British Journalist David Haines beheaded!

[Combwork]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

I assume you're talking about winning the traditional American US Grant way. Unconditional surrender. But let's look at what that really requires. You have to kill, destroy, and occupy massively and thoroughly. The population must be in fear for the biological survival of the nation.

For example, by the time WWII was over, 8 to 10 percent of all Germans were dead. Historically, conquered nations have often lost 20% or more of their population.

So, in rough numbers, doing the job to ISIS might mean killing 10% of the Sunni populations of Iraq and Syria, very roughly, maybe 2 million or so. Mostly civilians, ISIS doesn't have vast armies mobilized, they just have a fairly unlimited ability to draw more fighters from the population.

So, kill 2 million, 'win the war.' Up for that?

War is a blunt instrument anyway, and making unconditional surrender the goal makes it really blunt. I've nothing but admiration for leadership that goes to war reluctantly and in a limited way, if that will do the job.

ISIS's greatest strength is the way they can mobilize a virulent right wing here to do enormous political damage, just by killing two Americans.

No matter how acurately targeted, bombs, rockets, whatever gets throw almost always causes 'colateral damage' . If a man sees his family wiped out who's he going to back? The British parliement was recalled a few hours ago and got the right to launch targeted strikes; they could be doing it now. What's the answer; "my enemys enemy is my friend"? Is there any country in the region that hates ISIS more than they hate us?

Yes, "something has to be done" but what? The problem is that ISIS is not structured the way we are. No identifiable center. It's like the IRA but on a much larger scale.

[CarlV]

Is there any country in the region that hates ISIS more than they hate us?

The Saudi's have been bombing along with us and actually moreso IIRC. Also aren't they willing to put Suadi soldiers "boots on the ground"?


Carl

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by Combwork

No matter how acurately targeted, bombs, rockets, whatever gets throw almost always causes 'colateral damage' . If a man sees his family wiped out who's he going to back? The British parliement was recalled a few hours ago and got the right to launch targeted strikes; they could be doing it now. What's the answer; "my enemys enemy is my friend"? Is there any country in the region that hates ISIS more than they hate us?

Yes, "something has to be done" but what? The problem is that ISIS is not structured the way we are. No identifiable center. It's like the IRA but on a much larger scale.

This is precisely the rub. Did we ever really "eliminate" or "defeat" Al Qaeda with the same tactics or even with the death of bin Laden?

No.

They still exist and they even tried to pull off another attack last 9/11 with the attempted hijacking of a Pakistani frigate, intended to attack an American aircraft carrier. (How come THAT never made the mainstream news?)

I find it amazing that we still have people who don't understand that this isn't the same as fighting Nazis in Europe. You can cut off the head of this snake and it just continues on. You can bomb into oblivion five dozen cells in Syria and Iraq, but the ones scattered around the rest of the world continue to operate.

That's the whole point of a terror "cell" structure. Duh............

This is why this sort of threat must be dealt with in a covert manor, through spies, stool pigeons, assassins and point of entry vigilance. The problem is that this method is not spectacular. (In fact people will bitch if the "point of entry vigilance" causes them any inconvenience.) There are no massive explosions or giant transports full of heavily armed troops to showcase, so the average T.V. viewer in Edinburgh and Cincinnati thinks nothing is being done, simply because they can't see it.

Dave