to achieve a specific end state), we would retrograde in force and relocate to the next JFE site and conduct business once again. 

[TuckFexas]

Explain WHat an all out war would look like.

WWI and WWII. A well defined enemy. One with the support of American citizens. If it doesn't fit that criteria, let the people in that region deal with it.

[TuckFexas]

I know you're not asking me, but I would define it as a joint force-able entry with 3-1 boots on the ground number superiority after extensive IPB and Air Force softening.  A main effort of infantry expanding the lodgement and conducting Decisive Action operations both swiftly and deadly.

Once the commander's intent had been met (which should be to attrit/neutralize/destroy only to achieve a specific end state), we would retrograde in force and relocate to the next JFE site and conduct business once again. 

Oh, and this ^^

[Old Tusk]

The problem is you can only maintain the result by permanently occupy.

[TuckFexas]

The problem is you can only maintain the result by permanently occupy.

True. So I would say let those that live there deal with it. We have ways of gathering intel and we have ways of eliminating small threats already. I'm ok with supporting those who are willing to defend themselves against ISIS through training and arms. Nothing beyond that.

[Old Tusk]

Lindsey Graham says it will only take 10k troops.

[DLUXHOG]

Explain WHat an all out war would look like.

Shock and Awe.....

[Hogfaniam]

Explain WHat an all out war would look like.

Rationing and war bonds.  Everything else is a police action

[DLUXHOG]

Rationing and war bonds.  Everything else is a police action

No one on this thread truly understands this..... not even me...

[Hogfaniam]

No one on this thread truly understands this..... not even me...

That is what full out war brings on. It impacts everyone. Everything goes to the war effort.  You don't just read about it online or in the paper with little impact on your day to day lives

[DLUXHOG]

That is what full out war brings on. It impacts everyone. Everything goes to the war effort.  You don't just read about it online or in the paper with little impact on your day to day lives

Oh, I think I get it alright, but not sure I can fully grasp the price paid by our ancestors during wwII. (my dad was a us marine during wwII - pacific theater).   I'm just saying that, I don't think anyone on this board really, and truly, understands this measure of sacrifice.....

[LSUFan]

Explain WHat an all out war would look like.

Never studied Patton, have ya?

[Ragnar Hogbrok]

Lindsey Graham says it will only take 10k troops.

I'd like to know where he got that number.  If the ratio still stands that it takes 5 support personnel to support 1 infantryman, then he thinks that 2000 infantry personnel should do the trick.  I'm not so sure.

[YankHog]

, as much as I enjoy the CIC being in a tight spot, he's in a no win pickle,  Chief hit it, decisive air power and decisive ground power (hmmm debatable but I say 3-4 BCT's) through all ISIS strongholds in Iraq and Syria followed by a quick withdrawal to go along with what we are currently doing in retraining and re-equipping ISF, and OBTW some of those bases we just closed, having to re-open them for that purpose,  but the isse always is, someone will fill that power vaccuum and create other issues, whether it's other sunni insurgent groups, moderate insurgents still looking to overthrow the Syrian Gov't, kurds declaring independent states in Syria and/or Iraq(they might as well here they basically already are), it never ends so when do we just cut sling load and let them figure it out....

[Old Tusk]

There are 20 million Sunnis stretched from Damascus to Bagdad. They believe that the Shite governments in Syria and Iraq are oppressors. They also feel we abandoned them and are now in league with Iran to destroy them. Remember we have a lot to do with creating ISIS. Question is how do you employ massive US force without making the situation worse. The answer would be to have funtiong governments in both countries but that is certainly will not happen with another invasion. Besides, if we invade, the active fighters will disolve into a sympathetic population and begin killing Americans with IUDs. And wait to we leave.

[Ragnar Hogbrok]

There are 20 million Sunnis stretched from Damascus to Bagdad. They believe that the Shite governments in Syria and Iraq are oppressors. They also feel we abandoned them and are now in league with Iran to destroy them. Remember we have a lot to do with creating ISIS. Question is how do you employ massive US force without making the situation worse. The answer would be to have funtiong governments in both countries but that is certainly will not happen with another invasion. Besides, if we invade, the active fighters will disolve into a sympathetic population and begin killing Americans with IUDs. And wait to we leave.

That's why I think multiple, successive JFE's no longer than two weeks in duration are the answer.  Once our intel personnel can ID ISIS/ISIL/Daesh, canalize them with AF assets and JFE some infantry in there with 3-1 manpower superiority.  You could Air Assault a brigade and conduct gun raids in order to fix the enemy and shape their actions preventing them from dissolving into the populace.  The key is only striking when we are ready and the enemy is in the position we want them in.

It does make a difficult mission when seizing terrain isn't the objective.  Raids with a kill/capture mindset is the only conceivable way to defeat this group.  Kill more of them than they can recruit and degrade their freedom of maneuver they enjoy right now.  It's a difficult task, but it can be done with appropriate intel and decisive action.

[YankHog]

It does make a difficult mission when seizing terrain isn't the objective.  Raids with a kill/capture mindset is the only conceivable way to defeat this group.  Kill more of them than they can recruit and degrade their freedom of maneuver they enjoy right now.  It's a difficult task, but it can be done with appropriate intel and decisive action.

JTF has been doing this with extreme precision in Iraq/Afghanistan for the past 12 yrs, give them free range to hit 5-10 targets a night, would be larger assault teams as the targets would be groups rather than individuals but same principal.....

[YankHog]

Besides, if we invade, the active fighters will disolve into a sympathetic population and begin killing Americans with IUDs. And wait to we leave.

HOLY H E double hockey sticks, first IED's now DEADLY IUD's,  forget it, don't want any part of THAT!!!!!!!   

[Ragnar Hogbrok]

JTF has been doing this with extreme precision in Iraq/Afghanistan for the past 12 yrs, give them free range to hit 5-10 targets a night, would be larger assault teams as the targets would be groups rather than individuals but same principal.....

You're right about the JTF you speak of (which doesn't exist, by the way ) being too small.  It would have to be a mixture of SOF and at least one infantry brigade plus a support brigade and artillery task force to be effective on the scale we're talking right now.

[Hogfaniam]

HOLY H E double hockey sticks, first IED's now DEADLY IUD's,  forget it, don't want any part of THAT!!!!!!!   

[Flying Razorback]

That's why I think multiple, successive JFE's no longer than two weeks in duration are the answer.  Once our intel personnel can ID ISIS/ISIL/Daesh, canalize them with AF assets and JFE some infantry in there with 3-1 manpower superiority.  You could Air Assault a brigade and conduct gun raids in order to fix the enemy and shape their actions preventing them from dissolving into the populace.  The key is only striking when we are ready and the enemy is in the position we want them in.

It does make a difficult mission when seizing terrain isn't the objective.  Raids with a kill/capture mindset is the only conceivable way to defeat this group.  Kill more of them than they can recruit and degrade their freedom of maneuver they enjoy right now.  It's a difficult task, but it can be done with appropriate intel and decisive action.

I've been looking for someone to drop a bunch of troopers on.  We practice it daily, but no other nations want to cooperate and be dropped on.

[Ragnar Hogbrok]

I've been looking for someone to drop a bunch of troopers on.  We practice it daily, but no other nations want to cooperate and be dropped on.

I used to be a paratrooper.  Those guys are a different breed.  They jump into the fight surrounded by the enemy in order to simplify the problem.

[Old Tusk]

HOLY H E double hockey sticks, first IED's now DEADLY IUD's,  forget it, don't want any part of THAT!!!!!!!   

That would be a terrible way to go.

[Pork Twain]

I wish we would have never gotten involved in the Middle East.  Now we will likely never get out and there will never be a clearly defined enemy.

[Deep Shoat]

Explain WHat an all out war would look like.

You stop being afraid of collateral damage.  You don't seek it out, but it is part of war.

I would actually contend that collateral damage is often what WINS wars.

[LSUFan]

You stop being afraid of collateral damage.  You don't seek it out, but it is part of war.

I would actually contend that collateral damage is often what WINS wars.

Kinda like Japan in WW2? It worked on those suicide bombers.

Nobody ever mentions the 9 days of fire bombing in Tokyo that actually killed more than the two big bombs.

[Pork Twain]

You stop being afraid of collateral damage.  You don't seek it out, but it is part of war.

I would actually contend that collateral damage is often what WINS wars.

If you do that, you end up with Vietnam all over again.  No American wants that and no soldier wants to come home to that.

[Deep Shoat]

If you do that, you end up with Vietnam all over again.  No American wants that and no soldier wants to come home to that.

Thn we will never win a war again.

[Deep Shoat]

Kinda like Japan in WW2? It worked on those suicide bombers.

Nobody ever mentions the 9 days of fire bombing in Tokyo that actually killed more than the two big bombs.

Exactly like that.

[Old Tusk]

We created ISIS with our botched attempt of nation building in Iraq. No amount of Bombs and bullets will fix it.

[YankHog]

We created ISIS with our botched attempt of nation building in Iraq. No amount of Bombs and bullets will fix it.

agree Tusk, ISIS must go but then who will take their place, we are danged if we do, danged if we don't......and Afghanistan is in the same boat, watch how quickly TB takes the country back....

[Pork Twain]

Thn we will never win a war again.

Not the way you are describing it.

In reality though, we will never win the operation in the Middle East because we are fighting an ideal and in one way or another we have either funded, trained or armed the people we are fighting.

[Großer Kriegschwein]

We created ISIS with our botched attempt of nation building in Iraq. No amount of Bombs and bullets will fix it.

The issue that they have in Iraq goes back to the Europeans dividing the national boundaries without regard to ethnicity, religion, clans, or historical influence. If you haven't read From Beiruit to Jerusalem by Tom Friedman, he presents a pretty good theory that I subscribe to.

[Old Tusk]

I agree that the maps drawn by the Europeans fundamentally creates a problem, but we perpetrated the problem

[Großer Kriegschwein]

I agree that the maps drawn by the Europeans fundamentally creates a problem, but we perpetrated the problem

We believed that once the restrictions of Saddam had be erradicated that the secular leaders would rise to the occasion. They were voted out by the people that thought that the best way to make sure that Saddam never happened to THEM again was get their non-secular leaders elected. Eventually led to Maliki and the Shia power base that infuriated the Sunni leaders after being ignored for a few years. The Sunnis thought that they did Iraq a service with the Sunni uprising, but were not rewarded for it by the national leadership. Gives credence to ISIS's ploy to instill Sharia law and act as partisans to the Shia leadership in Baghdad.

We had the right idea but should have left a non-elected, transitional government in place for a decade to stabilize infrastructure and political processes. Wouldn't have been perfect, but better to do that with secular interim leader than what we have today.

My 2 cents after being there a couple times and talking to some Iraqis I've worked with. 

[Pork Twain]

Many assessments stated that Saddam, while a shirty human being, was at least keeping that region stable and that once he was taken out, it would be chaos for a very long time.

[Großer Kriegschwein]

Many assessments stated that Saddam, while a shirty human being, was at least keeping that region stable and that once he was taken out, it would be chaos for a very long time.

I have heard that too but it wasn't too PC so it doesn't get talked about enough.

[YankHog]

I have heard that too but it wasn't too PC so it doesn't get talked about enough.

nail on the head, he kept the Shiites down with a firm hand, kept Iran in check, and was an ally.....but.....what's the old saying...Absolute power corrupts absolutely...