No "boots on the ground" ? [Archive]

Courtney Mil

16th Nov 2014, 21:20

Lord Dannett is a man that understands warfare. From that perspective I'm sure he's right. How about the public's opinion of putting ourselves about again? How about our politicians' resolve? Doubtful. On the other hand, if you're serious about defeating these monsters, what are you going to do? Write more newspaper articles? Condemn them publicly? Declare that they are war criminals?

Loads of obvious questions, but someone has to make a choice. The current state of play is neither one thing nor the other.

Fox3WheresMyBanana

16th Nov 2014, 21:27

Agreed. Authorising air action only, thinking it could be limited to this, was stupid.
I think the solution is to withdraw the aircraft and cut the funding to ISIS, but there is no political will to start what will be a major argument with the Saudis and Qataris, among others.

http://www.dw.de/who-finances-isis/a-17720149

Courtney Mil

16th Nov 2014, 21:36

So what you going to do? Withdraw and ignore it? Fingers in ears? Hope it goes away? Pray it doesn't come near us?

Fox3WheresMyBanana

16th Nov 2014, 22:23

Personally: Leave; offer refugee status to the Christians and let the muslims carry on killing each other. Pretty soon, the Saudis are going to realise allowing financing of ISIS is a bloody bad idea when the war spills over their border.

As Iraq and Afghanistan should have taught the West, insufficient forces and attempts to impose democracy have not only failed but cost a humongous amount of money.

We won WW2 by only accepting unconditional surrender, and were prepared to use nukes and firestorms to get it. They arguably won't work against insurgencies, but the principle of unconditional surrender does apply, I think.

If you have a plan that will work, I'm listening; but I object strongly to tokenism that doesn't work. Dannatt says what we are doing isn't working.

p.s. by my reading, I don't think Dannatt thinks troops on the ground is going to work either.

Oh. p.p.s. I did email my MP, and he did vote against sending Canadian aircraft to attack ISIS (though I doubt it was just because I asked)

VinRouge

17th Nov 2014, 07:12

Danatt wants boots on the ground for one reason alone; to create an atmosphere that makes it difficult to give the army the scything the navy and RAF have had in the previous sdsr.

If we want to win, we need to stop piss balling around with roe and get the job done properly. Until we see hundreds of the buggers dead per week, Bombed out of existence with nowhere to hide and cities that support them made an example of, we will not win. Hearts and minds simply does not enter in this fight, like our campaign towards the end with Japan, only wholesale slaughter will do, until they fully understand that they are flies to be squished at our time and choosing. Single brimstone shots ain't going to cut the mustard. Nothing less than a full declaration of war in short. Let's stop pretending that they deserve human rights and the chance of democracy, they don't!

the Kurds have sufficient strength to deal with this, we need to cut ISIS lines of communication interdict and prevent freedom of movement whilst providing the Kurds and Assad with battlefield CAS wherever they meet resistance. We have the means to do it, let's steamroller the bastards.

ShotOne

17th Nov 2014, 08:27

Who's "they" you keep referring to? The large majority of those whom you're proposing we slaughter wholesale hate and fear ISIS far more than we do.

VinRouge

17th Nov 2014, 08:34

Time that we gave them the support to start picking up ak47s and pitch forks and reclaim their towns then. Other option is to side with isis, get your home dropped on you. Are you really telling me cities of over a million couldn't overthrow and throw out ISIS? The experience of he Kurds in Kobane indicates otherwise.

Same scenario as the one we encountered in basrah. Good willed locals pissed off at inaction and an unwillingness to take gloves off led to defeat. Instead of pandering to lawyers we should stick to what we could be exceptional at. For all the criticism of Assad by the west, there has to be some stark realisation now that his response is the only response to militant Islam.

barnstormer1968

17th Nov 2014, 12:18

IF we do anything I hope it's done very cleverly and with a war winning set of ROEs.

Every time I see a news report about ISIS they are made out to be monsters, and evil killers. I see this as their propaganda machine just being better than the Wests efforts at labelling them.

What ISIS seem to be doing to SEPs is nothing new and is no worse than happened to conscripted allied soldiers in various theatres of WW2, or several other conflicts.
What is massively different are our current ROEs which are a bit of a joke IMHO, and are more like police actions that war strategies.
As long as UK doctrine includes things like a show or force or show of presence then we need to keep well away from conflict. From my own limited knowledge of operations which come from a green background, an aircraft dropping bombs on me shows more force than a flypast !

I'm also frustrated that our leaders aren't making the most of the Internet or social media to counter the PR savvyness of ISIS.
It's easily done, and can be done to ridicule ISIS or just to make them appear undesirable to their supporters.

Not_a_boffin

17th Nov 2014, 13:30

Lord Dannett is a man that understands warfare. From that perspective I'm sure he's right.

I cannot for the life of me see how a man who allegedly understands warfare could seriously be suggesting that "we" (by which I mean the western we) insert ground forces into the midst of a three way civil war. Particularly when the fact that there will be significant civpop in the middle of it who just want to keep breathing and keep their families alive and a significant proportion of the people we do want to slot are able to melt into said civpop and avoid battle any time they wish.

You've got a Shia/Sunni proxy war between Iran/Syria and Saudi/Qatar being fought in a third country (Iraq), combined with a couple of interested "bystanders" in Turkey and the Red Sea Pedestrians. Some of the proxies are "palatable" to us, others are most definitely not and some are actually "legitimate" government forces, whether we like it or not. And there's another headcase on the sidelines who is gagging to prove his machismo to his own populace and those in the region of conflict. There is no secure MSR and there are no "front lines" per se.

This has Brer Rabbits tar-baby written all over it and whether we like it or not there may be no military solution that "we" can impose. I think Dannatt is absolutely correct that the current "strategy" is not really a strategy at all, merely a media-led expression that "something must be done". However, the answer cannot possibly be putting any sort of affordable western ground force in place for any sort of time.

The basic problem lies in both the Shia/Sunni schism and the powerblocs that are stirring that schism to further their own ends. Until they wind their necks in, you have no hope of a solution.

It would not surprise me one bit if

to create an atmosphere that makes it difficult to give the army the scything the navy and RAF have had in the previous sdsr.

is part of the equation. You fight your own battles with whatever tools you can lay your hands on.

Heathrow Harry

17th Nov 2014, 16:08

well said Boffin - it would be madness

orca

17th Nov 2014, 17:55

My personal opinion is that this is one for information ops above all else. Quite how we have let some barbaric murderers, who are self proclaimed jihadis - murder countless Muslims without being brave enough to point it out is beyond me.

We let these idiots broadcast the bile that accompanies their videos without challenging them - other than our posh man in a suit who talks (laughably) of bringing them to justice. We let them talk of revenge for air strikes but they accepted ransoms for some hostages...seems incoherent. They talk of a caliphate but are murdering Muslims...seems incoherent. They say they are Muslims, but murder women and children...seems incoherent.

Where's our info ops campaign? 'You want to go overseas and behead Muslims in the name of Muslims? Would you mind expanding on the idea because to us it seems a little odd?'

We did exactly the same in Iraq last time. We let vociferous morons disrupt parades of 'Western baby killers' coming home when actually our boys had actually spent the entire tour attempting to stop Sunni and Shia murdering each other.

barnstormer1968

17th Nov 2014, 20:26

Orca
This is politics, there's no place for common sense here :)
I sometimes feel that the West should arm ISIS themselves.
Drop in a few challengers here, some Leopards a few miles away and some Abrams somewhere else.
After a short while of 'tank envy' and ego boosting I'm sure a lot of the tanks would be destroyed and there would be fewer ISIS troops alive :)
It's a crazy idea..........but it might just work !

On the other hand we could start deploying LSD again. It was never as good as envisaged but I'm sick of hearing God is great every few seconds, maybe a burst of God is really groovy or bright and colourful would make a nice change :)

Top West 50

17th Nov 2014, 20:46

I can see that we are dropping lots of hugely expensive weapons on where the enemy, whoever they may be, was supposed to be a few minutes ago and I may have missed it but what, precisely, is the mission in Iraq and what would constitute success? How many Brimstone have we got left, for example, and how long will the stock last?

Pontius Navigator

17th Nov 2014, 21:05

GW 2 was a classic modern battlefield - a semi-solid front line and rapid mobility as demonstrated first by the Wehrmacht. Subsequent actions have followed the fire base system as practised by the US Army in the 60s and 70s.

One worked, one didn't.

Create a front line, sweep through and pen every surviving enemy and security ed the civil population. Simples.

Sadly you need rather more than half a million troops.

air pig

17th Nov 2014, 21:55

Because of Blair and the HRA, UK troops RoE will be hamstrung and people like Shiner from Public Interest Lawyers, who will be lining up claimants for compo.

Do we really want UK troops out in the big sandpit again, when a couple hundred kt of Trident warheads could do the job.

Fox3WheresMyBanana

17th Nov 2014, 22:13

what would constitute success?

Exactly.

The problem with conflicts since around 2003 is a complete failure by politicians to define what success is. The military cannot operate effectively without clear objectives. This is Government's job. It has failed spectacularly. And that goes for every Western Government.

Hempy

18th Nov 2014, 06:18

Just goes to highlight the folly of going in there in the first place...Saddam was a tyrant who murdered his own population, was a threat to western interests, harboured terrorism...

Man, I'm glad we fixed all that up.

Sending troops in now is as senseless as it was then. Like the cops with drug dealers, just let them knock each other off until there is one left standing, and then deal with him. Israel will have to step in eventually if the last man standing is one of the bad guys (e.g all of them) and decides to keep his troops on the march.

Until that happens it's better just to watch the place burn and pray for the innocents. The only way of stopping the bad guys melting back into to general population is to give them no reason to. Let them all keep fighting til they meet their virgins.

Fox3WheresMyBanana

18th Nov 2014, 10:02

just let them knock each other off until there is one left standing, and then deal with him.

Good.

But
'let them knock each other off till there's two left standing, and then ensure one of them has a suicide vest'
Better :ok:

Actually, make sure both have vests - no point taking unnecessary risks ;)

rh200

18th Nov 2014, 11:07

Just goes to highlight the folly of going in there in the first place...Saddam was a tyrant who murdered his own population, was a threat to western interests, harboured terrorism...

Hardly, the Shia and Kurds have every right to run their own country. It high lights the folly of the left wing moron in the white house going around the middle east encouraging uprisings.

The unhealthy obsession with getting rid of Assad who by all accounts was very benign until we encouraged opposition.

Jollygreengiant64

18th Nov 2014, 11:25

42 might be the answer, but what is the question...

This isn't a question of how do we do it, but WHAT do we want to do.

If we don't know precisely what we want to do then we will end up in exactly the same situation as last decade. But with less gear. But we all knew that anyway.

VinRouge

18th Nov 2014, 11:36

I would start by announcing that all UK citizens operating in Iraq in support of terrorist entities, directly or indirectly, will be targetted by international forces and removed with all available force.

I think a wholse slice of humble pie needs to be taken regarding the incorrect decision to go after Assad when actually, the guys we should have been removing were the FSA.

oh, and a ruling from the international community that Geneva convention, and any form of international human rights have been removed from ISIS and their supporters including individual state legislation

Pontius Navigator

18th Nov 2014, 13:58

42 might be the answer,

Saw that, thought for a moment you meant 4 2 but then realised you didn't.
I am sure 4 2 would have enjoyed it if weapons free, backed up by AV8B of course.

Heathrow Harry

18th Nov 2014, 14:02

I was never sure Saddam WAS a threat to the west - certainly to his own population, probably the Iranians and the Saudis given the chance (not stupid enough to try it with the Israelis) ... but the west?

Since we invaded Iraq the disruption and death toll have been enormous and we haven't exactly made a lot of new friends either

Fox3WheresMyBanana

18th Nov 2014, 14:27

In case you didn't read it at the time, here is the 'Iraq Dossier'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/02/uk_dossier_on_iraq/pdf/iraqdossier.pdf

The only stated UK threat was to the UKSBA in Cyprus, by virtue of the fact that Saddam had built an engine test stand for the future development of missiles which might reach them. An implied threat was that 20 Al-Hussein missiles could have reached the UKSBA.

No evidence was presented that Saddam had any intention of attacking the UK, or indeed any Western or NATO nation.

golamv

13th Dec 2014, 21:26

Hundreds Of British Troops To Be Sent To Iraq (http://news.sky.com/story/1391206/hundreds-of-british-troops-to-be-sent-to-iraq)

Hundreds of British soldiers are to be sent to Iraq to help the fight against Islamic State, Sky News understands.

Hope this isn't the start of a larger deployment .....

Fox3WheresMyBanana

13th Dec 2014, 22:36

Vietnam started as a 'training programme'.

No boots on the ground,...so they'll be wearing sandals?

glad rag

14th Dec 2014, 01:27

Strange I clearly remember our Prime Minister stating the exact opposite...

Whenurhappy

14th Dec 2014, 07:08

For those suggesting that 'the West' withdraw and allow the local groups to slog it out, what happens if ISIS reach the Mediterranean coast? That would signal an Israeli involvement far greater than anything we have seen since 2006. And Turkey, would they be finally prodded into some action? Al Assad Bashir has to go; any legitimacy he had went when he began to use CW.

Sadly, whether we like it or not, the origins of this conflict go back 100 years with the carve-up of the rotting Ottoman Empire and great-power rivalries at the time (principally between France and UK). Then add US adventurism to the plot 90 years later and oil-soaked desert fiefdoms...what could possibly go wrong?

jolihokistix

14th Dec 2014, 08:10

1. IS is everyone's enemy, not just 'ours'. They are surrounded by peoples and nations and sects willing and wanting to fight them. No strong reason here for an outer ring to get involved immediately.

2. IS wants the West to come down from the sky and put boots on the ground. Why? IS knows that the one way to rally Arabs and Muslims to their cause is to get the West trampling their sacred soil once more. This is their declared aim, and to oblige them would be an initial victory for them. Not to oblige them will cut the wind to their fire and give them far less local legitimacy.

3. Public opinion within Western countries is volubly against further military involvement on the ground in the Middle East. The time is definitely not ripe.

4. Look at the massive destruction done to so many cities and populations within Syria already, such as Aleppo, Homs and Kobani. Local combatants did that. Do we want to be led into such urban warfare, carrying the responsibility for the concomitant collateral damage?

Four HUGE reasons as I see it for not sending in ground troops.

ORAC

14th Dec 2014, 08:28

http://i2.wp.com/www.joshualandis.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/Think-Progress-The-tangled-web-in-the-fight-for-Syrias-future.jpg?

http://sukharenko.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/The-Complete-Idiots-Chart-to-Understanding-The-Middle-East-600x343.jpg

rh200

14th Dec 2014, 09:59

Thats not a bad summary ORAC, though I didn't notice Russia there helping out Assad? Though its a bot complicated and may have missed it.

jolihokistix

14th Dec 2014, 10:35

They're both a little out of date, but maybe still 85-90% accurate!

(Russia has helped Assad by arming him, and vetoing any US moves against him.)

golamv

14th Dec 2014, 10:42

ORAC is that a rework of a slide from a Spirograph Agnew presentation?

glad rag

14th Dec 2014, 13:44

For those suggesting that 'the West' withdraw and allow the local groups to slog it out, what happens if ISIS reach the Mediterranean coast? That would signal an Israeli involvement far greater than anything we have seen since 2006. And Turkey, would they be finally prodded into some action? Al Assad Bashir has to go; any legitimacy he had went when he began to use CW.

The true tragedy of Syria, that we can all.witness at the touch of a TV remote, is horrific to comprehend.

However unsavoury it is just blaming the Assad regime alone is childlike in it's nievety.

Just remember those who so stridently pushed to arm the Syrian rebels those same groups who have unsurprisingly morphed into something far, far terrible to witness.

glad rag

14th Dec 2014, 13:48

Boudreaux Bob

14th Dec 2014, 14:31

Should we go one step further and do like we did in the Iran/Iraq War and support both sides or in this situation....all of the sides....and let them get on with killing each other? Or is picking the "friendliest" of the many factions and supporting them the right answer....assuming we pick the ones that shall prevail and become the "Winners"?

That part of the World have been fighting since time immemorial so why should we expect anything else from them? If we play the right cards we might find ourselves allied with Regimes/Groups/Countries that will be somewhat stable and aligned with our needs and goals for the Region.

We would not need to commit ground combat forces to the region beyond those needed to safeguard the delivery points and training facilities.

WE Branch Fanatic

1st Feb 2015, 23:15

My personal opinion is that this is one for information ops above all else. Quite how we have let some barbaric murderers, who are self proclaimed jihadis - murder countless Muslims without being brave enough to point it out is beyond me.

We let these idiots broadcast the bile that accompanies their videos without challenging them - other than our posh man in a suit who talks (laughably) of bringing them to justice. We let them talk of revenge for air strikes but they accepted ransoms for some hostages...seems incoherent. They talk of a caliphate but are murdering Muslims...seems incoherent. They say they are Muslims, but murder women and children...seems incoherent.

Where's our info ops campaign? 'You want to go overseas and behead Muslims in the name of Muslims? Would you mind expanding on the idea because to us it seems a little odd?'

I thought back to this last week when Channel Four news interviewed somebody who had gone as a volunteer to fight against the Assad regime in Syria, before ISIL came to the force, and left due to his disgust an unislamic things happening. He had been recently contacted by the Police, and treated with suspicion, which made him less willing to cooperate with the authorities.

Why are people like him not being encouraged to spread the anti ISIL word?