Assessing Al-Qaeda (merged thread)

[tequila]

Video of Islamic State capabilities impresses military experts

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/04/2...abilities.html



Much more in the report, well worth the read. It is an honest assessment from folks on the ground who are not spinning a narrative. It raises important questions on why ISIS is producing more competent foot soldiers than Iraq. I suspect the answers will make us uncomfortable, which normally results in an organizational state of denial.

After watching the propaganda video in question, I'm not sure what the experts are seeing that I'm not (the video is accessible through a link in the story itself).

All you really see is a couple of ranger files of guys walking towards Bayji carrying bottled water. Proper spacing is hard to figure out, but it's not like these guys are doing a squad assault. Then there's about 2:30 of closeups of jihadis firing full auto. Some are firing from the shoulder, a few are doing controlled bursts. But the vast majority are just doing Rambo-style jihadi-cool full auto at something vague in the distance - a few are firing from the hip and aiming at the clouds. Most of these are likely posed.

I agree that ISIS has shown it can outfight the ISF - but I think that's because the ISF has degenerated from an already parlous state, not because ISIS is any good in a stand-up fight.

[Bill Moore]

Thanks for sharing the link to the video, this is the fourth video I have seen of ISIS in combat, and it only adds to the assessment of the analysts quoted in the article. Again we're assessing relative combat effectiveness, so I disagree with you that they couldn't stand up to a real Arab Army anywhere in the Middle East. The Syrian Army is quite good relatively for the region, and ISIS does moderately well in stand-up battles against them.

0:55 the automated command, control, computers, communications, and intelligence (supported by a drone) is relatively impressive. Probably something we'll see more of around the world due to the availability of this technology.

starting around 1:35 the use of mostly conventional crew served weapons is impressive. Acquiring them in battle is one thing, employing them effectively is another. They have done both. Results starting around 6:40, with numerous IA vehicles destroyed including at least one tank.

I tried to find it, but I suspect it was removed from the internet , there is one video that is impressive showing ISIL storming an occupying building. They took some hits in the way in, but in a disciplined manner persisted with the attack until they were successful.

People much less well trained and equipped made life difficult for our guys in Fallujah, so I wouldn't underestimate the challenge. No doubt we can defeat them, but at times it would be become a slug fest.

[tequila]

Bill - agreed with all your main points. They've showed they can defeat their adversaries, and that's what counts. Short of the fall of Baghdad, a MEU or a US armored division is not coming over the horizon.

I think that one of the main things that requires research is ISIL's ability to maintain C4IR and logistics across a very large battlespace in the face of US airpower. Right now I don't think anyone outside of ISIL's command structure itself and maybe the US Gov really knows just how autonomous the different emirs or regions are, or how ISIL's internal supply network works. That they managed to sustain combat in Kobane as long as they did in the face of crippling strikes was pretty impressive to me, even if they did retreat in the end.

That ISIL shows the sort of internal cohesion and leadership to outmatch the Iraqi government, as feeble as that task may be, shows just how important those two qualities are in the face of billions of dollars in aid and equipment.

I think Iraq is in the process of forming a genuine national identity that can command real loyalty to a nation irrespective of governmental identity. Unfortunately this appears to have an exclusively Shia Arab phenomenon at the moment. Not sure where this goes in the end - probably not towards the sort of Iraq we wanted in 2003.

[Bob's World]

Key phrase being "...what we wanted."

Some day we will learn that we are far better served by what we need (a partner with a government possessed of local popular legitimacy - regardless of the form that government might take), than we are by a government we want that is inherently lacking in popular legitimacy by all but those who have sold out to the US to gain power under our protection.

Every time we have adopted a strategy of building a military to defend such a government it has been an abysmal failure. In order, Philippines pre-WWII, South Vietnam, Iraq and (collapsing as soon as we leave) Afghanistan.

I used to think our approach of not controlling such forces was far superior to the British model of recruiting units from such places to serve Britain, rather than their born homelands. But the British model has a legitimacy all of it's own. Those men join to serve Great Britain. We train units to serve government who are created by us. My apologies to Brits who I have chided in the past on this matter.

Better still are units serving a national government possessed of broad popular legitimacy, but that is not something we can create. We often support such partners and allies, but to attempt to create is to render them fatally flawed from inception.

[Bill Moore]

Key phrase being "...what we wanted."

Some day we will learn that we are far better served by what we need (a partner with a government possessed of local popular legitimacy - regardless of the form that government might take), than we are by a government we want that is inherently lacking in popular legitimacy by all but those who have sold out to the US to gain power under our protection.

Every time we have adopted a strategy of building a military to defend such a government it has been an abysmal failure. In order, Philippines pre-WWII, South Vietnam, Iraq and (collapsing as soon as we leave) Afghanistan.

I used to think our approach of not controlling such forces was far superior to the British model of recruiting units from such places to serve Britain, rather than their born homelands. But the British model has a legitimacy all of it's own. Those men join to serve Great Britain. We train units to serve government who are created by us. My apologies to Brits who I have chided in the past on this matter.

Better still are units serving a national government possessed of broad popular legitimacy, but that is not something we can create. We often support such partners and allies, but to attempt to create is to render them fatally flawed from inception.

A lot of factors need to be aligned for capacity building to work, both tangible and intangible. We focus too much on the tangible things we can count and convince ourselves we're making progress. Heck, we have stats to prove it

[Bob's World]

Frame for failure, and failure is inevitable. Frame for success, and success is possible.

We have always been so sure of our rightness, that we tend to assume that will overcome the shades of wrongness we impose upon others to ensure our own interests. It doesn't.

Or said another way, we are too quick to rationalize why it is ok to deny for others the very things we demand for ourselves. 100 years ago one could sort of still get away with that. Today it is an impossibility.

If we swapped our current NSS for Washington's farewell address we would be far better served as a nation. Partners grown overly dependent would quibble, as would the neocon hawks, but it would lead to approaches much better suited for the world we live in today.

[davidbfpo]

Hat tip to WoTR for this long article:http://warontherocks.com/2016/01/the-islamic-state-vs-al-qaeda-the-war-within-the-jihadist-movement/?

Taster:

The Islamic State’s rise has reshaped the global jihadist landscape, which for nearly two decades was dominated by al-Qaeda. With the Islamic State seizing the world’s attention, the age of unipolarity within the jihadist movement is over, replaced by intense internal conflict. Each group is firm in the belief that its organizational model is superior to that of its opponent.