Will Isis destroy Palmyra

[Onasander]

The winning their hearts and minds part comes from President Kennedy, he addressed it to a Marine Corps Journal back in the sixties, that delved into analysis of international conflicts. It's where I first learned of the British operations using Mayalian militias to fight off Chinese communists operations around mines in the Malay jungle just prior to independence. I think he learned a lesson from the Bay of Pigs and the near nuclear war that erupted from the Cuban missile crisis.

 

Taking poorly thought out, reactionary stances on what warfare ought to be.... a reflective form of punishment, puts our military in a role where it lacks initiative and intelligence, and merely follows the actions of the enemy. We would blunder into countless traps and wretched quagmire, with little comprehension of the cost and attrition inflicted upon ourselves, and the societal and biological collapse of our opposition. As all societies are inevitably drawn into wars- sooner or later, we would in essence be breeding humanity for stupidity, ignorance, hatred, and backwardness.... not to mention backwardness, as these would be the traits that would come to succeed in a world of such ignorant, devastating wars.

 

I prefer our little green and blue breeding grounds, for our species, earth, take its future a little more seriously. It started occurring to President Kennedythat endless conventional wars were not just unprofitable, but also societally undesirable for it's accidental occurrences. It made people stupid and weak, prone to ignorance. We did a lot more in intellectual competition with the Soviet Union..... openly debating our economics and morals, landing a man on the moon, then fighting proxy wars via their proxy's proxy. It was an era where cognitive voids of entire different ways of thinking was a open wound on humanity. We got to be smarter, exploit the synergy between different styles of thinking and approaches. The Hearts and Minds approach is only one component of this.

[Onasander]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32872350

 

I really doubt ISIS cares one bit about this stupid bird. They may even declare it protected, they are trying to set up a state and would view it as part of Allah's creation. What annoys me is the sick emphasis on this bird, and no mention whatsoever of everyone dying or having their life turned upside down.

 

I kinda hope someone shoots it and rotissery it on YouTube now. They can use green energy and earth friendly, bio degradable bullets to give it a liberal, green friendly death to give consolation to the Europeans.

 

I think you can just fly a UAV dressed up as one of these birds someday, I see battery life issues, but think it can lead a flock south for the winter. Just gotta impress on the birds the UAV is its mother.

[C. Fabius Lupus]

When it comes to war strategies, you should always ask the question: What would Caesar do?

[Onasander]

He failed, horribly. Was stabbed to death by the very republic he claimed to of saved. And he took it in the butt in his younger days. I don't wanna emulate all that.

[C. Fabius Lupus]

Yes, humans have the bad habit of dying some day.

However he won the Gallic War. And he subdued the Gauls for good. This is what counts.

And it is more than the Pentagon can claim anywhere in the world even with far better odds..

Edited May 25, 2015 by C. Fabius Lupus

[Onasander]

We conquered France too, twice in fact.

 

WW1

Ww2

 

Caesar's legions would of gotten their butts wiped out in either war. The thought of a legion trying to move around in trench warfare, or facing off against a blitzkrieg, makes me giggle.

 

I started my work on the military writings of Onasander (not me, the Greco-Roman) today. Hope to have it out soon, haven't ever critically tackled it before ironically.

Edited May 25, 2015 by Onasander

[C. Fabius Lupus]

Both wars were fought on the side of the "Gauls".

Apart from that they were fought before the Departmen of Defense was created.

Let us have a look at the success record of the Pentagon since its creation:

- Korea - stalemate

- Vietnam - defeat and withdrawal

- Lebanon - defeat and withdrawal

- Somalia - defeat and withdrawal

- Iraq - withdrawal resulting in civil war

- Afghanistan - withdrawal resuling in civil war

- Libya - withdrawal resulting in anarchy

Not a single conflict was settled after WWII - oh, I forgot the glorious victory over the ooverwhelming military force of Grenada. But apart from that the list of successes is rather meager.

The "winning the hearts and minds" strategy with more concern for the enemy than the own troops does not seem to work out somehow.

 

What is needed is a tougher man in charge, a man like Julius Caesar, not some rules of engagement that only ensure certain defeat. Gaul was annexed after its defeat. The native religion (druidism) was suppressed and ceased to exist a century later. Before Hadrian Rome never withdrew from a conquered country.

This is what Caesar would do today in the Middle East: Invade with ground forces, no matter how many casualties, never withdraw the troops, replace the native rulers with a military governor and crack down on the native religion. Use the auxiliaries from one country against another and let the auxiliaries be commanded by your own officers, not by natives. Impose your own culture on the conquered nations and leave no doubt who is the superior one and who is the barbarian.

 

With Caesar in command Iraq would today be an Amrican province under an American governor, all mosques would have been demolished and any public practice of Islam would hav been banned. There would be no such thing as ISIS. Ground forces could easily march into Syria from Iraq and suppress any civil unrest, Assad would be made a client king.

Problem solved, the archaeological sites would be safe under the Pax Americana.

[Onasander]

We won the cold war.

 

Your stratifying individual wars as the mark of qualification for success. Look at the list you presented, and in a cold war context, look at the people in charge of them now.

 

Russia: its a much weaker state fighting on the eastern fringes of Ukraine and setting up alliances with its chief competitors (most of the good alliances disregard Russia). Putin has been increasingly hostile to the Soviet heritage in Russia, and has of late been supporting the efforts of the WW1 era White Russian forces, seeing Lenin as a traitor.

 

In a cold war context, Eisenhower would of died of excitement hearing of this.

 

China: When from Red to Capitalist, and its no longer arming militias around the world to undermined either the Soviet Union or US. Its calmed dawn considerably since its Maoist era. Engaged in Anti-Piracy activity, as well as funny island building activity off the phillipines. Taiwan still stands.

 

Vietnam: After we pulled out, it got stuck in a really nasty border dispute with China. Then again with the Khmer Rouge. Its been through considerable liberalization of its economy, and most definitely isn't a Russian or Chinese puppet state, and has opened up direct military relations with the US.

 

Afghanistan was intentionally stalled for a troop surge, we were support to rebalance it after the surge in Iraq. Obama fucked up.

 

Iraq.... success, Obama managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Right now, since you did bring it up, it does appear the US has been playing the sides off each other, its something I brought up on a philosophy forum a year ago as a alternative strategy, and its been turning increasingly valid as a prediction. So yeah, he is using "auxiliaries", and we have training and tactical support on the ground in Iraq. We have this thing known as "radios", and real time GPS tracking devises, as well as a airforce, its much wiser than being on the ground. Right now, a bit of a tussle between shia militias and federal troops. ISIS has been using construction vehicles to plow through outer defenses, and using fast strikes behind it to scare the Iraqi troops. It is a good tactic, used recently in Ramadi, and they tried it at Haditha Dam. However, its rather shitty, as the Iraqi Army will soon do what every other army has done when faced with calvary charges and blitzkriegs..... Build dragon teeth, six sided caltrops made from ibeams, and interspears lots and lots of concertina wire between. ISIS lacks engineering vehicles, and the Iraqi Army can hold up in sniper positions and take down anyone trying to untangle their bulldozers or trying to get through. Its a rather simple fix, just the Iraqi Army has focused more on concrete barriers and training of men in basic marksmanship and maneuvers. It wasn't something seen as a priority to them to teach their troops. The wire works, we stopped a entire stryker unit, its engineering unit (haha) as well with simple wire. Shoot anyone dismounting the tanks, sack at the tank gears in the track with a sledge hammer. It doesn't occur to people just how pathetic tanks are when up against entrenched infantry. Armies learn from mistakes. The Iraqi Army will learn from each one.

 

As to the Syrian war.... Not my issue. Assad has more than enough claim on that.

 

Lebanon, its a proxy or Iran, but is also faltering. Hezbollah has been increasingly throwing more of its weight behind Assad during his contraction (forces losing ground). Doubt the Pentagon is too worried, outside of the fear of too sharp of a contraction leading Syria to snap. ISIS isn't in a position to hold all of Syria. One of the worst things that can happen to ISIS is a successful, decisive victory over Assad. It would very fastly overstretch them. They lack the manpower to effectively hold those areas, and its not exactly prime real estate for recruiting new soldiers. ISIS is largely restricted to its prime recruiting territory.

 

If Assad goes, effectively, Iran loses much of its use for Hezbollah. A lot of chatter on the net about alternatives for them.

 

Grenada serves a lot of lobster dinners to US tourists, especially on its cool north coast. Had a guy in basic training from there. Place turned out fine.

 

We can list other wars, but you get my point. There isn't a communist international ruling the world. As to Libya.... That was a monolithic, disturbing fuckup, but that was done for the French, the US wasn't leading it, even though in the end we had to do most of the heavy lifting. There is a lot of evidence it was the department of defense who tried to get Hillary Clinton to talk to Qaddafi, but for whatever stupid reason she refused. He did calm down considerably over the years. Your confusing the US department of state with the Pentagon. The Pentagon did a decent coordination of the air campaign, though I'm sure most were asking WTF are we backing the backstabbing French for.

 

Our international defensive treaty organization have survived, while that of our comoetitors , such as the Warsaw pact, went to hell. India now officially has a billion people, and has been losing ground over the last two years to China in its Himalaya border. India now buys more US weaponry than weapons from any other nation.... During the cold war, it was neutral, even openly friendly to the US at times, but firmly in the Russian camp. Sorta still is (there is a hilarious kashmiri English language philosophy group still backing Russia on the net, I used to post excepts).

 

US has more port of calls for our navy than any other country, and we have military training missions with most nations, and the ability to set up ad hoc international coalitions.

 

That is some of the benefits of having the department of defense. Prior to that, it was the department of war, and the staff largely switched over.

 

It works, because we keeps a magical pink unicorn trapped, roaming the inner courtyard. It was captured in Bosnia.

 

And the Korean War.... If you recall, like, Mao sent a million Chinese soldiers into Korea, after the UN forces recovered from the surprise invasion. China is backing off from the DPRK. Its kinda hard to hold diplomatic relations with a dictatorship that executes its top generals using mortars and anti aircraft guns at close range.

 

Like in the Tao The Ching, the Weak Envelops the Hard. Your hard headed in your approach. Every war should be Lepanto.... just use stupid mass force to get results. Didn't work for the Spanish against the Dutch.

 

There is a gradual, long term approach. When America first landed in Europe, they were a bunch of savaged running about in Hugo Boss uniforms. You gotta have long term goals for civilizing populations. You don't need a empire if you can get everyone to the same evolved standard. Military ethics is a good start.

 

Caesar lost battles too. His greatest achievements was in destroying his own republic, and the armies sworn to defend it. He was a weak souled and pathetic man. He got what was coming to him.

[C. Fabius Lupus]

The Cold War was one by economical power, not by military power. Trade and engineering are the strength of the US, not the battle field. This worked for some time, but the US are now becoming softer and softer. Ths will prove fatal against the primitiv mindset of the Mohammedans.

 

Right now America uses the approach that brought down the Roman Empire: barbarian foederati. These are no auxiliaries. Auxiliaries do not have their own officers, they are only foreign soldiers, but under imperial leadership. The Roman auxiliaries were organized this way, and the French Foreign Legion is so today. What the US are doing with arming and trainng the Iraqi and Afghan armies can be compared to the barbarian mercenary armies (foederati) in late antiquity under Odoacer and Theoderic. They were unreliable and often turned against the Empire. This is what is happening today in Iraq.

 

I do not quite understand your negative view of Caesar. He managed even to defeat Pompeius Magnus after the Gallic War. Caesar's name became a title, what shows the respect that he enjoyed among his contemporaries and the following generations.

[indianasmith]

All the tactical essays aside, I think the world would be a much better place if every member of ISIS were to suffer spontaneous cranial detonation.

[Onasander]

Several countries have been working on that Indiana. If you survive a targeted strike with air force ordinance, your eye vessels will break, internal organ will be ripped up, and there will be significant leakage of blood from your eyes and nose. You tend not to get very far. Dispite all the technology and cameras, its a remarkably crude weapon. I prefer light infantry strikes with good Intel, and a way out afterwards.

[indianasmith]

The thing with Syria is that . . .. there are no good guys.  Not among the combatants, anyway.  I feel sorry for the women and children caught up in that hellish mess.

[Onasander]

Your repeating a argument, but didn't arrive to that conclusion from personal research yourself.

 

They people who came up with the argument didn't either.

 

Google Euphrates Volcano. It provides a coalition of anti-assad groups. Half of them are self proclaimed jihadi groups, but it needs to be remembered that they are from a culture where such concepts are positively promoted in line with justice.

 

I'm not too thrilled with some of the antics of the Free Syrian Army, as its command structure isn't too effective in controlling all its men, and it has at times allied with Al-Nursa Front Commanders (its Bin Laden's group, though technically the US did the same in 2007, so I would be a hipocrite here saying its unforgivable). It was also the Free Syrian Army that betrayed the Japanese volunteer in turning him over to ISIS for the bounty. I'm sure the upper echelon was opposed to it once it came out, but that is roughly the mixed quality of troops they have. Many fight for freedom, others are scoundrels looking for opportunity.

 

Best groups obviously are the Kurdish groups, such as the Lions of Rojavs, they maintain a Facebook page. They are a old style Communist group, mixed with ideals of secular northern European socialism. They have some simmering political issues, in that obviously a democratic coalition of diverse political parties isn't going to react too well to a communist core pushing them out of power, even if there was a necessity during wartime (no political party wants to hear they aren't essential). This has lead to rifts.... Some of the Kurdish opposition parties buildings have been raided, and others have lead their groups into Iraq, entrenching the border across from Syria in a refugee standoff.

 

None the less, it is here you'll find most of the western, including American volunteers. Reason why is, Kurds don't kill or backstab Americans. They have a well established command structure, and hold stable territory.

 

The negative points is, Turkey views it as a terrorist group (Google Occalan). Obama has tried repeatedly to get Turkey to knock that silly crap off, but Turkey won't. Its why Kobani was defended by US airpower and not Turkish mech infantry, which would of ended the battle much quicker. To Turkey's annoyance, Kobani survived (for the time being). The Lions swear up in down they are not associated with Occalans group, but its rather hard to take this seriously as you can see his portraits hanging around in their pictures. None the less, all their negative traits taken together, they are a fairly decent group. I can't really say they are worst than some good groups the US has backed in past wars.

 

However, they can't realistically project force around Syria. Turkey has their border completely sealed off (but allows ISIS travel along a less strictly monitored border to the west). We would only have one bridge, one questionable for transporting heavy equipment to give and train the Kurds for northern incursions into ISIS territory. The training period likewise would cause issues, getting the Kurds used to mech infantry and tank tactics, and how to call in and coordinate with airpower, or do basic scout patrols.... I think ISIS would significantly pull its weight from pressing Assad and Iraq, and throw everything against the Kurds before they become strong. The Kurds do stand in a position to substantially disrupt transport between ISIS' Syrian and Iraqi provinces, itckuding it main grain supply route, which it needs to harvest this fall, meaning it can't lose Mosul prior to then. The Iraqi Peshmerga (also Kurds) have taken the north of Mosul, and the west. They lack the manpower to completely cut that route off. The Syrian Kurds could, if properly backed. The long term repercussions of arming the Syrian Kurds are equal to the Iraqi Kurds.... they would be ably to enforce their autonomy, while acting as a buffer state for NATO lands. Turkey is currently paranoid as hell about this, as southeast Turkey is largely Kurdish, and really dislikes having two Kurdish states armed to the teeth south of the border. However, generationally, it is in Turkey and NATO's best interest to do this, as it significantly lowers the effective border with Syria and Iraq, and it has its own large Kurdish population in which to influence and bind the Syrian and Iraqi Kurds closer to them.

 

I think eventually we will have to do this. Just right now, Obama is stressed out with teenagers flying drones into the whitehouse lawn, and pistmeb flying around, and is just too distracted to handle these other issues (equip the secret service with slingshots dummy, or rubber shotgun rounds).

 

As to the lesser Jihadi groups.... one commander us seen in briefings always with a pink Hello Kitty notebook on the table before him. I don't know how to rake that one.

[Onasander]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphrates_Volcano

 

The YPG this article mentions is the Kurdish group I mentioned, they also go by YPJ.

 

The important thing is, you don't let ISIS decide where the battles take place, such as at Palmyra or defending Assad. Its stupid, as it puts ISIS and Assad in control of our operations. If you back the Kurds in equipment, and use their territory as well as Iraq and the sea as points of projection, you can fly helicopters and airborne qualified light infantry in for lightening strikes aimed to slam ISIS where it least expects it, where they are vulnerable and too awkward to respond, and work a degree of attrition to wear down their ranks.

 

You can gain a kill rate of 2,000 to 3,000 ISIS with the combined approach, significantly disrupting its safe rear areas. You'll find ISIS will very quickly crumble, and won't be in much of a position to disrupt anything.

 

Much of its manpower comes from hiring locals for 500 bucks a month. Once they realise there is no safe area outside of inner Raqqa, it will become very difficult to project force.

 

Likewise, ISIS has gone on a gold and silver standard. Given they make their own coins, and most countries view the coins as war contraband, we can make counterfeits and flood the periphials of their markets with it, as well as drop caches full of fake coins. They institute price controls, and anyone with a background in economics know this is a recipe for disaster.

 

We've already bombed their oil producing capacity down to nothing, and have been degrading their ability to project force in terms of heavy weapons and large convoys. Its time we exploit this.

 

But we gotta recognize its going to be groups like the FSA the US is training up in Turkey, Euphrates volcano, perhaps even Assad, who gets the final moral say. Do we honestly think they are collectively in a position to intellectually digest this war, and Syria's past civil wars, and adjust their collective military and political ethics in such a way that this stuff doesn't break down into ethnic and sectarian hostilities?

 

Or is Syria just going to become a geographical area with ethnic and sectarian enclaves, and a big hole in the ground where Raqqa once stood?

Edited May 29, 2015 by Onasander

[C. Fabius Lupus]

Counterfeit gold? This would require a pretty good alchemist.

 

No, the solution for Syria is simple: Make Assad an ally!