ISIS/ISIL conflict in Syria/Iraq (No OpEd, No Politics)

Jeff Head · May 26, 2015

kwaigonegin said:
Maybe I'm old school but how about have a no repercussions honest to God face to face talk with the Iraqi troops and commanders and ask them why.

That should have been pone of the firsyt after action things that occurred.

No matter who is in charge.

But that rpesumes, by definition, that the leadership...from the unit on up, is interested in knowing what they have to say.

If somewhere higher in the chain (regimental, army, corps) they are not interested...then such an effort all falls apart.

kwaigonegin said:
It appears this is an extremely serious problems with the Iraqi army and until this is sorted out then everything else is moot. No amount of advanced weaponry and tactical training will do any good if the underlying cause is not identified and resolved!

Myself and Sampan talked about this to some extent.

I personally believe that the root lies in the inte4raction/communication/cooperation/trust of the tribal interaction.

The US was able to...with a lot of hard work, creating infrastructure, training the tribal militias and arming them, financial support, and convincing those leaders that the US was serious...ally with the tribal cheiftans and , defeat AQIR and the insurgency in a true counter-insurgency form, and turning the Tribal chieftains away from the other side.

The US was able to do this because it was not viewed as either Shia or Sunni, and because it demonstrated is willingness to work with...and financially, militarily, and building-wise, to work with either...and that that time, the US showed that it was decidedly serious about its involvement and making all of that happen.

And it worked where the other methods had been failing.

Now, the US is unwilling to commit its own forces to doing this again...and it is going to be difficult for any Iraqi government that is more beholden to one set of chieftains than another to do the same. But that is what they have to find a way to do.

I believe the inability...or unwillingness to do this...is the real root of whatever gains ISIL is making in Iraq. I know people who were involved in the successful US efforts back after the so-called "surge." The focus of the surge was this effort I just explained. And it worked...but then the US walked away from it, and the Iraqi government did not maintain what was necessary to have it hold.

Enter ISIS and took advantage of these failings.

But that is just my opinion.

janjak desalin · May 26, 2015

Correction: 2 battalions for the outer defense. Just checked the map, which should have been the first step, and saw that there are two main roads to Ramadi from the west. So, 1760 vs 5000!

janjak desalin · May 26, 2015

thunderchief said:
Well, actually, desert warfare is all about mobility and controlling sources of water . You cannot just build outpost in the middle of nowhere . You could stockpile food and ammo, but is very hard to stockpile enough water for even 100 men if there isn't large enough well around . ISIS understands that very well, they are constantly on the move, bypassing strong-points and attacking at unexpected places. On the other hand, I never saw attempting similar tactics, using small but mobile units to raid ISIS rear areas .

Btw, if you consult a map of Ramadi, you'll see that two northern roads into Ramadi from the west run along the Euphrates. So, ISIS/ISIL as usual, has used a natural feature to its tactical advantage. One of the first things I noticed about ISIS/ISIL tactics was that they generally advanced along rivers. I was quite impressed as this was the same method used by the Mongols as they took over damn near the whole world.

Equation · May 26, 2015

What the "F" is he shooting at? You are just wasting ammo. That's not a very good show of infantry movement tactical maneuvers.

Zool · May 26, 2015

Turkish FM confirms the beginnings of an agreement with the US to begin air strikes in Syria. Debate underway about which terrorist groups to target and which not to; also whether strikes should be directed against Syrian Military Forces and the Syrian Government itself.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

By Burak Ege Bekdil1:06 p.m. EDT May 26, 2015

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
COMMENTEMAILMORE
ANKARA — NATO allies Turkey and the US have agreed in principle to provide air support to Syrian rebels fighting the regime of Syria's President Bashar Assad, Turkey's foreign minister said.

The planned air support would protect the Syrian opposition fighters who have been trained and equipped by a joint Turkish-US program at a military base in Turkey, Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said. Turkey and the US hope to train up to 15,000 rebels.

A US diplomat in Ankara did not comment on how soon the air support for the rebels could start.

The move marks a departure for Washington from its earlier position in opposing a safe zone for Syrian rebels, observers say. It also could mean broader US involvement in the Syrian conflict.

Cavusoglu did not elaborate on what "in principle" meant, what kind of air power would be provided or by whom.

"They have to be supported via air. If you do not protect them or provide air support, what is the point?" Cavusoglu told reporters in televised remarks. "There is a principle agreement on providing air support. How it is going to be provided is in the responsibility of the army."

Although Turkey and the US agree on supporting moderate Islamist forces fighting in Syria, they disagree on who should be the priority target.

Turkey insists the rebels should be supported to fight primarily Assad's regime in Damascus while the US thinks the priority enemy is the Islamic State group that has captured large swaths of land in Syria and Iraq since last summer.

A senior Turkish diplomat said both enemies could be fought simultaneously if rebels are given sufficient support.

"We need not specify in bold letters which enemy is the worse enemy," he said. "The rebel forces can be trained, equipped and supported enough to fight at more than one front."

kwaigonegin · May 26, 2015

Equation said:
What the "F" is he shooting at? You are just wasting ammo. That's not a very good show of infantry movement tactical maneuvers.

Spray and Pray. that's the only thing the Iraqi regulars are good at. Couple that with a systemic problem of running away the moment the first shots are fired no wonder ISIS is gaining such a momentum.

kwaigonegin · May 26, 2015

Jeff Head said:
That should have been pone of the firsyt after action things that occurred.

No matter who is in charge.

But that rpesumes, by definition, that the leadership...from the unit on up, is interested in knowing what they have to say.

If somewhere higher in the chain (regimental, army, corps) they are not interested...then such an effort all falls apart.

Myself and Sampan talked about this to some extent.

I personally believe that the root lies in the inte4raction/communication/cooperation/trust of the tribal interaction.

The US was able to...with a lot of hard work, creating infrastructure, training the tribal militias and arming them, financial support, and convincing those leaders that the US was serious...ally with the tribal cheiftans and , defeat AQIR and the insurgency in a true counter-insurgency form, and turning the Tribal chieftains away from the other side.

The US was able to do this because it was not viewed as either Shia or Sunni, and because it demonstrated is willingness to work with...and financially, militarily, and building-wise, to work with either...and that that time, the US showed that it was decidedly serious about its involvement and making all of that happen.

And it worked where the other methods had been failing.

Now, the US is unwilling to commit its own forces to doing this again...and it is going to be difficult for any Iraqi government that is more beholden to one set of chieftains than another to do the same. But that is what they have to find a way to do.

I believe the inability...or unwillingness to do this...is the real root of whatever gains ISIL is making in Iraq. I know people who were involved in the successful US efforts back after the so-called "surge." The focus of the surge was this effort I just explained. And it worked...but then the US walked away from it, and the Iraqi government did not maintain what was necessary to have it hold.

Enter ISIS and took advantage of these failings.

But that is just my opinion.

Another foreign policy fiasco. We should not start things we cannot follow through to the end.
It's sad that what our parents teach us when we're young are not inculcated at the highest levels of government. The general public to some extend is to blame as well. I think to the average Joe America, he absolutely do not have the understanding of the complexites of middle east intervention. You start something there you better to be prepared to commit for the long haul otherwise stay home. That's my personal opinion.
Now I sound like a libertarian

thunderchief · May 26, 2015

plawolf said:
I think you are overstating the logistical challenge a little. Especially for a force that has uncontested control of the skies.

In this day and age, water isn't that insurmountable an obstacle as it once was. Some washed out oil tankers will easily meet the water needs on dug in troops.

You are thinking like US general, and exactly this kind of logic lost wars both in Iraq and Afghanistan . Sure, it is possible to haul everything including water from miles away . But how much it would cost ? In order to move trucks you need roads free of IEDs and land mines . You need escorts to defend against ambushes . To sustain one outpost with 100 men you would need another 100 men (at least) hauling supplies for them . And what good it would do ? It's a desert, ISIS would be able to avoid most of this strongpoints and to eliminate some of them using their usual tactics .

plawolf said:
The biggest problem with fighting IS is that they melt into the civilian population at will and use them as camouflage and human shields to move unhindered over open ground, and only re-emerging once they are safely within the cover of an urban population centre, rending western air power and Iraqi heavy weapons largely useless.

ISIS is not just a guerrilla force anymore . They hold entire cities and Iraqis have plenty of opportunity to engage them in conventional battle including use of heavy weapons , like they did in Tikrit .

plawolf said:
Such large scale defences would be all but impossible to overwhelm as IS has managed with conventional checkpoints. In order to have any chance of punching through such a big dug in checkpoint would require IS to concentrate their forces and attack over empty terrain, making them visible and vulnerable to coalition air power and Iraqi heavy ordinance.

Actually, both in Iraq and Syria ISIS managed to overwhelm defenders in some cases despite heavy casualties sustained by artillery and air strikes . Especially true in Syria where government soldiers usually put up some fight when being surrounded .

plawolf said:
On top of that, if IS is to attempt a major engagement in the middle of nowhere, they will themselves also face the same logistical problems you described. Only with total control on the skies, the Iraqis and coalition forces could majorly hinder Is' ability to keep their troops supplied in such a scenario.

Well, despite their barbarian look , ISIS does not attack without logistical preparation or just anywhere . As I said, they tend to bypass strongest points of resistance initially, then surround them , and hold off attacks until they psychologically break the enemy .

thunderchief · May 26, 2015

Zool said:
Turkish FM confirms the beginnings of an agreement with the US to begin air strikes in Syria. Debate underway about which terrorist groups to target and which not to; also whether strikes should be directed against Syrian Military Forces and the Syrian Government itself.

Turkey would certainly give air support to Al Nusra front (disguised as FSA) , as they are their main proxy in the region . Turkey already supplied them with weapons (especially TOW missiles and MANPADS) , so this is just continuation of their role in Syria. Only one thing remains to be seen, and that is would Russia continue to support Assad when Turks start to attack SAA positions .

Miragedriver · May 27, 2015

A rebel fighter from the Ahrar al-Sham Islamic Movement takes position on a hill in Jabal al-Arbaeen, which overlooks the northern town of Ariha, one of the last government strongholds in the Idlib province, Syria
Picture: Khalil Ashawi/Reuters

Back to bottling my Grenache

ISIS/ISIL conflict in Syria/Iraq (No OpEd, No Politics)

Jeff Head

General

janjak desalin

Junior Member

janjak desalin

Junior Member

Equation

Lieutenant General

Zool

Junior Member

kwaigonegin

Colonel

kwaigonegin

Colonel

thunderchief

Senior Member

thunderchief

Senior Member

Miragedriver

Brigadier