• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

ISIS Boasts Air Strikes are not Effective

Cryptic

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2014
Messages
3,955
Reaction score
1,342
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Here is an ISIS fighter boasting that the air strikes are not militarily effective.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/29/world/meast/isis-fighter-and-defector-interviews/index.

Sadly, he is probably right. ISIS is an army of militiamen operating is relatively small groups whose main armoured vehicles are pick up trucks turned into Mad Max style "technicals". Most supplies- and they dont need alot, are requisitioned from the locals (voluntarily, forcibly or coerced) and transported in individual civilian trucks. Likewise, there are not alot of easily demarcated front lines in the fighting.

As the similarily orgainized Serbs demonstrated in Kosovo, these types of forces mix in with civilians and can be very difficult to identify and stop. Then factor in that ISIS includes members who are veterans of both Iraq and Afghan conflicts who probably have a long list produced list of "dos and donts" produced by Darwinism when it comes to avoiding precision airstrikes.

In short, my guess is that effective air strikes need US spotters on the ground.
 
Here is an ISIS fighter boasting that the air strikes are not militarily effective.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/29/world/meast/isis-fighter-and-defector-interviews/index.

Sadly, he is probably right. ISIS is an army of militiamen operating is relatively small groups whose main armoured vehicles are pick up trucks turned into Mad Max style "technicals". Most supplies- and they dont need alot, are requisitioned from the locals (voluntarily, forcibly or coerced) and transported in individual civilian trucks. Likewise, there are not alot of easily demarcated front lines in the fighting.

As the similarily orgainized Serbs demonstrated in Kosovo, these types of forces mix in with civilians and can be very difficult to identify and stop. Then factor in that ISIS includes members who are veterans of both Iraq and Afghan conflicts who probably have a long list produced list of "dos and donts" produced by Darwinism when it comes to avoiding precision airstrikes.

In short, my guess is that effective air strikes need US spotters on the ground.

ISIS is correct, airstrikes (in how we are doing them) won't destroy them or even degrade them. They are entrenched now. We can destroy them with airstrikes, but not in the way we have been doing it.
 
The bombing isn't in full swing and the targets aren't exactly standing in formation to be bombed. I am sure the strikes are hurting them or at least demoralizing them. A continued air campaign will degrade ISIS ability to take another city and will stall their efforts.
 
Obama told ISIS he was going to bomb them for months prior to actually doing it so they had plenty of time to disperse their men and weapons. We are bombing empty buildings and they are laughing at us.
 
Obama told ISIS he was going to bomb them for months prior to actually doing it so they had plenty of time to disperse their men and weapons. We are bombing empty buildings and they are laughing at us.

Gawd! Thanks Obama! You suck!
 
Here is an ISIS fighter boasting that the air strikes are not militarily effective.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/29/world/meast/isis-fighter-and-defector-interviews/index.

Sadly, he is probably right. ISIS is an army of militiamen operating is relatively small groups whose main armoured vehicles are pick up trucks turned into Mad Max style "technicals". Most supplies- and they dont need alot, are requisitioned from the locals (voluntarily, forcibly or coerced) and transported in individual civilian trucks. Likewise, there are not alot of easily demarcated front lines in the fighting.

As the similarily orgainized Serbs demonstrated in Kosovo, these types of forces mix in with civilians and can be very difficult to identify and stop. Then factor in that ISIS includes members who are veterans of both Iraq and Afghan conflicts who probably have a long list produced list of "dos and donts" produced by Darwinism when it comes to avoiding precision airstrikes.

In short, my guess is that effective air strikes need US spotters on the ground.

Our military was crafted around the idea of fighting large, formal state forces, not guerrilla warfare . More important than that, our public acceptance of warfare is exhausted and has giant circles under its eyes at the prospect of yet another conflict that may be drawn out for another unknown number of years. Although to be fair, who can really tell them apart anymore?

We now have Americans who are fifteen years old (and it looks at this rate that number's going to just keep rising) who never knew a time when we weren't at war.
 
Our military was crafted around the idea of fighting large, formal state forces, not guerrilla warfare . More important than that, our public acceptance of warfare is exhausted and has giant circles under its eyes at the prospect of yet another conflict that may be drawn out for another unknown number of years.

I think the US public will support a war against ISIS- so long as the US combatants are limited to a small number of special forces (magnify effects of air strikes). Not only would casualties be low, but career Special Forces are voluntarily on a different social contract. As such, they are able to be to be used, and even expect to be used in pursuit of these types of national interests.
 
Our military was crafted around the idea of fighting large, formal state forces, not guerrilla warfare . More important than that, our public acceptance of warfare is exhausted and has giant circles under its eyes at the prospect of yet another conflict that may be drawn out for another unknown number of years. Although to be fair, who can really tell them apart anymore?

We now have Americans who are fifteen years old (and it looks at this rate that number's going to just keep rising) who never knew a time when we weren't at war.

Our armed forces were crafted to adjust to any threat. Plus, we just spent 10 years fighting and defeating irregular forces.
 
Obama told ISIS he was going to bomb them for months prior to actually doing it so they had plenty of time to disperse their men and weapons. We are bombing empty buildings and they are laughing at us.

If only... The thing is that the civilians are dying because of the attacks. I mean, it's war and there is always collateral damage. But in the context of actually not getting even close to terrorists it all looks too cruel and violent for a democratic state.
 
I, too, lend considerable weight to the statements of radical Islamic terrorists.
 
The bombing isn't in full swing and the targets aren't exactly standing in formation to be bombed. I am sure the strikes are hurting them or at least demoralizing them. A continued air campaign will degrade ISIS ability to take another city and will stall their efforts.

Correct. The day I believe the propaganda of these militants is the day I believe I should give my bank account number and password to a scammer. Of course their spokesman is saying they have no effect. Would anyone except a partisan hack, that wants to discredit Obama, believe otherwise?
 
Last edited:
Our military was crafted around the idea of fighting large, formal state forces, not guerrilla warfare.

Some of our forces train in guerrila warfare, namely, Special Forces. And that training goes all the way back to Vietnam. And we got a lot of experience in Iraq and Afghanistan. To say we know nothing about or can adapt to guerilla warfare is not only ignorant but insulting.
 
Some of our forces train in guerrila warfare, namely, Special Forces. And that training goes all the way back to Vietnam. And we got a lot of experience in Iraq and Afghanistan. To say we know nothing about or can adapt to guerilla warfare is not only ignorant but insulting.

I don't doubt it, but historically speaking, does guerrilla warfare as a tactic generally work well against larger forces with superior technology and weaponry? How well are we doing in Afghanistan, how well did we do in Iraq?
 
Here is an ISIS fighter boasting that the air strikes are not militarily effective.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/29/world/meast/isis-fighter-and-defector-interviews/index.

Sadly, he is probably right. ISIS is an army of militiamen operating is relatively small groups whose main armoured vehicles are pick up trucks turned into Mad Max style "technicals". Most supplies- and they dont need alot, are requisitioned from the locals (voluntarily, forcibly or coerced) and transported in individual civilian trucks. Likewise, there are not alot of easily demarcated front lines in the fighting.

As the similarily orgainized Serbs demonstrated in Kosovo, these types of forces mix in with civilians and can be very difficult to identify and stop. Then factor in that ISIS includes members who are veterans of both Iraq and Afghan conflicts who probably have a long list produced list of "dos and donts" produced by Darwinism when it comes to avoiding precision airstrikes.

In short, my guess is that effective air strikes need US spotters on the ground.

And then there is the problem that they aren't camping in the hills-they are embedded amongst the civilians (and in many cases ARE the civilians, though there is a huge number of foreigners as well). So a strike means collateral damage (even more so).

What to do? Well we could bomb indiscriminately (we wont), we could target and coordinate for the Arab air forces (meaning a limited response), or we could acknowledge that boots on the ground are what needs to happen. That has its own issues-like the fact that ISIS is very good at moving in an out of areas, and the Syrian border complicates this.

Obama never planned to fight this conflict, and certainly does not want to. He saw polls and thinks a little show will help him retain the senate. It wont work because a substantive response is whats required and Obama wants to pretend the Iraq war is over-its not-its just entering a new stage that will get worse the longer he ignores it.
 
I don't doubt it, but historically speaking, does guerrilla warfare as a tactic generally work well against larger forces with superior technology and weaponry? How well are we doing in Afghanistan, how well did we do in Iraq?

Our COIN (counter insurgency) tactics are superb and amongst the best in the world, but not if we dont have the resolve to use them, and not if we dont have at least general order in the country.

Regardless of how this turns out, we will need to keep a limited military presence there for decades.
 
Our COIN (counter insurgency) tactics are superb and amongst the best in the world, but not if we dont have the resolve to use them, and not if we dont have at least general order in the country.

Regardless of how this turns out, we will need to keep a limited military presence there for decades.

In what ways are our anti-guerrilla tactics superior to, say, the Soviets in Afghanistan? Genuinely curious.
 
In what ways are our anti-guerrilla tactics superior to, say, the Soviets in Afghanistan? Genuinely curious.

Different tactics, we deploy and stay in "enemy" territory, employ drones (killed AQ's entire leadership several times over), and focus on protecting and building relationships with the civilian population. All are quite different from Soviet techniques.

http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/parameters/Articles/09autumn/gentile.pdf

Heres the actual current COIN manual
http://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-24.pdf

Note that as effective as these are, they still wont work if our POTUS does not have the resolve, and then announces withdrawal dates (which is just an invitation for terror groups to hunker down until we pull out-we are currently pulling our combat troops out of Afghanistan (by the end of the year all will be out) and AQ and the taliban are already threatening the locals with the new "justice" they will employ when we do.
 
If only... The thing is that the civilians are dying because of the attacks. I mean, it's war and there is always collateral damage. But in the context of actually not getting even close to terrorists it all looks too cruel and violent for a democratic state.

Not nearly as violent as WW2.
 
Here is an ISIS fighter boasting that the air strikes are not militarily effective.

Really, what are you expecting them to come out and say? "Holy Crap, those things were effective, please stop!"

In terms of defining how successful the strikes were, what ISIS is claiming publicly would be WAY down at the bottom of my list.
 
In what ways are our anti-guerrilla tactics superior to, say, the Soviets in Afghanistan? Genuinely curious.

It was American tactics and weaponry that caused the Soviets to retreat from Afghanistan.
 
In many ways, its not just bravado and the individual IS correct. Airstrikes will probably NOT be entirely effective against ISIS. The reasons why are not necessarily damning of the current Obama plan, nor complimentary of ISIS. 1-ISIS doesnt give a **** about their people. Kill as many as you can...their leadership see's them as expendable. As long as you arent directly targeting their leaders, they will continue to act. 2-ISIS is not a conventional army fighting a conventional war. 3-Since ISIS is not a conventional enemy providing a conventional front line, then drone and air strikes actually are the best and most effective means of targeting them right now.

What is needed is an Arab/Muslim military presence and a massive PR campaign. We dont need US boots on the ground (I would caveat that to say we COULD put some VERY heavily armed FAC units to 1-direct airstrikes and 2-protect each other...but NOT to intentionally and directly target ISIS). Muslims and specifically, Iraqis, Kurds, and Syrians ought to be fighting those assholes.
 
Not nearly as violent as WW2.

Yes those were the days when we could kill millions of innocent people, those damn liberals have to ruin everything.
 
I don't doubt it, but historically speaking, does guerrilla warfare as a tactic generally work well against larger forces with superior technology and weaponry? How well are we doing in Afghanistan, how well did we do in Iraq?

Historically, guerilla tactics don't work against superior conventional forces. It didn't work in Vietnam, which is why The Viet Cong was disbanded/absorbed into the NVA and it's why the Soviets were destroying the mujas, until The United States provided them with the weapons, equipment and tactical training that allowed them to counter the Soviet's advantages.
 
Different tactics, we deploy and stay in "enemy" territory, employ drones (killed AQ's entire leadership several times over), and focus on protecting and building relationships with the civilian population. All are quite different from Soviet techniques.

http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/parameters/Articles/09autumn/gentile.pdf

Heres the actual current COIN manual
http://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-24.pdf

Note that as effective as these are, they still wont work if our POTUS does not have the resolve, and then announces withdrawal dates (which is just an invitation for terror groups to hunker down until we pull out-we are currently pulling our combat troops out of Afghanistan (by the end of the year all will be out) and AQ and the taliban are already threatening the locals with the new "justice" they will employ when we do.

To be fair, I do recall an article somewhere about how troops found that if they wore mustaches and/or beards, it increased the respect they received from the locals dramatically. Also, can't help but put this in here: the idea of earning the trust of the locals instead forcing on them a sense of our overwhelming superiority is a pretty liberal idea.
 
Historically, guerilla tactics don't work against superior conventional forces. It didn't work in Vietnam, which is why The Viet Cong was disbanded/absorbed into the NVA and it's why the Soviets were destroying the mujas, until The United States provided them with the weapons, equipment and tactical training that allowed them to counter the Soviet's advantages.

I'm aware that we armed the Mujahideen, but we would have had to arm them with all the bells and whistles before they could have taken on the Soviet Union in full face-to-face combat (tanks, fighter jets, guided missiles, etc.).
 
Back
Top Bottom