How many days is needed ?

[FearGod]

If the superpowers are very serious in fighting the IS then how many days
they need to destroy the IS ?

What do you think ?

Can it be destroyed in a week, a month, a year, ten years ....?
Why not supporting Bashar and his troops to destroy the IS ?
Why not sending troops to fight the IS face to face ?
Hundreds of sorties in daily basis and what's the result, nothing.
How much is the cost of the war, the more days the more expenses,
The Islamic empire was destroyed due to engaging in long wars from
east and west, will the recent wars give the chance for China to grow up
and be the only one superpower in the world ?

 

[George-ananda]

If the superpowers are very serious in fighting the IS then how many days
they need to destroy the IS ?

I don't think 'destroyed' is an appropriate word for an unofficial organization. As long as there are people wanting to fight for the cause, IS can not be said to have been destroyed. There can always be new recruits as long as the ideology is attractive to some. They just have to live under the rocks and can have no official buildings, etc, that can be easily destroyed. They have to keep on the move like Bin Laden did. You can not tell who is IS and who is not unless they want you to know.

 

[FearGod]

I don't think 'destroyed' is an appropriate word for an unofficial organization. As long as there are people wanting to fight for the cause, IS can not be said to have been destroyed. There can always be new recruits as long as the ideology is attractive to some. They just have to live under the rocks and can have no official buildings, etc, that can be easily destroyed. They have to keep on the move like Bin Laden did. You can not tell who is IS and who is not unless they want you to know.

That seems endless then.

 

[George-ananda]

That seems endless then.

As long as there is hatred in the heart, guerilla warfare (as in Paris) can be continued endlessly by new recruits, yes.

 

[esmith]

I'd say about 2-3 weeks to eradicate them from the lands they occupy in Syria and Iraq if the kid gloves are taken off and the rules of engagement are removed. However it will take ground forces, since air power alone will not accomplish the mission.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...onghold-as-critics-blast-us-rules-engagement/
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/1...rikes-as-report-claims-allies-targeted-paris/

However, they or a group like them will be present in areas around the world for decades or longer. So, basically this will be a generational war.

 

[vaguelyhumanoid]

Citing Fox News? Really, now?

 

[averageJOE]

10 to 15 years. Like Al-Quida, IS-IS won't fight "face to face". If an IS-IS soldier and an innocent Iraqi citizen were standing next to each other you wouldn't be able to tell them apart.

 

[esmith]

10 to 15 years. Like Al-Quida, IS-IS won't fight "face to face". If an IS-IS soldier and an innocent Iraqi citizen were standing next to each other you wouldn't be able to tell them apart.

Maybe you need a little history lesson. When "Total War" is invoked it makes no difference whether you are a non-combatant or a combatant. Bombs, artillery rounds, or any dumb munition make no distinction between good or bad they just kill. No smart military leader will not commit troops without a "softening up" of the objective.
Now for the history lesson: World War II

 

[metis]

I'd say about 2-3 weeks to eradicate them from the lands they occupy in Syria and Iraq if the kid gloves are taken off and the rules of engagement are removed. However it will take ground forces, since air power alone will not accomplish the mission.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...onghold-as-critics-blast-us-rules-engagement/
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/1...rikes-as-report-claims-allies-targeted-paris/

However, they or a group like them will be present in areas around the world for decades or longer. So, basically this will be a generational war.

And this is the same kind of thinking that got us bogged down in Vietnam that cost tens of thousands of American lives and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese lives.

 

[metis]

Maybe you need a little history lesson. When "Total War" is invoked it makes no difference whether you are a non-combatant or a combatant. Bombs, artillery rounds, or any dumb munition make no distinction between good or bad they just kill. No smart military leader will not commit troops without a "softening up" of the objective.
Now for the history lesson: World War II

There often is a big difference when fighting conventional wars, such as WWII, versus less conventional wars, like Vietnam and what we see happening in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. If we were to go into Syria like gangbusters, what will happen is that ISIS will simply merge back in with the general populace, hit us with guerilla attacks, wait for us to leave, and then re-emerge again.

This is exactly what ISIS wants us to do, and they have stated as such, much like bin Laden did.

 

[Flankerl]

WW2 kind of warfare and resources: A week
Todays kind of warfare and resources: Never

 

[metis]

WW2 kind of warfare and resources: A week
Todays kind of warfare and resources: Never

Nope-- I don't buy it. Let me draw a parallel.

Back in the mid-1960's, at least somewhat because I was brought up in a military family (I didn't even meet my own father until I was three because he was stationed in the Philippines under MacArthur), I was for our involvement in Vietnam. In 1966, I had to do a research paper for one of my anthropology classes, and I chose to do it on that conflict, and was that a shock to me when I began to dig into the research.

The straw that broke this "camel's back" for me was well put by the French historian Bernard Fall, who had spent extensive time studying the French involvement there, and concluded that France was caught up in a no-win situation. The French, of course, warned us Americans that we were getting in over our heads, but we "knew better", and the rest is history.

We simply cannot save a country by blowing it to smithereens, occupying it, and then somehow believing that this is all going to work out in creating a Jeffersonian democracy. Again, ISIS would love for us to do this because it is the best recruiting tool that they can use. Instead of there being one Syrian conflict, we would be facing many "Syrian conflicts" through not only that region but also in our own countries.

Do we fight them-- yes. But we do need to look at the long range scenario and what our actions could create, and we need to think very carefully about the p.r. war that we all too often tend to give short-shrift to.

 

[sun rise]

I'd say about 2-3 weeks to eradicate them from the lands they occupy in Syria and Iraq if the kid gloves are taken off and the rules of engagement are removed. However it will take ground forces, since air power alone will not accomplish the mission.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...onghold-as-critics-blast-us-rules-engagement/
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/1...rikes-as-report-claims-allies-targeted-paris/

However, they or a group like them will be present in areas around the world for decades or longer. So, basically this will be a generational war.

We did that in Afghanistan but they're back so "eradicating" them is both impossible and not the answer. I do agree it will take a long time to expunge fanatical terrorists. Looking at the history of such asymmetrical wars all over the world, defeating them does take generations.

 

[roger1440]

If the superpowers are very serious in fighting the IS then how many days
they need to destroy the IS ?

What do you think ?

Can it be destroyed in a week, a month, a year, ten years ....?
Why not supporting Bashar and his troops to destroy the IS ?
Why not sending troops to fight the IS face to face ?
Hundreds of sorties in daily basis and what's the result, nothing.
How much is the cost of the war, the more days the more expenses,
The Islamic empire was destroyed due to engaging in long wars from
east and west, will the recent wars give the chance for China to grow up
and be the only one superpower in the world ?

There are no easy answers. If there were the problem would have been solved by now. What we do know is that the way the world’s super powers are handling this isn’t working. It is foolish to think if we continue to do the same thing the same way and expect different results. What happened in Paris is a wakeup call for the world. It is not wise to wait for the bad guys to knock on our door. Simply wiping ISIS off the face of the planet is not the answer. Once the smoke clears there will be a void of power. We saw this in Iraq.

‘Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.’ Nicholas Clairmont

http://bigthink.com/the-proverbial-skeptic/those-who-do-not-learn-history-doomed-to-repeat-it-really

 

[roger1440]

I been thinking about this video the last few days. It's an excerpt from the "Concert For New York City". The Twin Towers used to be outside my window.

 

[roger1440]

 

[Flankerl]

Nope-- I don't buy it. Let me draw a parallel.

Back in the mid-1960's, at least somewhat because I was brought up in a military family (I didn't even meet my own father until I was three because he was stationed in the Philippines under MacArthur), I was for our involvement in Vietnam. In 1966, I had to do a research paper for one of my anthropology classes, and I chose to do it on that conflict, and was that a shock to me when I began to dig into the research.

The straw that broke this "camel's back" for me was well put by the French historian Bernard Fall, who had spent extensive time studying the French involvement there, and concluded that France was caught up in a no-win situation. The French, of course, warned us Americans that we were getting in over our heads, but we "knew better", and the rest is history.

We simply cannot save a country by blowing it to smithereens, occupying it, and then somehow believing that this is all going to work out in creating a Jeffersonian democracy. Again, ISIS would love for us to do this because it is the best recruiting tool that they can use. Instead of there being one Syrian conflict, we would be facing many "Syrian conflicts" through not only that region but also in our own countries.

Do we fight them-- yes. But we do need to look at the long range scenario and what our actions could create, and we need to think very carefully about the p.r. war that we all too often tend to give short-shrift to.

Well I honestly wasn't thinking about the US or British Army of WW2 clearing the country. I was more thinking about WW2 Germany or the USSR.
The first being more unfriendly than the second one.

Wouldn't really look nice but it would work. Granted a few villages and cities would... vanish.

 

[metis]

Well I honestly wasn't thinking about the US or British Army of WW2 clearing the country. I was more thinking about WW2 Germany or the USSR.
The first being more unfriendly than the second one.

Wouldn't really look nice but it would work. Granted a few villages and cities would... vanish.

Sorry I misinterpreted what you were saying-- maybe I'll wake up this evening.

 

[averageJOE]

Maybe you need a little history lesson. When "Total War" is invoked it makes no difference whether you are a non-combatant or a combatant. Bombs, artillery rounds, or any dumb munition make no distinction between good or bad they just kill. No smart military leader will not commit troops without a "softening up" of the objective.
Now for the history lesson: World War II

This ain't world war 2. Different war, different rules. The US isn't going to bomb the cities of Iraq with the hopes of taking out a few ISIS, all while killing innocents. I've fought overseas twice. You?

 

[roger1440]

When "Total War" is invoked it makes no difference whether you are a non-combatant or a combatant

where are you getting this from?