Page 49 of 58 FirstFirst ... 394748495051 ... LastLast
Results 961 to 980 of 1150

Thread: Iraq: Out of the desert into Mosul (closed)

  1. #961
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    35,749

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CrowBat View Post
    Sorry but this sounds as if you've missed only some three years of Civil War in Syria?

    ...and the latest spate of regime's successes too?

    You've mentioned three topics here:

    1.) The Islamic Front (IF) was established already back in late 2012, with Saudi backing and to counter Qatari supported JAN, i.e. to stop the flow of defections of 'Islamists' (i.e. those Syrian insurgents that were religious) from the FSyA to the JAN. Majority of the IF consists of 'moderately religious' people, but its top leadership is sectarian. Means: Alawis are unlikely to have it good under their rule.

    2.) The IF is neither winning nor gaining territory. On the contrary: lately they have lost several major battles.

    For example: they've lost much of northern Aleppo Province to the regime's offensive from Sheikh Najjar Industrial City in direction of Nubol and az-Zahra. Organized and run by the IRGC, and with help of a full IRGC-brigade, supported by a battalion each of the Ba'ath Party Militia and Hezbollah ('special forces'), plus NDF tanks and artillery, this operation punched through insurgent defences which were weak following JAN's withdrawal from that area. This withdrawal was caused by US air strikes on local JAN HQ and large-scale defection of (primarily foreign) combatants to the Daesh.

    Another 'Islamist' (actually: 'Salafist') insurgent group, Ahrar ash-Sham (and another one recently hit by US strikes), then attempted to distract the regime through a counterattack against the regime's supply corridor for Aleppo, south of that city. This corridor is stretching from Palmyra all the way up to Aleppo, and goes in between areas held by insurgents (western side) and the Daesh (eastern side). Ahrar temporarily captured as-Safira (famous as location of most of Syrian defence industry), but then lost it in a vicious regime (read: IRGC) counterattack.

    Overall, the situation on this frontline is now something like 'stalled', but regime 'won' the last round: if nothing else, due to capture of Hindarat, north of Aleppo, it is overlooking the last few roads connecting insurgents inside Aleppo with Turkey. Plus, it is still in control of its corridor.

    Another example, this time from south-eastern Damascus: following the latest chemical attack by the regime - which mauled five battalions of the JAN in Adra, in late August - the IRGC launched a major offensive on the IF and the JAN in that town, and overrun them. Then the IRGC launched another offensive on besieged Jobar (meanwhile rather resembling the Moon-scape), and overrun this place too (just yesterday).

    This means that now the IF in Eastern Ghouta is completely besieged - and this ahead of the coming winter.

    The fighting in Moarek area... even this is no 'win': it's actually an aftermath of a failed IF-JAN offensive in direction of Hama. Earlier this year, this nearly reached the Hama AB (north of that city), but meanwhile the JAN fell back, Ahrar followed in fashion (guess why?), and the IF lacked forces to maintain frontlines. Because of this, the insurgents fell back towards north, i.e. in direction of Moarek (scene of a 4-months long regime's offensive, earlier this year, which was not only stopped cold, but extremely costly in terms of casualties - for Damascus, but for Tehran too).

    The difference is: it is in this area that the IF can lean back upon support from Harakat Hazm, i.e. the hard-core of the former FSyA, and one of only 3-4 groups of Syrian insurgents really supported by the US... actually: they are supported by Saudis with US consent. Harakat has its 'A-team' of TOW-shooters in the area, and they've claimed about 30 kills in Moarek area, the last month or so.

    Finally, the only area where insurgents managed to seriously advance in this year is southern Syria. Here the Southern Front - which has nothing to do with the IF and is rather similar to the Harakat (though not as happily supported by the US/Saudis) - managed to liberate most of Qunaitra Province. They did so in cooperation with the JAN, which is the reason Washington dislikes the SF so much.

    Further south-east, the SF managed to vastly expand the area under its control aside of a very narrow, regime-controlled corridor connecting Damascus with whatever was left of regime's garrison inside Dera'a. Should they manage to completely seal that corridor, the regime there would be in extremely serious trouble, and actually the insurgents could then stop thinking about an advance in direction of Ghouta.

    3.) Now to the next topic you mentioned:
    The IF is the largest insurgent group in Syria (most conservative estimate: about 50,000 combatants), and the best armed (including not only at least two 'companies' of armour, plenty of artillery, but also two operational SA-8 systems), but they cannot win this war on their own.

    Anyway, they are against the Daesh, and there is no way they might ever merge with them, or even with the JAN. Otherwise, they would have done so already long ago.

    Following its large-scale withdrawal in late June (in reaction to Daesh's advance into Iraq), the IRGC-QF is now back in force in Syria, operating a number of new brigades there. That's the reason why the regime 'suddenly' became capable of capturing Jobar and of advancing north of Aleppo.

    Presently, I do not see the way how should insurgents - whether Harakat, Southern Front, Syrian Revolutionary Front and the Tawhid Brigade (four groups de-facto making the FSyA; conservative estimate: about 45,000 combatants), or the IF, and whether either on their own or all united and fighting together - 'defeat' the IRGC-led regime forces in Syria. They are not only too few (primarily because they can't arm and support more fighters), but also not well-enough armed.

    This is unlikely to change any time soon - and even less likely to happen if Washington continues its short-sighted policy of blindly ignoring the Syrian regime.
    AND pray tell CrowBat--just what is the Assad giving to the Sunni population as a whole--chemical gas strikes---which are still ongoing "although he claims they have no chemicals left, barrel bombs still ongoing and you expect as do the Russians the Sunni majority population will what seek accommodation with Assad? ---come on CrowBat get honestly real in your line of thoughts.

  2. #962
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    861

    Default

    There is no good solution. Nobody should be supported because they are laicist, secular, whatever, but because they are the best bet to have a working state that will not be insanely anti-US or that can at least be held responsible for hosting terrorist camps in its territory and suchlike...
    There is a civilizational crisis in the core Islamicate world. It is not ALL the fault fo the great Satan but the great Satan has been remarkably bad at guessing what will happen next or who the good guys are, so the great Satan will do well to be less ambitious and not base it's policies on perceived/desired outcomes in that struggle. Having a state you can work with is good enough for guvmint work.
    Of course, that is assuming there is some sort of "national interest" in butting in 10,000 miles away (Israel? I dont buy the Oil thing..what will they do with oil? drink it? It has to be sold...Oh, I forgot, the oil companies may have a thing to say about that..). Maybe the best thing is to go with Rand Paul and stay the hell away. Let Turkey and Russia and Iran and whatever other "real" country exists there fight it out.

  3. #963
    Council Member AmericanPride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    "Turn left at Greenland." - Ringo Starr
    Posts
    965

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crowbat
    But hey: no problem. Keep on teaching Sunnis that they're incompatible with democracy, pluralism, and non-inclusive, and that they should stick with their police-kingdoms. Because these are maintaining control of their population with help of brutal oppression and extremist religion.
    Just FYI, from the Washington Post: Saudi sentences iconic Shiite cleric to death

    “I think the message that Saudis are saying is: ‘We will arrest anybody. We don’t care how high profile they are. ... nobody is above this. We don’t have any tolerance. We don’t have any flexibility,’” Human Rights Watch Middle East researcher Adam Coogle said.
    When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles. - Louis Veuillot

  4. #964
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,392

    Default

    Update on security situation in Anbar. Ramadi did not fall but is 60% under IS control. IS is attacking up and down the province and whole thing threatened. Here's a link.

  5. #965
    Council Member AmericanPride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    "Turn left at Greenland." - Ringo Starr
    Posts
    965

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by omar
    Nobody should be supported because they are laicist, secular, whatever, but because they are the best bet to have a working state that will not be insanely anti-US
    Secular, pluralist regimes are often the 'best bet' to having a working state. With the exception of Turkey (and that's coming into doubt), secularism is dead in the Middle East. And it's not by accident or because of some inherent feature of Islam, but because of deliberate policy decisions made in regional and foreign capitals to undermine secularism and pluralism. When the state represses the population in the name of 'secularism' or provides empty gestures of pluralism (like Saudi Arabia's municipal elections, or Iraq's sectarian 'democracy'), it does far more destruction to that cause than simply outlawing it.

    The Islamic State is the culmination of decades of repression, violence, and destruction tightly woven into a fundamentalist Islamist narrative. That we in the West are so shocked by this development after 60 years of warfare in the region speaks volumes about our understanding of the region.
    Last edited by AmericanPride; 10-15-2014 at 02:44 PM.
    When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles. - Louis Veuillot

  6. #966
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    I think a key thing to keep in mind is that ISIL success or failure cannot be measured in terms of ground held or lost; or other measures convenient to conventional conflict.

    Success or failure will be in the degree of support of the Arab Sunni population to their leadership.

    Strategic focus for an anti-ISIL campaign must be on how we outcompete ISIL for the support of this population.

    1. Aerial bombing campaigns are more likely to increase support to ISIL by decreasing support to the West.

    2. Western commitment to a restoration of Iraq to a single state - even with the promise of government less dominated by Shia factions - is unlikely to weaken support to ISIL from this population.

    We need to reframe how we think about the problem, and we need to be willing to step away from aspects of Western policy/strategy we believe are important if they create infeasible conditions for the military operation sent out to secure those same goals.

    We set infeasible goals for both Iraq and Afghanistan and then grew frustrated with the massive insurgencies that resulted and the inability of "big COIN" as we defined it to produce or secure the goals we had set. That was the primary strategic error then, and it is the primary strategic error now.

    If one defines problems in terms of what one wants them to be, rather than in terms of what they actually are; AND if one sets policy goals that are infeasible in the context of the situation as it actually exists - then no campaign or family of tactics, regardless of how brilliantly and vigorously executed, is likely to produce the desired results in an enduring form.

    This conflict is not about ISIL, ISIL simply stepped up to fill a vacuum and promise the Arab Sunni populations of Syria and Iraq liberation from systems of Shia-dominated governance widely perceived as intolerable. The West cannot not be overly wed to reinforcing conditions we think are best for us if we ever want to reduce the insurgent energy driving these conflicts and empowering radical constructs of governance such as offered by ISIL.

    This conflict is about helping the Arab Sunni populations of this region get to systems of governance they can reasonably trust. They will need at a minimum what we facilitated for the Kurds, but at this point may settle for nothing less than a fully sovereign Sunni governed state.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  7. #967
    Council Member CrowBat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Haxbach, Schnurliland
    Posts
    1,563

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OUTLAW 09 View Post
    AND pray tell CrowBat--just what is the Assad giving to the Sunni population as a whole--chemical gas strikes---which are still ongoing "although he claims they have no chemicals left, barrel bombs still ongoing and you expect as do the Russians the Sunni majority population will what seek accommodation with Assad? ---come on CrowBat get honestly real in your line of thoughts.
    Me do not verstehen what Sie mentir...?

    Quote Originally Posted by omarali50 View Post
    There is no good solution. Nobody should be supported because they are laicist, secular, whatever, but because they are the best bet to have a working state that will not be insanely anti-US or that can at least be held responsible for hosting terrorist camps in its territory and such like...
    Well, the 'best working states there', and especially those that are 'not insanely anti-US', have Wahhabism as state-religion and public beheadings as highest penalty.

    Maybe the best thing is to go with Rand Paul and stay the hell away. Let Turkey and Russia and Iran and whatever other "real" country exists there fight it out.
    Ho-hum... don't want to spoil the party (and can only hope you're not going to shoot the messenger, like 'Outlaw' likes to do), but: Obama was doing precisely this, and that for five years in Iraq, and for three in Syria.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but somehow it seems things are not the least going the way the West would like them to go. Could that be because other people (but the 'USA') see things differently, and it's a lil' bit... erm... nave to expect, for example, Saudis or Qataris to remove an oppressive regime in Syria, and then establish a pluralist government instead...?

    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanPride View Post
    Just FYI, from the Washington Post...
    Sorry, can't comment this really: I do not know to what of three major cliques within the Saud regime (or their followers) did that character belong, nor for what actual reason was he executed.

    Namely, most of such 'high-profile' executions are not meant as some sort of 'message' for the West, or the Daesh, al-Qaida, etc., but they are rather 'mutual' i.e. signals for 'superiority' of this or that clique over its opposition (still within the Saud family).

    That's one of typical problems when one has such lovely oppressive regimes as 'friends'.

  8. #968
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,392

    Default

    U.S. just send a divisional command to run a training mission for the Iraqi forces and sent three teams out into the field one in Diyala and two to Anbar. One is being assigned to Al-Assad base in Anbar which was under attack yesterday. First step by Obama administration to rebuild ground forces in Iraq, but only a baby step. Here's a link to my article.

  9. #969
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,392

    Default

    Bob's world

    The problem with creating a Sunni state in Iraq is that it would be unsustainable. There are few resources to build an economy around in the Sunni regions of Iraq, plus they are not contiguous.

  10. #970
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    35,749

    Default

    I will posture the following---as long as the US maintains bombing and does not introduce ground troops which is really what the IS wants the Sunni's will keep the Shia bottled up for the coming months as all attempts by the Shia militia and ISF has shown they have no abilities in throwing the IS out of Sunni territory.

    That includes bottling up Baghdad.

    The question become through with the falling oil prices just how long Baghdad can afford to fight and how long with the Iranians hang on?

    The KSA and Kuwait are signaling a level of 60 is fine for them--but can Iraq and Iran go along---not really?

    So the Russian are suffering now via the oil prices for their support of Assad---notice the KSA is not fighting hard to support the oil prices that support the Russian budget--makes one wonder of the KSA is also targeting Iraq and Iran?
    Last edited by OUTLAW 09; 10-16-2014 at 03:30 PM.

  11. #971
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JWing View Post
    Bob's world

    The problem with creating a Sunni state in Iraq is that it would be unsustainable. There are few resources to build an economy around in the Sunni regions of Iraq, plus they are not contiguous.
    True, but those are solvable problems and it paves the way for getting to sufficient trust for natural stability to re-emerge.

    The best one can achieve by simply attacking ISIL and committing to the re-establishment of the status quo is to re-set the conditions of failure and change who the next leader to emerge to address these conditions will be.

    The worst is that we completely alienate Sunni Muslims globally in a manner that lends even more strength to AQ; and also stoke this small fire into a conflagration that erupts within other disenfranchised Sunni populations across the Arabian Peninsula.

    Better to attempt a difficult strategy that has the potential to succeed, than to take an easier course that is doomed to fail.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  12. #972
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    35,749

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OUTLAW 09 View Post
    I will posture the following---as long as the US maintains bombing and does not introduce ground troops which is really what the IS wants the Sunni's will keep the Shia bottled up for the coming months as all attempts by the Shia militia and ISF has shown they have no abilities in throwing the IS out of Sunni territory.

    That includes bottling up Baghdad.

    The question become through with the falling oil prices just how long Baghdad can afford to fight and how long with the Iranians hang on?

    The KSA and Kuwait are signaling a level of 60 is fine for them--but can Iraq and Iran go along---not really?

    So the Russian are suffering now via the oil prices for their support of Assad---notice the KSA is not fighting hard to support the oil prices that support the Russian budget--makes one wonder of the KSA is also targeting Iraq and Iran?
    Here is the impact on Iran.

    Los Angeles Times ✔ @latimes

    Drop in global oil prices threatens to hit Russia and Iran harder than Western economic sanctions have done:
    http://lat.ms/1tYDt2g

  13. #973
    Council Member CrowBat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Haxbach, Schnurliland
    Posts
    1,563

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JWing View Post
    Bob's world

    The problem with creating a Sunni state in Iraq is that it would be unsustainable. There are few resources to build an economy around in the Sunni regions of Iraq, plus they are not contiguous.
    About 90 years ago, Britain created just such a state that was named 'Transjordan'.

    For the first 40 years of its existence, this was completely dependable on British financial support.

    Quote Originally Posted by Outlaw9
    Here is the impact on Iran.
    ...which is a reason more to wonder why is Obama showing such restraint and even 'understanding for higher Iranian national interests' - in upholding the Assadist regime in Syria.

    There is no explanation for this... well, except Iran has what a pal of mine tends to call 'assets not publicly known'. Though, existence of such would then really 'explain everything'.

    *********

    BTW, Outlaw: I am still waiting for a 'translation' of your question above. No problem to answer it - all provided I would understand it.

  14. #974
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    The legend is that Transjordan was "Churchill's thumb" - that he placed his fist and thumb on the map, traced a line around it and proclaimed it to be the new Transjordan.

    Inherently illegitimate, and as accurately pointed out here, void of the fundamental resources to be a true state.

    We cannot draw the new borders, but we can create the conditions for fighting to stop, new lines to form and negotiations to ensure that each entity that emerges has the fundamental basics to support a functioning state.

    Drawing lines for others, creating governments for others, and overly attempting to preserve an increasingly irrelevant status quo by suppressing conflict are all activities that are increasingly inappropriate or even infeasible in the emergent environment.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  15. #975
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    861

    Default

    Bob's world: "True, but those are solvable problems and it paves the way for getting to sufficient trust for natural stability to re-emerge."

    What is "natural stability"? there is no such thing. There are existing patterns of culture and ethnicity and religion that make some solutions easier than others, but the elastic limit is not easy to know in advance. There was an Iraqi state, it was "unnatural" (with a Sunni Arab minority lording it over Shias and Kurds), but it held together for 80 years and could well have held out longer. Could even recover from its current disunion, though that does not look very likely. Sunni Arabs armed with Islamist ideology may not accept whatever limited territory you are going to grant them. Or they may. Its not that one of these arrangements is NECESSARILY going to work or is impossible.
    I am not really disagreeing with your call to reassess the "mission". I just think that the ideological glue that will hold any Sunni Iraqi statelet will (today and in the near future, not some eternal essence) be Islamist in nature and will demand expansion into "naturally" shia and Kurdish areas, making "natural stability" very difficult. Isolation of ISIS led Iraq until military defeat is the only option there, though one can make the case that it is a job for Saudi Arabia and Iran and other neighbors..and whatever mercenaries they can bring to bear, not necessarily for the US. Some of them may opt to join ISIS-led Iraq rather than fight them. That too may not be an American problem, though it is a problem for people in the region...
    In short, I dont think America can easily come up with a BETTER solution than the current muddled policy, but CAN get itself to the sidelines (or be clearer about what it will and will not do and what it CAN and CANNOT do).
    A bad situation for years is pretty much guaranteed. You dont have to take my word for it, but I am not the only one saying that...
    American mistakes helped bring this about. But American good sense will not necessarily make it all good in any reasonably short time frame. The caliphate Jinn is out of the bottle.
    See this video from the TTP in Pakistan. The guy in the video is an ex-army doctor. When he talks about what Islam demands of us, I can hear my teachers in military school 40 years ago. Sure, it was possible that future generations of students would take the ideology of Pakistan as non-seriously as most of us did, but after 20 billion dollars pumped in for the Afghan Jihad etc, that option is now officially closed. #### happens.
    http://www.mediafire.com/watch/?75piv2l2qtc6s6w

    btw, notice that the good doctor was able to get to TTP-land after being arrested in Croatia and deported to Pakistan for being a jihadist. The ideology is attractive to people, even to people deputed to fight it...
    Last edited by omarali50; 10-16-2014 at 09:04 PM.

  16. #976
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    Artificial stability is when the primary purpose of security force is to protect the government from the people. This is the essence of military stability operations. Such a system requires tremendous security "energy" to sustain. Often we create this and think we have solved the problem, leading us to remove the very energy that is keeping revolution in check. The results are predictable. Thus the rise of ISIS, and coming soon, the re-emergence of the Taliban with the government of Afghanistan compressed once again to the ring road and control of a handful of cities.

    Natural Stability is when the primary purpose of security forces is to protect the people from each other so as to allow society to go about the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness in the context of their respective culture. This still requires security energy, but much less and with a very different focus.

    You have to impose one to get to the other. But one has to address fundamental drivers of revolution if one hopes to make that transition. Our dedication to restoring the status quo of Iraq as we left it creates conditions that make ever getting to natural stability largely infeasible.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  17. #977
    Council Member CrowBat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Haxbach, Schnurliland
    Posts
    1,563

    Default

    ^^...which is actually a very simple concept: indeed so much so, I do not understand why are there so many people who know nothing about it?

  18. #978
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    11,074

    Default ISIS Threat Is 'Extremely Worrying' Says Counter-Insurgency Expert

    ISIS Threat Is 'Extremely Worrying' Says Counter-Insurgency Expert

    Entry Excerpt:



    --------
    Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
    This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

  19. #979
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,392

    Default

    I just interviewed Georgetown's Daveed Gartenstein-Ross about the Islamic State's commander responsible for the on going offensive in Anbar and IS's general tactics and strategy. Here's a link.

  20. #980
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    Hmmm. I am not sure why everyone talks about the progress of IS in terms of ground taken, and progress against IS in terms of equipment destroyed or ground lost.

    It reads like news reports of the German advance into Russia during WWII, complete with a seemingly Stalingrad-like fixation on a seemingly moot city by IS.

    While I do believe that the "cell" has divided - that what was once internal revolutionary insurgency is now better thought of as warfare between the new Islamic State and the existing states of Syria and Iraq; I am also pretty certain that any "defeat" of IS can do little more than knock them back into being a revolutionary insurgency once again.

    Given that likely reality, then progress in terms of ground covered, cities captured or lost, equipment damaged or destroyed is interesting, but in the big scheme of things not the primary measure of success or failure.

    IS leadership are the ones who stepped in to champion the cause of the Sunni Arab populations of Syria and Iraq. From all that I have seen, this is a tenuous link at best, as most of this population does not condone the approaches of IS or buy into their ideology. They do, however, believe strongly, that they have little future under the Shia dominated governments of Syria and Iraq.

    The question for the US is: "How do others with interests in this region out-compete IS for influence with the Sunni Arab population"?

    The measure of strategic progress or losses is not in material or dirt, but in the shift of who is winning this competition for influence.

    So, some questions:

    How does dropping bombs on Sunni Arabs fight under the IS flag build influence with the families of those fighters or undermine the leadership of IS?

    How does being officially dedicated to the re-establishment of the Iraqi state in the image the US wants for them build influence with Sunni Arabs or undermine their belief that only IS offers them hope for political change?

    Once again, I think we have framed the problem in the wrong terms, and we measure the wrong things. We need to get the strategic context straight first, then we need to get our narrative straight second. Only then can we design a campaign of tactics that is reasonably likely to produce the success we seek.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

Similar Threads

  1. The USMC in Helmand (merged thread)
    By Wildcat in forum OEF - Afghanistan
    Replies: 173
    Last Post: 11-12-2014, 03:13 PM
  2. What happens in Iraq now?
    By MikeF in forum Catch-All, OIF
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-21-2011, 04:17 PM
  3. Iraq: Strategic and Diplomatic Options
    By SWJED in forum US Policy, Interest, and Endgame
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 12-02-2006, 11:36 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-20-2006, 07:14 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •