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

janjak desalin

janjak desalin

Junior Member
delft said:
[...] Russian air support from Syria would be less effective than from Iran, [...]
Click to expand...
not necessarily, D. should the SAAF regain control of the airbases at both Kuweires and Deir ez-Zor [objectives i'm confident they will achieve], operations from these bases exploiting the combat radius of the su-25 alone [375 km] puts both western Syria and eastern Iraq in play. see,
p.jpg
 
Last edited:
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
JayBird said:
I bet the Russian fighter jet pilot's finger was very itchy...it's like hunting dogs find their prey but no permission to attack from the hunter.:D
Click to expand...
Guys...let's not go there. I doubt the Russian was "itchy." He is probably professionally just doing his job.

An okay for a Russian aircraft to shoot down a US drone (which would not be a difficult thing) would only invite dangerous US birds of prey into the picture on a hunting mission of retribution of their own.

No one wants to go there.

So...let's not even start those kind of war drums beating...or post things that might indicate SD will allow it.

We wont.
 
D

delft

Brigadier
Brumby said:
Are you suggesting some kind of military insertion and action by China in Iraq rather than Syria? A compelling reason in my mind is that any contemplated military action would result in better outcome than maintaining status quo relative to the risk of involvement. In other words, it is always about weighing course of action relative to desire outcome. Why do you think that China would be more effective against ISIL relative to US military actions to-date? What would be different that China would do to produce a different set of outcome?
Click to expand...
The Libyan armed forces were no doubt very much better able to defend themselves than ISIL. Still NATO, with strong US participation, was able to bomb the country to failed state status in a matter of months. ISIL can be reduced to impotence in a much shorter time by US and its 60 allies if they would just apply. My idea is that Syria with Iranian and Russian support, Iraq with Iranian and Chinese support can get the work done in a few months leaving US looking no how. The threat of this might motivate US to do the job themselves and no doubt China would be happy to see that happen and not run the additional risk of doing it. But ISIL needs to be destroyed and when US don't get serious it might well intervene.
 
Zool

Zool

Junior Member
I don't know Delft... I think China would be well advised to keep out of this one and my guess is they will.

Even in a victory scenario which see's the destruction of the current paramilitary force structure of these militant groups, a sizable number will fade away under civilian cover and form terrorist cells. They'll target regional enemies along religious lines but a percentage will also go after the US & Russia, having been on the receiving end of their weaponry or in conflict with a group or government directly supported by those countries.

China should look after itself with domestic security and intelligence cooperation in the ME where it can. No need to make a name among the fanatics and get burnt too - it hasn't gotten entangled in that mess like the others have over the years and it shouldn't look to IMHO.
 
D

delft

Brigadier
Zool said:
I don't know Delft... I think China would be well advised to keep out of this one and my guess is they will.

Even in a victory scenario which see's the destruction of the current paramilitary force structure of these militant groups, a sizable number will fade away under civilian cover and form terrorist cells. They'll target regional enemies along religious lines but a percentage will also go after the US & Russia, having been on the receiving end of their weaponry or in conflict with a group or government directly supported by those countries.

China should look after itself with domestic security and intelligence cooperation in the ME where it can. No need to make a name among the fanatics and get burnt too - it hasn't gotten entangled in that mess like the others have over the years and it shouldn't look to IMHO.
Click to expand...
As I said I think China would be happy to stay out and let US do their duty.
 
nicky

nicky

Junior Member
delft said:
NATO, with strong US participation, was able to bomb the country to failed state status in a matter of months. ISIL can be reduced to impotence in a much shorter time by US and its 60 allies if they would just apply.
Click to expand...

what was it, that prevented ISIL's destruction in the previous months? no order to or order not to?
what did the "US and its 60 allies" do in Syria and Iraq at the time: bombing empty deserts?
what's the funny story with promotion of Maj. Gen. Michael K. Nagata?
was his real task to arm and train ISIL fighters?
 
Brumby

Brumby

Major
delft said:
The Libyan armed forces were no doubt very much better able to defend themselves than ISIL. Still NATO, with strong US participation, was able to bomb the country to failed state status in a matter of months. ISIL can be reduced to impotence in a much shorter time by US and its 60 allies if they would just apply. My idea is that Syria with Iranian and Russian support, Iraq with Iranian and Chinese support can get the work done in a few months leaving US looking no how. The threat of this might motivate US to do the job themselves and no doubt China would be happy to see that happen and not run the additional risk of doing it. But ISIL needs to be destroyed and when US don't get serious it might well intervene.
Click to expand...

I agree that ISIL is a common threat and all effort should be made to eliminate them. If China wants a hand in it I think it is all good. I was just curious though that China would seriously want to get entangle in such a mess. I don't think you will see any sense of urgency or concerted effort from the US because the Obama doctrine is "don't do stupid shit" which in essence is don't do anything unless it is necessary. That leaves the Russian to finish the job.
 
Jura The idiot

Jura The idiot

General
very interesting:
In Shift, Pentagon Deploys A-10s to Fight ISIS in Syria
In a change of course, the U.S. Defense Department on Tuesday announced that it deployed A-10 attack aircraft to Turkey to conduct strikes against the Islamic State in Syria.

The Pentagon had already sent the low, slow-flying gunship overseas to attack ISIS targets in Iraq. An A-10 squadron was reportedly sent to undisclosed bases in the Middle East last fall to join the air campaign against the terrorist group, also known as ISIL.

But the U.S. military recently deployed more of the aircraft, known officially as the Thunderbolt II an unofficially as the Warthog, to join F-16 Fighting Falcon and other American military planes at the Incirlik airbase in Turkey,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
:

“The U.S. has deployed at least six A-10 Thunderbolt ground attack aircraft to Incirlik airbase in Turkey to hit ISIS targets in Syria, the Pentagon said Tuesday.

The deployment of the aircraft popularly known as the Warthog, which the Air Force has been seeking to retire, was first reported by Turkish news outlets and later confirmed by Pentagon Press Secretary Peter Cook.

‘There are A-10s arriving in Incirlik and I don’t have the exact number,’ Cook said. ‘This was part of a regular rotation that was planned,” he said at a Pentagon news conference. Other news outlets reported that as many as 12 A-10s were going to Incirlik.’”

The deployment was a reversal from comments made last year by then-Gen. Mike Hostage, the former head of Air Combat Command who has since retired. Speaking at an Air Force Association breakfast in July 2014, Hostage suggested the Cold War-era gunship wasn’t suited for operations in and around Syria, which has acquired a number of Russian-made air defense systems.

“People lambast me all the time, ‘How can you give up the A-10? It’s built for those kind of environments,’” he said at the time, according to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
of his remarks. “Well, it was built for the Fulda Gap in 1980. I could not send an A-10 into Syria right now. They’d never come back.”

Hostage added, “I would have to conduct three weeks of very significant IADS degradation before I could think about sending a fourth gen platform and I sure as heck wouldn’t end an A-10 in because the rate of fire that would come in at low altitude would be unsustainable.”

Syria is equipped with numerous Russia-made surface-to-air missile systems, including the SA-2, SA-3 and SA-5 static launchers and SA-6, SA-8, SA-10 and SA-11 mobile launchers, along with anti-aircraft batteries.

News of the A-10 deployment to Turkey came the same day the governments of Russia and the U.S. signed an agreement to minimize the risk of collisions and other dangers as both countries carry out airstrikes in Syria,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

...
Click to expand...
... I intentionally skipped the final paragraph; source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top