How many days is needed ?

[esmith]

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?

Didn't mention Iraq. ISIS will not be kicked out of Iraq or Syria without the use of ground troops. However, if one did use ground troops the logical place to start would be Iraq driving the ISIS forces out of the towns. To do this a smart commander will use air strikes, and artillery in support of the ground units. When pocket of resistance is found pound the crap out of it and advance. Eventually the opposing force will either retreat or be annihilated. Once they are in the open, hit them with air strike and annihilate them. There will be no "kid glove" " rules of engagement. Once the ISIS forces in Iraq are reduced to a ineffective force move into Syria. Right now Russia is conducting massive bomber raids against the ISIS capital and any other ISIS facilities. (see link at bottom). Once the decision is made that ISIS has to be annihilated in Syria, ground forces will have to be used. The same method of clearing the towns and surrounding areas in Iraq will be used in Syria. If you do not think that this will not be fought by basically the same strategies used in WW2, you are badly mistaken. This will be total war and it can not be fought with the same mentality that the US has been using.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...isis-with-biggest-bomber-raid-in-decades.html

in addition
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3321624/France-launches-wave-bombing-raids-Syria.html

 

[metis]

Didn't mention Iraq. ISIS will not be kicked out of Iraq or Syria without the use of ground troops. However, if one did use ground troops the logical place to start would be Iraq driving the ISIS forces out of the towns. To do this a smart commander will use air strikes, and artillery in support of the ground units. When pocket of resistance is found pound the crap out of it and advance. Eventually the opposing force will either retreat or be annihilated. Once they are in the open, hit them with air strike and annihilate them. There will be no "kid glove" " rules of engagement. Once the ISIS forces in Iraq are reduced to a ineffective force move into Syria. Right now Russia is conducting massive bomber raids against the ISIS capital and any other ISIS facilities. (see link at bottom). Once the decision is made that ISIS has to be annihilated in Syria, ground forces will have to be used. The same method of clearing the towns and surrounding areas in Iraq will be used in Syria. If you do not think that this will not be fought by basically the same strategies used in WW2, you are badly mistaken. This will be total war and it can not be fought with the same mentality that the US has been using.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...isis-with-biggest-bomber-raid-in-decades.html

in addition
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3321624/France-launches-wave-bombing-raids-Syria.html

By doing the above, all you will be doing is feeding the beast that is ISIS, plus offending so many Middle Easterners, Muslims, and many others worldwide that simply have issues of what would essentially be viewed as genocidal actions. Should we react, yes. Should we bomb certain areas, yes. Should we use special opts, yes. But to go in as you propose is simply inviting a much greater problem, not only abroad, but even in our own country.

Some people have still not learned the lessons of Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan but still wallow in a conventional war mentality that cannot be applied to the two civil wars raging in Syria and Iraq. It's more a war of the minds of people, so going in with a battle-ax instead of a scalpel would simply make us our own worst enemy.

 

[esmith]

By doing the above, all you will be doing is feeding the beast that is ISIS, plus offending so many Middle Easterners, Muslims, and many others worldwide that simply have issues of what would essentially be viewed as genocidal actions. Should we react, yes. Should we bomb certain areas, yes. Should we use special opts, yes. But to go in as you propose is simply inviting a much greater problem, not only abroad, but even in our own country.

Some people have still not learned the lessons of Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan but still wallow in a conventional war mentality that cannot be applied to the two civil wars raging in Syria and Iraq. It's more a war of the minds of people, so going in with a battle-ax instead of a scalpel would simply make us our own worst enemy.

So, how do you eject ISIS from Iraq and Syria with your proposed methods.

 

[metis]

So, how do you eject ISIS from Iraq and Syria with your proposed methods.

You are not going to eject them because it's a movement, but what we can do is to weaken them without brutalizing the entire region. Meanwhile we can bomb their oil fields like we did yesterday, hit their supply lines, and then just make life very miserable for them until they realize they're not having much fun any more.

Then we need to approach the Saudi's and other Gulf states, and give them an ultimatum-- either you help out while also taking in some of the refugees or we will not sell you one single bullet, nor supply you with one dollar of foreign aid, and then we will work with other countries more diligently to try and ween them off of your oil like we and western Europe have been gradually doing. We have to remember that much of the conflict going on there mostly started with the Saudis originally, and they still foster trouble throughout the region. I'm sick and tired of us pretending that they are our ally.

The region is a mess, and it is going be up to the people who live there to deal with what it will take to resolve this because we simply can't. The only reason why the Saudis and some others aren't doing squat is because they want us and the Europeans to do their work for them while they sit back in their luxurious palaces playing us for the fools we are.

 

[esmith]

Well first you will have to get someone to take the lead and it sure will not be the US.

 

[metis]

Well first you will have to get someone to take the lead and it sure will not be the US.

We need more mutual cooperation, especially within the M.E. community, and this actually should be more orchestrated by them than us since they have more at stake since that's their area of the world. If we "take the lead", then it's more our fight and it feeds into a U.S. being anti-Islamic stereotype. The mistake you're making is the same mistake we made in Vietnam and Iraq, namely thinking only of blowing things up and occupying a foreign country while forgetting the importance of p.r., imagery, and the longer-term effects.

These conditions did not develop overnight, nor will they be solved overnight.

 

[esmith]

We need more mutual cooperation, especially within the M.E. community, and this actually should be more orchestrated by them than us since they have more at stake since that's their area of the world. If we "take the lead", then it's more our fight and it feeds into a U.S. being anti-Islamic stereotype. The mistake you're making is the same mistake we made in Vietnam and Iraq, namely thinking only of blowing things up and occupying a foreign country while forgetting the importance of p.r., imagery, and the longer-term effects.

These conditions did not develop overnight, nor will they be solved overnight.

First let me ask you a simple question. Why is it that terrorist and especially ISIS have such an excellent recruitment record? It is because they have shown that they stand for something and are winning. Volunteers are not going to join an organization that is losing, and can not offer them the chance to accomplish whatever propaganda that has fueled their frustration. Now I know you are going to say that non-Muslims attacking Islam (If they think ISIS is Islam) will produce more followers of ISIS and other Islamic terrorist groups, this may or may not be true in every case. However, many say they are joining ISIS to protect Islam. However, ask yourself this question. How many Muslims think that ISIS represents Islam? Maybe we need Muslims to protest in mass against ISIS and their terrorist brothers and sisters. Or maybe we need more leaders like King Abdullah of Jordan and religious leaders to stand up and tell the truth. I say we need both.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/jordans-ki...ird-world-war-isis-scourge-sows-chaos-1529329
But you must eradicate as many of the groups as possible or at least reduce them to the point that they are no longer as serious threat as they are now. Now, this will not happen in a year or a decade, it will be a generational war. But we must take the first step to eradicate the largest group and that is ISIS. Now the only problem with eradicating ISIS is who is going to insure that they or another group does not fill the vaccume that is left. In other words a highly effective military style "police force". No, I do not see the US or hopefully and other single western or mid-east (Iran) power controlling the areas. You are going to need a multi-national force consisting of Muslim and non-Muslim countries. Now the only problem with that is in Syria itself. Russia and Iran are committed to keeping Assad in power and they will not submit to foreign powers controlling one part of the country and giving safe-haven to forces opposed to Assad. Basically we (the world) is between a rock and a hard spot. However, unless something is done about ISIS the continuing terrorist attacks will continue throughout the world. Choices 1. Eliminate ISIS and hope for the best 2. Let ISIS keep what they have and recognize them as a "State" yet keep them from trying to expand their borders, or maybe you have a better idea.

 

[leibowde84]

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 ?

Because ISIS has surrounded itself with civilians and has been proven to be strategic experts, it will take years to take them out. They are wide spread, hidden, and almost impossible to "figure out" in regards to what their actual end game is. The more quickly it is done, the more collateral civilian casualties there will be.

 

[metis]

First let me ask you a simple question. Why is it that terrorist and especially ISIS have such an excellent recruitment record? It is because they have shown that they stand for something and are winning.

Actually they are losing territory in Syria and stand to lose more, which is why I believe they have decided to use al-Queda's technique, which they originally condemned, of attacking soft-targets in or against the west to try and draw more recruits into their ranks, and we have to be careful not to be so foolish as to fall into that trap. They've did it to the Russians in Afghanistan and then with us in Iraq and Afghanistan, and you would have thought by now we would be wary of doing what they clearly want us to do.

Now I know you are going to say that non-Muslims attacking Islam (If they think ISIS is Islam) will produce more followers of ISIS and other Islamic terrorist groups, this may or may not be true in every case.

I did not say that, so where in the world did you get that from? I just said that we have to be cautious with what we do so that we don't overreact and cause more problems.

But you must eradicate as many of the groups as possible or at least reduce them to the point that they are no longer as serious threat as they are now. Now, this will not happen in a year or a decade, it will be a generational war.

Which is what I said.

But we must take the first step to eradicate the largest group and that is ISIS. Now the only problem with eradicating ISIS is who is going to insure that they or another group does not fill the vaccume that is left.

Absolutely, but how do you do that without taking over completely and then tying to "nation build"?

In other words a highly effective military style "police force". No, I do not see the US or hopefully and other single western or mid-east (Iran) power controlling the areas. You are going to need a multi-national force consisting of Muslim and non-Muslim countries.

I can absolutely guarantee you that this will not happen, and if the west were to be foolish enough to try, "Katy bar the door!".

Now the only problem with that is in Syria itself. Russia and Iran are committed to keeping Assad in power and they will not submit to foreign powers controlling one part of the country and giving safe-haven to forces opposed to Assad. Basically we (the world) is between a rock and a hard spot.

And by supposedly eliminating ISIS, we help Assad, which, granted, is the lesser of the two evils.

However, unless something is done about ISIS the continuing terrorist attacks will continue throughout the world. Choices 1. Eliminate ISIS and hope for the best 2. Let ISIS keep what they have and recognize them as a "State" yet keep them from trying to expand their borders, or maybe you have a better idea.

Again, what I have proposed, which has been also supported by some of our defense experts btw, will at least weaken ISIS without creating the nightmarish scenario of what you have proposed above.

I have studied this region both here and there for many decades, including being involved for 15 years with the Council on North African and Near Eastern Studies, which doesn't mean that I'm always going to be correct, btw, but that I do know quite a bit about the history and culture of the region. Even though I was never in the military (a long story), I have spent a lot of time over roughly five decades studying war and its effects in that region because that is one area of specialization as an anthropologist and because of my military studies. Again, this does not translate out to me being intrinsically correct, but I do have a pretty good track record on that when dealing with that region.

Ouch! I just hurt my arm by patting myself on the back. Sorry about that.

 

[Godobeyer]

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 ?

If the world really want to destroy Daesh (ISIS), as groups and troups, it's will take between 4 to 6 months if they support Syria Army of Bashar.

by actual fighting
It's guess it's take two years "as troups , and groups" to defeat Daesh in Syria but in Iraq it's take more , but for individual or small groups that's will take more than 20 years for my guess to clean up this cancer from the root by ideology . (remove Wahabi media effect through 1.6 billion Muslims)

 

[Rick O'Shez]

It's guess it's take two years "as troups , and groups" to defeat Daesh in Syria but in Iraq it's take more , but for individual or small groups that's will take more than 20 years for my guess to clean up this cancer from the root by ideology . (remove Wahabi media effect through 1.6 billion Muslims)

Islamic extremists are widely spread, and Daesh is only one group. But you're right, it is a cancer in need of long-term treatment. Something which Muslims will have to sort out long-term, not the west.

 

[Godobeyer]

Islamic extremists are widely spread, and Daesh is only one group. But you're right, it is a cancer in need of long-term treatment. Something which Muslims will have to sort out long-term, not the west.

NOW the West regimes just need to stop to support (rebels in Syria) and stop intervention in Muslims issues (which made civil wars in terrorism)

indeed most of Muslims are fighting them on ground , this cancer as i said should stop by ban ideology of Wahabism , which supported by West in 1990 against Soviet Union , and which refect on the world by terrorism and end by 9/11 .

Now the West (and Wahabism regimes) made the same mistake in Syria by helping rebels (Jihadist) since 2011

The West regimes had no right to destruct a country because they disagree with it's regime (Assad).

 

[ShivaFan]

It is taking "some time" because we are too nice to losers. I have a few questions which may shift the paradigm to a more strategic venue.

* Train the moderates has been a complete failure. Why try? They are mostly messed up and losers, too. I say train Nepali gurkhas, Sikhs, Apache Indians, and the entire nation of Japanese "fast cars culture" to go get 'em and pay them all 20 times the pay a plumber would get in their own country.

* Why are we letting their muslim men of military age come HERE to NOT fight Radical Islam - and for God sakes why permanently - while we are told we need to SEND our own free men of military age to go there and fight Radical Islam? What kind of cowards are these muslim men of military age? It's their country, time for them to fight, not slob around in public housing in the "West" and look at "Soccer Star" magazine. Why aren't we handing these muslim men a green uniform and telling them, "great, you don't like ISIS, go back and kill them like everybody else is expected to"... ?

I mean, just tell them they have just been drafted. Why should they be allowed to be cowards who would rather read Playboys here in their government assisted housing and drink Starbucks, than fight? Go back and fight.

* How do you tell a new recruit to Islamic extremism from otherwise? I mean, that freaky female jihadist involved in the Paris mass murders, she became an Islamic extremist nutjob only a couple of weeks ago. Before that she was a Cowgirl, wearing cowboy hats from Texas, taking selfies of herself in a tub naked and we know she liked to hang out in Country Western bars and try to hook up a cowboy while drinking imported beer from the US. If Obama administration even had done a background check on her likeness they would have concluded she was a Jeb Bush supporter. Then he would have denied her green card, but not because she's a jihadee. All of a sudden, she decides overnight no cowboy wants to marry her because she is a drunk and not that great riding horses, so she decides to get "religion" and joins a cowboy-hating cult of muslim monsters after her junkie-drunk Islamo-Fascist relative tells her he is going to commit suicide in the name of Allah because hot "white" girls think he is ugly looking and won't go on a date with him ("kill them ALL!") ????

* Why are so many, if not most all, of these Islamic terrorists on a mass-murder suicide mission also junkies, drunks, pot smoking whiners who cannot get a grilfriend, HIV positive sex perverts, known child molestors, shamed homosexuals who say they are not "gay" but are and their father hates them, who are too dumb to pass algebra in school and are looking at a career in concrete mixing? I mean, these, along with any "Western" who joins jihad, are expendable, so that is exactly why the "leaders" send them out to blow themselves up - and then make them feel redemption for blowing themselves up while both killing non-muslims while getting rid of them at the same time.

Why isn't being a junkie, drunk, HIV positive sex freak or child molestor, or a dumb unemployed shovel head, or a humosexual full of extreme self-loathing brought on by an oppressive fearful culture, why aren't these also part of any criteria for a background check screening of potential suicidal sammies as part of a "vetting" process? The really bad one's bent on killing the world are usually these jihadees sent to death by the mullah-monsters.

Some thought on this could reduce the time.