My knowledge of PLA assets is limited, so I will keep my post mainly restricted to the strategy and level of involvement.
Given the current state of the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) I don't believe that we can rule out a ground engagement by the PLA. The SAA are exhausted, deficient in materiel and manpower, with the Iraqi army being well.......no words can really describe their current state imho. Being a large country with a great deal of desert, fortresses would be a poor choice except to defend an extremely high value city/port perhaps. Desert warfare has always been about mobile units and defensive webs. Even if it was restricted to air/naval alone, the bases within the area would almost certainly be subjected to suicide/sabotage operations and the garrison units would be engaged in ground warfare anyway. The ground forces must avoid the mistakes made by some US forces in Afghanistan, where units sheltered in fortress like compounds and did not engage with the locals. That is not to say that the PLA will not need fortress like bases, but their implementation should be different.
I would propose an expeditionary army of sorts, armed to the teeth with the best of the arsenal, and sent to eliminate the major strongholds within the area. To start off small, and not strain PLAAF logistics, I would suggest no more than 10,000 in the first month to establish an operational area to work within, and clear out the worst of the insurgency. They should be heavily supported by WZ-10 gunships and with a mission mandate to establish a safe zone of perhaps 90-100 miles radius from say....the port city of Latakia (The Russians already have an airbase there) . Alternatively, a new airbase can be constructed if necessary.
At the risk of going off topic....the PLA forces in the region must assume that there is a significant chance that Daesh forces will 'somehow' become armed with advanced anti-air and anti-armour weapon systems, and plan accordingly. I will not go into the reasons for this here. Something will have to the done about the foreign funding, but that is outside the scope of my post and this topic imo.
Once a forward safe zone has been established AND maintained, additional troops can be sent in as necessary. I'm aware that this sounds rather textbook-like, but it is a logical approach to the problem. Implementing it, will be as always, key to success.
This may sound controversial but imo an emphasis should be made on not necessarily eliminating enemy personnel, but reducing collateral damage and eliminating enemy equipment. Daesh have plenty of manpower, but even with ALL their stolen equipment, which must now reach mind boggling value, cannot replace their equipment losses forever. They have minimal arms industries, and certainly nothing near to the quality that would be needed to produce war vehicles in large quantities.
However, an example should be made of Daesh military forces at some point. One cannot afford to be seen as weak when dealing with such ruthless and fanatical individuals, but also must be seen as friendly when dealing with reasonable people. The complete annihilation of the largest stronghold, after ensuring as many civilians escape as possible should suffice. When I say annihilation, I mean pancaking ala Vietnam War McNamara level carpet bombing, thermobaric charges, and SRBMs to ensure that the message is heard loud and clear that the world will no longer tolerate the existence of such radicals. Immediately afterwards, and for a long period this should be followed by a mix of hard/sort of soft counter-propaganda to ensure that the local people are well aware of /all/ the crimes that Daesh have been doing these past couple of years AND why a major intervention was necessary. This war will never be won without the 'hearts and minds' as it were, of the local people, as some people on this forum have highlighted previously. Perhaps some lessons can be learned from COIN operations in Afghanistan & no doubt the Russians can educate regarding the worst mistakes to avoid with the local people, and culturally speaking; since they have been dealing with the Syrians/Iraqis for decades. And of course, the city should be rebuilt after a time has passed and hopefully Daesh is consigned to the dustbin of history.
My knowledge of PLA assets is limited, so I will keep my post mainly restricted to the strategy and level of involvement.
Given the current state of the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) I don't believe that we can rule out a ground engagement by the PLA. The SAA are exhausted, deficient in materiel and manpower, with the Iraqi army being well.......no words can really describe their current state imho. Being a large country with a great deal of desert, fortresses would be a poor choice except to defend an extremely high value city/port perhaps. Desert warfare has always been about mobile units and defensive webs. Even if it was restricted to air/naval alone, the bases within the area would almost certainly be subjected to suicide/sabotage operations and the garrison units would be engaged in ground warfare anyway. The ground forces must avoid the mistakes made by some US forces in Afghanistan, where units sheltered in fortress like compounds and did not engage with the locals. That is not to say that the PLA will not need fortress like bases, but their implementation should be different.
I would propose an expeditionary army of sorts, armed to the teeth with the best of the arsenal, and sent to eliminate the major strongholds within the area. To start off small, and not strain PLAAF logistics, I would suggest no more than 10,000 in the first month to establish an operational area to work within, and clear out the worst of the insurgency. They should be heavily supported by WZ-10 gunships and with a mission mandate to establish a safe zone of perhaps 90-100 miles radius from say....the port city of Latakia (The Russians already have an airbase there) . Alternatively, a new airbase can be constructed if necessary.
At the risk of going off topic....the PLA forces in the region must assume that there is a significant chance that Daesh forces will 'somehow' become armed with advanced anti-air and anti-armour weapon systems, and plan accordingly. I will not go into the reasons for this here. Something will have to the done about the foreign funding, but that is outside the scope of my post and this topic imo.
Once a forward safe zone has been established AND maintained, additional troops can be sent in as necessary. I'm aware that this sounds rather textbook-like, but it is a logical approach to the problem. Implementing it, will be as always, key to success.
This may sound controversial but imo an emphasis should be made on not necessarily eliminating enemy personnel, but reducing collateral damage and eliminating enemy equipment. Daesh have plenty of manpower, but even with ALL their stolen equipment, which must now reach mind boggling value, cannot replace their equipment losses forever. They have minimal arms industries, and certainly nothing near to the quality that would be needed to produce war vehicles in large quantities.
However, an example should be made of Daesh military forces at some point. One cannot afford to be seen as weak when dealing with such ruthless and fanatical individuals, but also must be seen as friendly when dealing with reasonable people. The complete annihilation of the largest stronghold, after ensuring as many civilians escape as possible should suffice. When I say annihilation, I mean pancaking ala Vietnam War McNamara level carpet bombing, thermobaric charges, and SRBMs to ensure that the message is heard loud and clear that the world will no longer tolerate the existence of such radicals. Immediately afterwards, and for a long period this should be followed by a mix of hard/sort of soft counter-propaganda to ensure that the local people are well aware of /all/ the crimes that Daesh have been doing these past couple of years AND why a major intervention was necessary. This war will never be won without the 'hearts and minds' as it were, of the local people, as some people on this forum have highlighted previously. Perhaps some lessons can be learned from COIN operations in Afghanistan & no doubt the Russians can educate regarding the worst mistakes to avoid with the local people, and culturally speaking; since they have been dealing with the Syrians/Iraqis for decades. And of course, the city should be rebuilt after a time has passed and hopefully Daesh is consigned to the dustbin of history.
that's a really good post i read it carefully to give it some thought. i'm no military expert so many of you guys can better comment on this topic but i don't really think china is capable of doing what you suggested in your post. to put 5000 or 10000 troops in foreign soil, in a hot zone so far away is beyond the capability of china. china's military is a defensive one, and they do an excellant job in defending china but once they leave china and go abroad that is different matter. They are different than the western militaries and Russia who have been fighting outside their own countries for as long as we can remember.
