THERE’S no possibility of peace breaking out in the Middle East any time soon until a thumping military defeat is handed out to the Islamic State group.

The good news is that the Islamic State can be defeated. But the bad news is that it won’t be beaten using the current strategy.

After a year and more than 8000 air strikes against IS in Iraq and Syria, the terrorist group has emerged significantly larger, more battle- hardened and in full control of substantial swaths of territory including Iraq’s third largest city, Mosul, much of the Anbar province and the city of Raqqa in Syria.

It’s simply not right to say the group is weakening or on the brink of defeat.

IS continues to pump out well-designed and targeted propaganda that keeps the recruits coming, including from Australia.

True, IS has had some recent battlefield reverses — for example, last week being forced out of the village of Sinjar in northern Iraq by Kurdish forces. Some areas in Iraq have changed hands two and three times.

At a press conference in Turkey, American President Barak Obama got visibly annoyed at journalists questioning his strategy of containing IS using air power and providing limited training to the Iraqi army and to Kurdish groups.

“Why can’t we just take out these bastards?” one journalist asked.

In fact, American strategy is changing. Obama has authorised sending small numbers of special forces troops to “advise and assist” Kurdish fighters in northern Syria. These soldiers will get physically close to combat zones, reversing a US approach to keep its trainers well away from fighting.

We have also seen American special forces undertake hostage rescue missions in Syria. A pattern is slowly developing of a greater ground force involvement.

A more effective link is also emerging between the air strikes and ground fighting. Better-targeted strikes helped the Kurds liberate Sinjar. But very restrictive rules of engagement are preventing the air campaign from hitting IS leaders, who surround themselves with ­civilians for protection.

Killing the IS leadership would also kill innocents now being held hostage. To achieve the 8000-plus strikes, coalition aircraft have flown more than 57,000 sorties. Most times the aircraft come back will full weapon loads because they could not find targets where they had a high degree of certainty no civilians would be injured.

On the training front, progress has been frustratingly slow. Australia’s Defence Force chief recently told a Senate committee that one mark of our success with the Iraqi army was that the unit being trained came back to complete the course after holidays. We’re not talking about elite forces here.

In Syria the US has abandoned a very half-hearted plan to train moderate rebels. After spending more than $US500 million, an embarrassed general told a Congressional hearing that only five or six people had been trained. America is instead now arming Syrian rebels.

Russia is not the solution to defeat IS either. Moscow’s key targets are the Free Syrian Army and other groups fighting Assad. A small number of Russian strikes have hit IS in Raqqa, but this is really political cover for Russia’s propping up of Assad.

What can be done to improve the situation?

First, Obama should use the G20 to make sure the international community sticks to the task. Currently the coalition is fraying. Canada has recently stopped its air strikes after changing government and the British have declined to take their air operations into Syria.

Second, the rules of engagement relating to air strikes should be revised to more effectively target IS leadership. And the tempo of strikes need to be increased from about 20 a day to significantly more.

This may mean more civilian casualties but it is probably the only way to break the IS leadership. Once that happens the propaganda will dry up and the myth of IS invincibility will be punctured.

Third, the coalition should devote a greater number of special forces and other military trainers to the task. This would lift the numbers of troops involved from about 3500 to 10,000.

We need to add “accompany” to the trainers’ mission of “advise and assist”. That means accompanying Iraqi and other forces into battle. This has higher risk, but our forces are already in a risky situation. Accompanying the troops we train will inject more purpose and spine into military operations.

If the Islamic State’s leadership is removed from the equation there is a slim possibility that peace talks on Syria might gain traction. This is far from a solution to the Middle East’s problems, but it is a necessary first step.

Peter Jennings is executive director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/peter-jennings-how-we-can-defeat-isis/story-fni0cx12-1227612676105

This is pretty much what I've been saying all along. Obama and Turnbull are on course to be flogged if they keep up this ludicrous and losing strategy of airstrikes only. It's time for our soldiers to do what they've been trained to do - kill bad guys and the IS terrorists are the worst of the worst.

It will fall apart the first time a camera shows a US soldier being beheaded.

And they will dance & sing in Lakemba.

Increasing civilian casualties will consume political capital, which is why there is reluctance. At some point the deaths will begin increase domestic pressure. 

Kytro wrote on Nov 18^th, 2015 at 10:00am:

Increasing civilian casualties will consume political capital, which is why there is reluctance. At some point the deaths will begin increase domestic pressure.

What else can you do? Besides, most of those civilians that the leadership is surrounding themselves with are families or supporters of IS terrorists. Everyone else has fled. Two birds, one stone.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 18^th, 2015 at 10:07am:

Kytro wrote on Nov 18th, 2015 at 10:00am: Increasing civilian casualties will consume political capital, which is why there is reluctance. At some point the deaths will begin increase domestic pressure.  What else can you do? Besides, most of those civilians that the leadership is surrounding themselves with are families or supporters of IS terrorists. Everyone else has fled. Two birds, one stone.

The issue is that what fills the power vacuum? The states in the area seem entirely incapable of maintaining control.

Political realities exist regardless of the consequences.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 18^th, 2015 at 9:59am:

This is pretty much what I've been saying all along. Obama and Turnbull are on course to be flogged if they keep up this ludicrous and losing strategy of airstrikes only. It's time for our soldiers to do what they've been trained to do - kill bad guys and the IS terrorists are the worst of the worst.

you would like the responsibility of putting men on the ground in Syria... good luck with that..

its easy for blokes sitting behind desks in nice big comfy chairs.....

lets see him tie his boots on and join them in the desert??...

cods wrote on Nov 18^th, 2015 at 10:26am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 18th, 2015 at 9:59am: This is pretty much what I've been saying all along. Obama and Turnbull are on course to be flogged if they keep up this ludicrous and losing strategy of airstrikes only. It's time for our soldiers to do what they've been trained to do - kill bad guys and the IS terrorists are the worst of the worst. you would like the responsibility of putting men on the ground in Syria... good luck with that.. its easy for blokes sitting behind desks in nice big comfy chairs..... lets see him tie his boots on and join them in the desert??...

I have friends, family who are soldiers. They're all keen and raring to go if given the order. Why? One terrorist killed over there might mean he then can't come here to kill one of our loved ones.

I prefer to listen to Waleed's solution

Waleed's not an expert

Waleed's claim to fame is Salam Cafe

Waleed's a muslim who is muslim politically correct

Based on the above credentials - Waleed's the premier expert on ISIS

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 18^th, 2015 at 9:59am:

This is pretty much what I've been saying all along. Obama and Turnbull are on course to be flogged if they keep up this ludicrous and losing strategy of airstrikes only. It's time for our soldiers to do what they've been trained to do - kill bad guys and the IS terrorists are the worst of the worst.

Will you be visiting the families of those killed?

Demolishing the superstructure of IS will drive it underground, and it will become difficult to root out....

Wars cannot be won by airpower alone, need people to take and hold ground.

But I am not confident that we will win the peace.

Vlad is supporting Assad rather than fighting ISIS as such. Complicates the picture—how can a settlement be reached? Don’t forget Turkey would rather back ISIS than back the Kurds, so afraid a Kurdistan will be formed causing secessionary strife in its Kurdish areas.

Let us not charge headlong into this one.

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 18^th, 2015 at 11:04am:

Wars cannot be won by airpower alone, need people to take and hold ground. But I am not confident that we will win the peace. Vlad is supporting Assad rather than fighting ISIS as such. Complicates the picture—how can a settlement be reached? Don’t forget Turkey would rather back ISIS than back the Kurds, so afraid a Kurdistan will be formed causing secessionary strife in its Kurdish areas. Let us not charge headlong into this one.

Unless Assad has pictures of Vlad banging Assad's wife, sister and every female relative then he has no influence over Vlad

Even then Vlad would still tell Assad to relax and have a cheeseburger

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Nov 18^th, 2015 at 10:30am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 18th, 2015 at 9:59am: This is pretty much what I've been saying all along. Obama and Turnbull are on course to be flogged if they keep up this ludicrous and losing strategy of airstrikes only. It's time for our soldiers to do what they've been trained to do - kill bad guys and the IS terrorists are the worst of the worst. Will you be visiting the families of those killed? Demolishing the superstructure of IS will drive it underground, and it will become difficult to root out....

Driving them underground is the best solution i.e. they will struggle to send people overseas

Maqqa wrote on Nov 18^th, 2015 at 11:47am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 18th, 2015 at 11:04am: Wars cannot be won by airpower alone, need people to take and hold ground. But I am not confident that we will win the peace. Vlad is supporting Assad rather than fighting ISIS as such. Complicates the picture—how can a settlement be reached? Don’t forget Turkey would rather back ISIS than back the Kurds, so afraid a Kurdistan will be formed causing secessionary strife in its Kurdish areas. Let us not charge headlong into this one. Unless Assad has pictures of Vlad banging Assad's wife, sister and every female relative then he has no influence over Vlad Even then Vlad would still tell Assad to relax and have a cheeseburger

Vlad wants a southern pipeline, one that does not run through Ukraine. Assad will give it to him and that is why Russia is bombing all resistance groups in Syria.

Kytro wrote on Nov 18^th, 2015 at 10:21am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 18th, 2015 at 10:07am: Kytro wrote on Nov 18th, 2015 at 10:00am: Increasing civilian casualties will consume political capital, which is why there is reluctance. At some point the deaths will begin increase domestic pressure.  What else can you do? Besides, most of those civilians that the leadership is surrounding themselves with are families or supporters of IS terrorists. Everyone else has fled. Two birds, one stone. The issue is that what fills the power vacuum? The states in the area seem entirely incapable of maintaining control. Political realities exist regardless of the consequences.

Yes, that's arguably where the problem started in the first place.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 18^th, 2015 at 10:27am:

cods wrote on Nov 18th, 2015 at 10:26am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 18th, 2015 at 9:59am: This is pretty much what I've been saying all along. Obama and Turnbull are on course to be flogged if they keep up this ludicrous and losing strategy of airstrikes only. It's time for our soldiers to do what they've been trained to do - kill bad guys and the IS terrorists are the worst of the worst. you would like the responsibility of putting men on the ground in Syria... good luck with that.. its easy for blokes sitting behind desks in nice big comfy chairs..... lets see him tie his boots on and join them in the desert??... I have friends, family who are soldiers. They're all keen and raring to go if given the order. Why? One terrorist killed over there might mean he then can't come here to kill one of our loved ones.

Those family and friends are above and beyond most people, including yourself.

As soldiers they don't have to sue for peace at the end of the campaign. Kytro is trying to tell you it's always political... who is there to sue for peace with in the first place etc... no one wants to live there because the areas surrounding the real bad stuff is just as bad so.... it's already a political vacuum!!!!

crocodile wrote on Nov 18^th, 2015 at 12:42pm:

Kytro wrote on Nov 18th, 2015 at 10:21am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 18th, 2015 at 10:07am: Kytro wrote on Nov 18th, 2015 at 10:00am: Increasing civilian casualties will consume political capital, which is why there is reluctance. At some point the deaths will begin increase domestic pressure.  What else can you do? Besides, most of those civilians that the leadership is surrounding themselves with are families or supporters of IS terrorists. Everyone else has fled. Two birds, one stone. The issue is that what fills the power vacuum? The states in the area seem entirely incapable of maintaining control. Political realities exist regardless of the consequences. Yes, that's arguably where the problem started in the first place.

Chicken and egg syndrome...

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 18^th, 2015 at 9:59am:

This is pretty much what I've been saying all along. Obama and Turnbull are on course to be flogged if they keep up this ludicrous and losing strategy of airstrikes only. It's time for our soldiers to do what they've been trained to do - kill bad guys and the IS terrorists are the worst of the worst.

That's not what the article is saying. It's saying the coalition needs to use the G20 to get everyone on board (read: the locals). It's saying our soldiers should be used in a training capacity.

ISIS are the worst of the worst, but sending infidel Coalition troops in to repeat Iraq and Afghanistan is only going to make matters worse.

Karnal wrote on Nov 18^th, 2015 at 1:29pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 18th, 2015 at 9:59am: This is pretty much what I've been saying all along. Obama and Turnbull are on course to be flogged if they keep up this ludicrous and losing strategy of airstrikes only. It's time for our soldiers to do what they've been trained to do - kill bad guys and the IS terrorists are the worst of the worst. That's not what the article is saying. It's saying the coalition needs to use the G20 to get everyone on board (read: the locals). It's saying our soldiers should be used in a training capacity. ISIS are the worst of the worst, but sending infidel Coalition troops in to repeat Iraq and Afghanistan is only going to make matters worse.

Yup, but airpower alone is not going to win this.

UN and NATO should declare war on ISIS and then the rest will fall in place

US should take the lead in calling for this declaration

Maqqa wrote on Nov 18^th, 2015 at 1:38pm:

UN and NATO should declare war on ISIS and then the rest will fall in place US should take the lead in calling for this declaration

What are you trying to achieve?

crocodile wrote on Nov 18^th, 2015 at 12:42pm:

Kytro wrote on Nov 18th, 2015 at 10:21am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 18th, 2015 at 10:07am: Kytro wrote on Nov 18th, 2015 at 10:00am: Increasing civilian casualties will consume political capital, which is why there is reluctance. At some point the deaths will begin increase domestic pressure.  What else can you do? Besides, most of those civilians that the leadership is surrounding themselves with are families or supporters of IS terrorists. Everyone else has fled. Two birds, one stone. The issue is that what fills the power vacuum? The states in the area seem entirely incapable of maintaining control. Political realities exist regardless of the consequences. Yes, that's arguably where the problem started in the first place.

But can you imagine ANYONE worse than ISIS replacing them? Seriously, has there been a more barbaric group since WW2 and on this scale?

Maqqa wrote on Nov 18^th, 2015 at 1:38pm:

UN and NATO should declare war on ISIS and then the rest will fall in place US should take the lead in calling for this declaration

The UN won't do anything until the UN HQ is attacked....... then it'll be all hands on deck....


G20? Another coalition of the unwitting?  As long as it doesn't happen to their country, they will stay low and hope to avoid an attack.  Only when enough have been injured and attacked - one at a time - will the ROTW stand up and say enough is enough.

Nobody listens to Domino Theory any more.......

http://s3media.247sports.com/Uploads/Assets/199/85/3085199.gif

How do you defeat an enemy that isnt afraid to die ? Another 10 years of boots on the ground will achieve what it did in Iraq and Afghanistan , sfa

Its time wrote on Nov 18^th, 2015 at 3:23pm:

How do you defeat an enemy that isnt afraid to die ? Another 10 years of boots on the ground will achieve what it did in Iraq and Afghanistan , sfa

You give them what they want - death. You attack with the intention of total annihilation and only complete surrender avoids a bullet.

It's how wars were fought for centuries.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 18^th, 2015 at 4:00pm:

Its time wrote on Nov 18th, 2015 at 3:23pm: How do you defeat an enemy that isnt afraid to die ? Another 10 years of boots on the ground will achieve what it did in Iraq and Afghanistan , sfa You give them what they want - death. You attack with the intention of total annihilation and only complete surrender avoids a bullet. It's how wars were fought for centuries.

It's untenable, no modern democracy could survive attempting this because social media will show the horror and attempting to curtail that will be almost impossible.

You are basically proposing something that has no chance of being implemented. It's becoming a tired, if horrifying refrain.

Kytro wrote on Nov 18^th, 2015 at 4:07pm:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 18th, 2015 at 4:00pm: Its time wrote on Nov 18th, 2015 at 3:23pm: How do you defeat an enemy that isnt afraid to die ? Another 10 years of boots on the ground will achieve what it did in Iraq and Afghanistan , sfa You give them what they want - death. You attack with the intention of total annihilation and only complete surrender avoids a bullet. It's how wars were fought for centuries. It's untenable, no modern democracy could survive attempting this because social media will show the horror and attempting to curtail that will be almost impossible. You are basically proposing something that has no chance of being implemented. It's becoming a tired, if horrifying refrain.

Hence my thread on "Rules of Engagement"

mariacostel wrote on Nov 18^th, 2015 at 2:53pm:

crocodile wrote on Nov 18th, 2015 at 12:42pm: Kytro wrote on Nov 18th, 2015 at 10:21am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 18th, 2015 at 10:07am: Kytro wrote on Nov 18th, 2015 at 10:00am: Increasing civilian casualties will consume political capital, which is why there is reluctance. At some point the deaths will begin increase domestic pressure.  What else can you do? Besides, most of those civilians that the leadership is surrounding themselves with are families or supporters of IS terrorists. Everyone else has fled. Two birds, one stone. The issue is that what fills the power vacuum? The states in the area seem entirely incapable of maintaining control. Political realities exist regardless of the consequences. Yes, that's arguably where the problem started in the first place. But can you imagine ANYONE worse than ISIS replacing them?

Uncle is not prepared to take that risk. Back in 2003, it couldn't imagine anyone worse than Saddam.

Mounting a full-scale invasion to kill off ISIL without a plan is not a very smart thing to do. Even the air strikes are tokenistic. It's like trying to get rid of cockroaches in your house by stepping on them, one by one. When they die, of course, they lay their eggs. More appear.

This is exactly what happened during the US occupation of Iraq. Uncle simply attracted al Qaida to a new front. Al Qaida then went about their business, getting tough on Iraqis. Uncle "saved" the people of Iraq by drawing in al Qaida, and then ISIL. If Uncle goes in, there will be a new ISIL, and an ISIL after that.

The only way to get rid of ISIL and secure the region is by placing this task in the hands of Sunni Muslims. All Uncle can do is attract more jihadists, create more carnage and instability. Instability does not just mean the regular beheadings and suicide bombings in Iraq and Syria. As Paris showed, along with Lebanon and Turkey in the weeks before, the instability is global.

A big occupying force can't win this sort of war. Defeating ISIL will require far more than military means. This is a war of ideas more than it's a war of bullets and bombs.

The superior opponent waits for the right conditions. If we've learned anything in the past half century, it's this: the size of your firepower is not the deciding factor in war.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 18^th, 2015 at 4:00pm:

Its time wrote on Nov 18th, 2015 at 3:23pm: How do you defeat an enemy that isnt afraid to die ? Another 10 years of boots on the ground will achieve what it did in Iraq and Afghanistan , sfa You give them what they want - death. You attack with the intention of total annihilation and only complete surrender avoids a bullet. It's how wars were fought for centuries.

Yeah i don't think they will be giving up anything , even after 20 years of allied boots on the ground nothing will change , it certainly hasnt after 10, if anything it much worse.

Kytro wrote on Nov 18^th, 2015 at 4:07pm:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 18th, 2015 at 4:00pm: Its time wrote on Nov 18th, 2015 at 3:23pm: How do you defeat an enemy that isnt afraid to die ? Another 10 years of boots on the ground will achieve what it did in Iraq and Afghanistan , sfa You give them what they want - death. You attack with the intention of total annihilation and only complete surrender avoids a bullet. It's how wars were fought for centuries. It's untenable, no modern democracy could survive attempting this because social media will show the horror and attempting to curtail that will be almost impossible. You are basically proposing something that has no chance of being implemented. It's becoming a tired, if horrifying refrain.

What if ISIS were to succeed in another 9/11. Do you think the Yanks would hesitate to wipe them off the map? Do you think anyone would stop them or even complain? ISIS is not just your regular group of terrorists. They ahve set new lows in barbarity.   Anyhow, it would all be over before anyone knew.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 18^th, 2015 at 4:57pm:

Kytro wrote on Nov 18th, 2015 at 4:07pm: mariacostel wrote on Nov 18th, 2015 at 4:00pm: Its time wrote on Nov 18th, 2015 at 3:23pm: How do you defeat an enemy that isnt afraid to die ? Another 10 years of boots on the ground will achieve what it did in Iraq and Afghanistan , sfa You give them what they want - death. You attack with the intention of total annihilation and only complete surrender avoids a bullet. It's how wars were fought for centuries. It's untenable, no modern democracy could survive attempting this because social media will show the horror and attempting to curtail that will be almost impossible. You are basically proposing something that has no chance of being implemented. It's becoming a tired, if horrifying refrain. What if ISIS were to succeed in another 9/11. Do you think the Yanks would hesitate to wipe them off the map? Do you think anyone would stop them or even complain? ISIS is not just your regular group of terrorists. They ahve set new lows in barbarity.   Anyhow, it would all be over before anyone knew.

Not much different from the albanian serbian conflict

mariacostel wrote on Nov 18^th, 2015 at 2:53pm:

crocodile wrote on Nov 18th, 2015 at 12:42pm: Kytro wrote on Nov 18th, 2015 at 10:21am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 18th, 2015 at 10:07am: Kytro wrote on Nov 18th, 2015 at 10:00am: Increasing civilian casualties will consume political capital, which is why there is reluctance. At some point the deaths will begin increase domestic pressure.  What else can you do? Besides, most of those civilians that the leadership is surrounding themselves with are families or supporters of IS terrorists. Everyone else has fled. Two birds, one stone. The issue is that what fills the power vacuum? The states in the area seem entirely incapable of maintaining control. Political realities exist regardless of the consequences. Yes, that's arguably where the problem started in the first place. But can you imagine ANYONE worse than ISIS replacing them? Seriously, has there been a more barbaric group since WW2 and on this scale?

Nope. Even Hamas has criticised the Paris attacks.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 18^th, 2015 at 4:57pm:

Kytro wrote on Nov 18th, 2015 at 4:07pm: mariacostel wrote on Nov 18th, 2015 at 4:00pm: Its time wrote on Nov 18th, 2015 at 3:23pm: How do you defeat an enemy that isnt afraid to die ? Another 10 years of boots on the ground will achieve what it did in Iraq and Afghanistan , sfa You give them what they want - death. You attack with the intention of total annihilation and only complete surrender avoids a bullet. It's how wars were fought for centuries. It's untenable, no modern democracy could survive attempting this because social media will show the horror and attempting to curtail that will be almost impossible. You are basically proposing something that has no chance of being implemented. It's becoming a tired, if horrifying refrain. What if ISIS were to succeed in another 9/11. Do you think the Yanks would hesitate to wipe them off the map? Do you think anyone would stop them or even complain? ISIS is not just your regular group of terrorists. They ahve set new lows in barbarity.   Anyhow, it would all be over before anyone knew.

The US’s response to.Sept 11 was to spend a trillion dollars getting Saddam. For some reason, they let al Qaida be.

Yes, dear, if there is another Sept 11, I have no doubt the US would play politics and go for the wrong guy.

History tends to repeat. Always absolutely never ever.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 18^th, 2015 at 4:00pm:

Its time wrote on Nov 18th, 2015 at 3:23pm: How do you defeat an enemy that isnt afraid to die ? Another 10 years of boots on the ground will achieve what it did in Iraq and Afghanistan , sfa You give them what they want - death. You attack with the intention of total annihilation and only complete surrender avoids a bullet. It's how wars were fought for centuries.

And you think it worked?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 18^th, 2015 at 10:07am:

Kytro wrote on Nov 18th, 2015 at 10:00am: Increasing civilian casualties will consume political capital, which is why there is reluctance. At some point the deaths will begin increase domestic pressure.  What else can you do? Besides, most of those civilians that the leadership is surrounding themselves with are families or supporters of IS terrorists. Everyone else has fled. Two birds, one stone.

Show your evidence to support this or stfu.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 18^th, 2015 at 4:57pm:

Kytro wrote on Nov 18th, 2015 at 4:07pm: mariacostel wrote on Nov 18th, 2015 at 4:00pm: Its time wrote on Nov 18th, 2015 at 3:23pm: How do you defeat an enemy that isnt afraid to die ? Another 10 years of boots on the ground will achieve what it did in Iraq and Afghanistan , sfa You give them what they want - death. You attack with the intention of total annihilation and only complete surrender avoids a bullet. It's how wars were fought for centuries. It's untenable, no modern democracy could survive attempting this because social media will show the horror and attempting to curtail that will be almost impossible. You are basically proposing something that has no chance of being implemented. It's becoming a tired, if horrifying refrain. What if ISIS were to succeed in another 9/11. Do you think the Yanks would hesitate to wipe them off the map? Do you think anyone would stop them or even complain? ISIS is not just your regular group of terrorists. They ahve set new lows in barbarity.   Anyhow, it would all be over before anyone knew.

There will be another 9-11: ISIS has no other purpose but America doesn't own the world. If you take your troops away from home then home is where they will get you.

Its time wrote on Nov 18^th, 2015 at 4:34pm:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 18th, 2015 at 4:00pm: Its time wrote on Nov 18th, 2015 at 3:23pm: How do you defeat an enemy that isnt afraid to die ? Another 10 years of boots on the ground will achieve what it did in Iraq and Afghanistan , sfa You give them what they want - death. You attack with the intention of total annihilation and only complete surrender avoids a bullet. It's how wars were fought for centuries. Yeah i don't think they will be giving up anything , even after 20 years of allied boots on the ground nothing will change , it certainly hasnt after 10, if anything it much worse.

A river either grows or it stagnates and dies: ISIS are desperate for attention but recruits have a difficult decision to make.

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 18^th, 2015 at 1:34pm:

Karnal wrote on Nov 18th, 2015 at 1:29pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 18th, 2015 at 9:59am: This is pretty much what I've been saying all along. Obama and Turnbull are on course to be flogged if they keep up this ludicrous and losing strategy of airstrikes only. It's time for our soldiers to do what they've been trained to do - kill bad guys and the IS terrorists are the worst of the worst. That's not what the article is saying. It's saying the coalition needs to use the G20 to get everyone on board (read: the locals). It's saying our soldiers should be used in a training capacity. ISIS are the worst of the worst, but sending infidel Coalition troops in to repeat Iraq and Afghanistan is only going to make matters worse. Yup, but airpower alone is not going to win this.

How much airpower have ISIS got?

mariacostel wrote on Nov 18^th, 2015 at 4:00pm:

Its time wrote on Nov 18th, 2015 at 3:23pm: How do you defeat an enemy that isnt afraid to die ? Another 10 years of boots on the ground will achieve what it did in Iraq and Afghanistan , sfa You give them what they want - death. You attack with the intention of total annihilation and only complete surrender avoids a bullet. It's how wars were fought for centuries.

Some times you actually make sense.... when faced with a remorseless enemy who takes no prisoners....... KIA - LASEO.. Kill Em All - Let Allah Sort Em Out......

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 12:18am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 18th, 2015 at 1:34pm: Karnal wrote on Nov 18th, 2015 at 1:29pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 18th, 2015 at 9:59am: This is pretty much what I've been saying all along. Obama and Turnbull are on course to be flogged if they keep up this ludicrous and losing strategy of airstrikes only. It's time for our soldiers to do what they've been trained to do - kill bad guys and the IS terrorists are the worst of the worst. That's not what the article is saying. It's saying the coalition needs to use the G20 to get everyone on board (read: the locals). It's saying our soldiers should be used in a training capacity. ISIS are the worst of the worst, but sending infidel Coalition troops in to repeat Iraq and Afghanistan is only going to make matters worse. Yup, but airpower alone is not going to win this. How much airpower have ISIS got?

One hell of a lot of hot air generated by killing innocents such as aid workers who actually.. aid them.  DUH!  They rely on terror not on military skill.

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 12:25am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 12:18am: Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 18th, 2015 at 1:34pm: Karnal wrote on Nov 18th, 2015 at 1:29pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 18th, 2015 at 9:59am: This is pretty much what I've been saying all along. Obama and Turnbull are on course to be flogged if they keep up this ludicrous and losing strategy of airstrikes only. It's time for our soldiers to do what they've been trained to do - kill bad guys and the IS terrorists are the worst of the worst. That's not what the article is saying. It's saying the coalition needs to use the G20 to get everyone on board (read: the locals). It's saying our soldiers should be used in a training capacity. ISIS are the worst of the worst, but sending infidel Coalition troops in to repeat Iraq and Afghanistan is only going to make matters worse. Yup, but airpower alone is not going to win this. How much airpower have ISIS got? One hell of a lot of hot air generated by killing innocents such as aid workers who actually.. aid them.  DUH!  They rely on terror not on military skill.

Ok, so I was going to say that the coalition of the willing is simply using their superiority in the air to drum home the message that the enemy have nothing to offer.

I am saying, by implication, that ISIS are not expanding in power and are in fact clinging onto relevance via desperado attacks such as Paris.

I could be wrong, but I am putting forward the supposition that ISIS is in fact on the backfoot.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 18^th, 2015 at 11:59pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 18th, 2015 at 10:07am: Kytro wrote on Nov 18th, 2015 at 10:00am: Increasing civilian casualties will consume political capital, which is why there is reluctance. At some point the deaths will begin increase domestic pressure.  What else can you do? Besides, most of those civilians that the leadership is surrounding themselves with are families or supporters of IS terrorists. Everyone else has fled. Two birds, one stone. Show your evidence to support this or be quiet.

If you read more than Fauxfacts and Crikey, you'd know this is common knowledge.

There is nothing awesomely difficult about beating ISIS, they have fought a conventional war (in the middle east) so conventional warfare is what will beat them. They simply have not met the type of resistance a well trained military will give them.

So, beating them is no big deal.

However, what is the plan after they're beaten?

Will it be ok say, in ten or fifteen years time when we still have troops "stationed" in ME to "keep the peace"?

Will it be ok when the resource costs to keep the peace and help rebuild become significant dollar figures?

Will it be ok to have a few million more refuges fleeing our shared carnage, I mean, after all, we have been so welcoming to refugees up to date...

So, winning is the easy bit, but not a whole lot of thought seems to be going into "what then?"

This is the typical irresponsible attitude of extremists, the angry, the haters and war mongers.... All some are considering is the fight and not the aftermath.

Sad reality is, we absolutely have to do "something" now, however, in line with the "typical" behaviours listed above, those going hard core for the fight, take absolutely no responsibility for their part in the creation of this war.

Phemanderac wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 6:10am:

There is nothing awesomely difficult about beating ISIS, they have fought a conventional war (in the middle east) so conventional warfare is what will beat them. They simply have not met the type of resistance a well trained military will give them. So, beating them is no big deal. However, what is the plan after they're beaten? Will it be ok say, in ten or fifteen years time when we still have troops "stationed" in ME to "keep the peace"? Will it be ok when the resource costs to keep the peace and help rebuild become significant dollar figures? Will it be ok to have a few million more refuges fleeing our shared carnage, I mean, after all, we have been so welcoming to refugees up to date... So, winning is the easy bit, but not a whole lot of thought seems to be going into "what then?" This is the typical irresponsible attitude of extremists, the angry, the haters and war mongers.... All some are considering is the fight and not the aftermath. Sad reality is, we absolutely have to do "something" now, however, in line with the "typical" behaviours listed above, those going hard core for the fight, take absolutely no responsibility for their part in the creation of this war.

you must be watching a different "WAR" to the one I am watching....

I dont see body bombers deliberately blowing up innocents as 'conventional'...

not do I see take no prisoners chop their head off... as conventional warfare...either...

nor do I see their "WAR" only applying to the ME...

so you believe people DEFENDING themselves  are in fact  CREATING the problem???...


winning is easy.....REALLY?...

wherever did you hear that?

cods wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 6:33am:

Phemanderac wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 6:10am: There is nothing awesomely difficult about beating ISIS, they have fought a conventional war (in the middle east) so conventional warfare is what will beat them. They simply have not met the type of resistance a well trained military will give them. So, beating them is no big deal. However, what is the plan after they're beaten? Will it be ok say, in ten or fifteen years time when we still have troops "stationed" in ME to "keep the peace"? Will it be ok when the resource costs to keep the peace and help rebuild become significant dollar figures? Will it be ok to have a few million more refuges fleeing our shared carnage, I mean, after all, we have been so welcoming to refugees up to date... So, winning is the easy bit, but not a whole lot of thought seems to be going into "what then?" This is the typical irresponsible attitude of extremists, the angry, the haters and war mongers.... All some are considering is the fight and not the aftermath. Sad reality is, we absolutely have to do "something" now, however, in line with the "typical" behaviours listed above, those going hard core for the fight, take absolutely no responsibility for their part in the creation of this war. you must be watching a different "WAR" to the one I am watching.... I dont see body bombers deliberately blowing up innocents as 'conventional'... not do I see take no prisoners chop their head off... as conventional warfare...either... nor do I see their "WAR" only applying to the ME... so you believe people DEFENDING themselves  are in fact  CREATING the problem???... winning is easy.....REALLY?... wherever did you hear that?

Same war, just different perspectives...

Firstly, on the ground in the ME - ISIS have fought using conventional fighting methods, this would be why they have CAPTURED AND CONTINUE TO HOLD so much ground Cods, same war. This is why I specified the ME as well...

I thought it obvious (ok, that assumption was wrong) that act of terrorism, whilst part of this expanding fight, were not part of what I was talking about, because, and this may have escaped your notice - the THREAD is about beating ISIS...

Yep, beating them is easy, take the fight up to them with trained forces, it will be over very quickly.

We will suffer losses though...

As to how prisoners can be treated, I can only recommend you re-read some history...No one has a great record with prisoner treatment...

So, in line with the OP the discussion is about how to beat ISIS, that fight will be on the ground in the ME and bombing the crap out of them will not win a war... Sad but true.

As such, the points that I made stand. If you wanna stop the "bombings" and "head cutting of" incidents then Cods, it is gonna come down to face to face confrontation. Or do you have some other idea about how this "FIGHT" is actually going to go?

And, typically, you have not actually addressed the point of what about "after", what is the plan then?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 18^th, 2015 at 9:59am:

This is pretty much what I've been saying all along. Obama and Turnbull are on course to be flogged if they keep up this ludicrous and losing strategy of airstrikes only. It's time for our soldiers to do what they've been trained to do - kill bad guys and the IS terrorists are the worst of the worst.

Yes - it's time that bulldozers were used to create giant pits in the desert for dead IS recruits.

Karnal wrote on Nov 18^th, 2015 at 7:14pm:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 18th, 2015 at 4:00pm: Its time wrote on Nov 18th, 2015 at 3:23pm: How do you defeat an enemy that isnt afraid to die ? Another 10 years of boots on the ground will achieve what it did in Iraq and Afghanistan , sfa You give them what they want - death. You attack with the intention of total annihilation and only complete surrender avoids a bullet. It's how wars were fought for centuries. And you think it worked?

Largely, yes.

cods wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 6:33am:

Phemanderac wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 6:10am: There is nothing awesomely difficult about beating ISIS, they have fought a conventional war (in the middle east) so conventional warfare is what will beat them. They simply have not met the type of resistance a well trained military will give them. So, beating them is no big deal. However, what is the plan after they're beaten? Will it be ok say, in ten or fifteen years time when we still have troops "stationed" in ME to "keep the peace"? Will it be ok when the resource costs to keep the peace and help rebuild become significant dollar figures? Will it be ok to have a few million more refuges fleeing our shared carnage, I mean, after all, we have been so welcoming to refugees up to date... So, winning is the easy bit, but not a whole lot of thought seems to be going into "what then?" This is the typical irresponsible attitude of extremists, the angry, the haters and war mongers.... All some are considering is the fight and not the aftermath. Sad reality is, we absolutely have to do "something" now, however, in line with the "typical" behaviours listed above, those going hard core for the fight, take absolutely no responsibility for their part in the creation of this war. you must be watching a different "WAR" to the one I am watching.... I dont see body bombers deliberately blowing up innocents as 'conventional'... not do I see take no prisoners chop their head off... as conventional warfare...either... nor do I see their "WAR" only applying to the ME... so you believe people DEFENDING themselves  are in fact  CREATING the problem???... winning is easy.....REALLY?... wherever did you hear that?

Good points, Cods.

We have to be very careful about what to do next.   It is not as easy as other might think.  The Russians spent decades on Afghanistan, and failed.   I dont think we can do much better.   

First its the microsphere in the Syria / Iraq region itself.

Most of the support for ISIS locally, come from disillusioned Sunni minority.  Who felt marginalized under the new Iraqi  government, and at the same time, atrocities committed against them by the ASSAD regime in Syria.   So ISIS itself, is not just a terrorist organization, it also have a political agenda.  This is going to be very difficult to resolve, because the government in Iraq is quiet weak, it have very little influences in Northern, and more remote areas. 

The current Syria Rebel / anti government forces are made of a variety of different groups.  Some moderate, others extreme.  And for years, the ASSAD regime have been targeting the moderate groups, and leaving the extremist group alone.   If you think about it, this is actually quiet smart.   Because, the moderate opposition groups would have the most chance to win, because of US backing.   However, with the extremist groups, not even the US would have the stomach for them.    And for ASSAD, its as easy as target the moderates, and then sit back letting the US deal with the extremist groups.

On the macroscale:

The US supports the moderate Syrian Rebels, whilst against more extreme ones, and as well as wanting to rid of the ASSAD government. 

The Russians supports the ASSAD government, and in against ALL of the Syrian Oppositions.

Both the US and Russia wants to extend their sphere of influence in that region. 
This is very similar to the situation that was in Afghanistan. 

For ISIS

The conflict and chaos had created a fertile opportunity for it to grow.   At its core, it wants to create a larger chaos,  it's public aim is to creat a world wide caliphate, and to galvanize all the Muslims against the non muslims in sort of holy war. 

Of course, even the leadership in ISIS knows that its impossible.  Because, to do so, it would mean that it have to kill off half of the Muslim population (namely the Shiites) - and good luck with that in Iran and Iraq. 

No, what it seek to do now is to create chaos through fear and terror.  And use this to marginalize innocent muslims in the Free world.   That will create resentment.     In another front, continued bombings in the region - even though very targetted, would create civilian casualities.  These imagines of burnted and miamed remains of women and children are the same that been used by ISIS to attract those marginalized muslims - mostly youth. 

We are in a rock and hard place.  Continued or intensified military action WILL lead to more civilian casualities, which then will lead to worsening of the refugee crisis.  Which is then used by the ISIS to a) further recruit new blood, b) mix their members in the midst to create yet more chaos.    My guess is that what ISIS is waiting for now, is a few strong extreme right wing leaders to emerge from Europe - preferrably from France or Germany.  And that would be the perfect storm. 

On the other hand, diplomacy is like a fairy tale.  The Syrian oppositions will NEVER agree to a ceasefire with ASSAD in place.  And the Russians will not allow ASSAD government to fall.   Consequently, Washington can only hope for a peaceful power handover in the current Syrian government, because otherwise, the whole region is gone.   And THAT will never happen.   

:)

The difference between Afghanistan and Iraq, Tickle, is oil. The one thing that's been forgotten in this new conflict is the reason we went in in the first place: to secure Europe's source of oil.

Iraq has the potential to become a wealthy country. With the right leadership, it can attract investment. This was the plan the US had for Iraq all along.

Since then, new sources of oil have been found. Canada is now a big supplier. The world is not so reliant on the Middle East for its energy.

tickleandrose wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 9:07am:

We have to be very careful about what to do next.   It is not as easy as other might think.  The Russians spent decades on Afghanistan, and failed.   I dont think we can do much better.    First its the microsphere in the Syria / Iraq region itself. Most of the support for ISIS locally, come from disillusioned Sunni minority.  Who felt marginalized under the new Iraqi  government, and at the same time, atrocities committed against them by the ASSAD regime in Syria.   So ISIS itself, is not just a terrorist organization, it also have a political agenda.  This is going to be very difficult to resolve, because the government in Iraq is quiet weak, it have very little influences in Northern, and more remote areas.  The current Syria Rebel / anti government forces are made of a variety of different groups.  Some moderate, others extreme.  And for years, the ASSAD regime have been targeting the moderate groups, and leaving the extremist group alone.   If you think about it, this is actually quiet smart.   Because, the moderate opposition groups would have the most chance to win, because of US backing.   However, with the extremist groups, not even the US would have the stomach for them.    And for ASSAD, its as easy as target the moderates, and then sit back letting the US deal with the extremist groups. On the macroscale: The US supports the moderate Syrian Rebels, whilst against more extreme ones, and as well as wanting to rid of the ASSAD government.  The Russians supports the ASSAD government, and in against ALL of the Syrian Oppositions. Both the US and Russia wants to extend their sphere of influence in that region.  This is very similar to the situation that was in Afghanistan.  For ISIS The conflict and chaos had created a fertile opportunity for it to grow.   At its core, it wants to create a larger chaos,  it's public aim is to creat a world wide caliphate, and to galvanize all the Muslims against the non muslims in sort of holy war.  Of course, even the leadership in ISIS knows that its impossible.  Because, to do so, it would mean that it have to kill off half of the Muslim population (namely the Shiites) - and good luck with that in Iran and Iraq.  No, what it seek to do now is to create chaos through fear and terror.  And use this to marginalize innocent muslims in the Free world.   That will create resentment.     In another front, continued bombings in the region - even though very targetted, would create civilian casualities.  These imagines of burnted and miamed remains of women and children are the same that been used by ISIS to attract those marginalized muslims - mostly youth.  We are in a rock and hard place.  Continued or intensified military action WILL lead to more civilian casualities, which then will lead to worsening of the refugee crisis.  Which is then used by the ISIS to a) further recruit new blood, b) mix their members in the midst to create yet more chaos.    My guess is that what ISIS is waiting for now, is a few strong extreme right wing leaders to emerge from Europe - preferrably from France or Germany.  And that would be the perfect storm.  On the other hand, diplomacy is like a fairy tale.  The Syrian oppositions will NEVER agree to a ceasefire with ASSAD in place.  And the Russians will not allow ASSAD government to fall.   Consequently, Washington can only hope for a peaceful power handover in the current Syrian government, because otherwise, the whole region is gone.   And THAT will never happen.    :)

Very good post!

The entry of the Russians has complicated matters. If they can get what they want, a southern pipeline, without Syria they will pull out of that conflict. So that appears the first itm to tackle.

IS has about 30K soldiers, including a number of idiots from the west so militarily beatable. It is the peace that is hard to win.

Phemanderac wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 6:10am:

There is nothing awesomely difficult about beating ISIS, they have fought a conventional war (in the middle east) so conventional warfare is what will beat them. They simply have not met the type of resistance a well trained military will give them. So, beating them is no big deal. However, what is the plan after they're beaten? Will it be ok say, in ten or fifteen years time when we still have troops "stationed" in ME to "keep the peace"? Will it be ok when the resource costs to keep the peace and help rebuild become significant dollar figures? Will it be ok to have a few million more refuges fleeing our shared carnage, I mean, after all, we have been so welcoming to refugees up to date... So, winning is the easy bit, but not a whole lot of thought seems to be going into "what then?" This is the typical irresponsible attitude of extremists, the angry, the haters and war mongers.... All some are considering is the fight and not the aftermath. Sad reality is, we absolutely have to do "something" now, however, in line with the "typical" behaviours listed above, those going hard core for the fight, take absolutely no responsibility for their part in the creation of this war.

There's nothing conventional about decapitating enemies. There is nothing conventional about using suicide bombers. There is nothing conventional about using civilians as human shields. There is nothing conventional about walking into a crowded theatre and shooting dead helpless people in wheelchairs. There is nothing conventional about murdering entire villages because they refuse to adopt the extreme religious views of the terrorists. There is nothing conventional about blowing up an airliner full of innocent civilians mid-air. There is nothing conventional about ISIS' methods. There's nothing conventional about their use of social media to recruit followers or to brainwash and convince followers to commit acts of terrorism. It's as far from conventional as you can get.

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 9:32am:

tickleandrose wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 9:07am: We have to be very careful about what to do next.   It is not as easy as other might think.  The Russians spent decades on Afghanistan, and failed.   I dont think we can do much better.    First its the microsphere in the Syria / Iraq region itself. Most of the support for ISIS locally, come from disillusioned Sunni minority.  Who felt marginalized under the new Iraqi  government, and at the same time, atrocities committed against them by the ASSAD regime in Syria.   So ISIS itself, is not just a terrorist organization, it also have a political agenda.  This is going to be very difficult to resolve, because the government in Iraq is quiet weak, it have very little influences in Northern, and more remote areas.  The current Syria Rebel / anti government forces are made of a variety of different groups.  Some moderate, others extreme.  And for years, the ASSAD regime have been targeting the moderate groups, and leaving the extremist group alone.   If you think about it, this is actually quiet smart.   Because, the moderate opposition groups would have the most chance to win, because of US backing.   However, with the extremist groups, not even the US would have the stomach for them.    And for ASSAD, its as easy as target the moderates, and then sit back letting the US deal with the extremist groups. On the macroscale: The US supports the moderate Syrian Rebels, whilst against more extreme ones, and as well as wanting to rid of the ASSAD government.  The Russians supports the ASSAD government, and in against ALL of the Syrian Oppositions. Both the US and Russia wants to extend their sphere of influence in that region.  This is very similar to the situation that was in Afghanistan.  For ISIS The conflict and chaos had created a fertile opportunity for it to grow.   At its core, it wants to create a larger chaos,  it's public aim is to creat a world wide caliphate, and to galvanize all the Muslims against the non muslims in sort of holy war.  Of course, even the leadership in ISIS knows that its impossible.  Because, to do so, it would mean that it have to kill off half of the Muslim population (namely the Shiites) - and good luck with that in Iran and Iraq.  No, what it seek to do now is to create chaos through fear and terror.  And use this to marginalize innocent muslims in the Free world.   That will create resentment.     In another front, continued bombings in the region - even though very targetted, would create civilian casualities.  These imagines of burnted and miamed remains of women and children are the same that been used by ISIS to attract those marginalized muslims - mostly youth.  We are in a rock and hard place.  Continued or intensified military action WILL lead to more civilian casualities, which then will lead to worsening of the refugee crisis.  Which is then used by the ISIS to a) further recruit new blood, b) mix their members in the midst to create yet more chaos.    My guess is that what ISIS is waiting for now, is a few strong extreme right wing leaders to emerge from Europe - preferrably from France or Germany.  And that would be the perfect storm.  On the other hand, diplomacy is like a fairy tale.  The Syrian oppositions will NEVER agree to a ceasefire with ASSAD in place.  And the Russians will not allow ASSAD government to fall.   Consequently, Washington can only hope for a peaceful power handover in the current Syrian government, because otherwise, the whole region is gone.   And THAT will never happen.    :) Very good post! The entry of the Russians has complicated matters. If they can get what they want, a southern pipeline, without Syria they will pull out of that conflict. So that appears the first itm to tackle. IS has about 30K soldiers, including a number of idiots from the west so militarily beatable. It is the peace that is hard to win.

Russia isn't really there to take on ISIS. Sure, they've made a token effort to bomb a few ISIS camps to "keep up appearances", but the bulk of their bombs are going toward enemies of the Assad regime. There may be a few more bombs heading toward ISIS targets since they destroyed a Russian airliner, but Putin doesn't care about ISIS that much. His goal is keeping the Pro-Russia Assad in power.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 4:26pm:

Phemanderac wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 6:10am: There is nothing awesomely difficult about beating ISIS, they have fought a conventional war (in the middle east) so conventional warfare is what will beat them. They simply have not met the type of resistance a well trained military will give them. So, beating them is no big deal. However, what is the plan after they're beaten? Will it be ok say, in ten or fifteen years time when we still have troops "stationed" in ME to "keep the peace"? Will it be ok when the resource costs to keep the peace and help rebuild become significant dollar figures? Will it be ok to have a few million more refuges fleeing our shared carnage, I mean, after all, we have been so welcoming to refugees up to date... So, winning is the easy bit, but not a whole lot of thought seems to be going into "what then?" This is the typical irresponsible attitude of extremists, the angry, the haters and war mongers.... All some are considering is the fight and not the aftermath. Sad reality is, we absolutely have to do "something" now, however, in line with the "typical" behaviours listed above, those going hard core for the fight, take absolutely no responsibility for their part in the creation of this war. There's nothing conventional about decapitating enemies. There is nothing conventional about using suicide bombers. There is nothing conventional about using civilians as human shields. There is nothing conventional about walking into a crowded theatre and shooting dead helpless people in wheelchairs. There is nothing conventional about murdering entire villages because they refuse to adopt the extreme religious views of the terrorists. There is nothing conventional about blowing up an airliner full of innocent civilians mid-air. There is nothing conventional about ISIS' methods. There's nothing conventional about their use of social media to recruit followers or to brainwash and convince followers to commit acts of terrorism. It's as far from conventional as you can get.

...decapitation is conventional: do you know any history or are simply blaspheming about what has gone before under the sun????

Rules of war were made for a reason- the reason being that convention was barbaric  :-? :-? :-? :-? :-? :-?

Karnal wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 9:06am:

cods wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 6:33am: Phemanderac wrote on Nov 19th, 2015 at 6:10am: There is nothing awesomely difficult about beating ISIS, they have fought a conventional war (in the middle east) so conventional warfare is what will beat them. They simply have not met the type of resistance a well trained military will give them. So, beating them is no big deal. However, what is the plan after they're beaten? Will it be ok say, in ten or fifteen years time when we still have troops "stationed" in ME to "keep the peace"? Will it be ok when the resource costs to keep the peace and help rebuild become significant dollar figures? Will it be ok to have a few million more refuges fleeing our shared carnage, I mean, after all, we have been so welcoming to refugees up to date... So, winning is the easy bit, but not a whole lot of thought seems to be going into "what then?" This is the typical irresponsible attitude of extremists, the angry, the haters and war mongers.... All some are considering is the fight and not the aftermath. Sad reality is, we absolutely have to do "something" now, however, in line with the "typical" behaviours listed above, those going hard core for the fight, take absolutely no responsibility for their part in the creation of this war. you must be watching a different "WAR" to the one I am watching.... I dont see body bombers deliberately blowing up innocents as 'conventional'... not do I see take no prisoners chop their head off... as conventional warfare...either... nor do I see their "WAR" only applying to the ME... so you believe people DEFENDING themselves  are in fact  CREATING the problem???... winning is easy.....REALLY?... wherever did you hear that? Good points, Cods.

There are zero good points in cods dissertation: the theme of committing suicide is basically war itself!

mariacostel wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 7:20am:

Karnal wrote on Nov 18th, 2015 at 7:14pm: mariacostel wrote on Nov 18th, 2015 at 4:00pm: Its time wrote on Nov 18th, 2015 at 3:23pm: How do you defeat an enemy that isnt afraid to die ? Another 10 years of boots on the ground will achieve what it did in Iraq and Afghanistan , sfa You give them what they want - death. You attack with the intention of total annihilation and only complete surrender avoids a bullet. It's how wars were fought for centuries. And you think it worked? Largely, yes.

Wow: a thesis on the human story in how many words???

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 5:41am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 18th, 2015 at 11:59pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 18th, 2015 at 10:07am: Kytro wrote on Nov 18th, 2015 at 10:00am: Increasing civilian casualties will consume political capital, which is why there is reluctance. At some point the deaths will begin increase domestic pressure.  What else can you do? Besides, most of those civilians that the leadership is surrounding themselves with are families or supporters of IS terrorists. Everyone else has fled. Two birds, one stone. Show your evidence to support this or be quiet. If you read more than Fauxfacts and Crikey, you'd know this is common knowledge.

Wow,...... just like oh so enlightening  :o :o :o :o :o

Bobby. wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 6:54am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 18th, 2015 at 9:59am: This is pretty much what I've been saying all along. Obama and Turnbull are on course to be flogged if they keep up this ludicrous and losing strategy of airstrikes only. It's time for our soldiers to do what they've been trained to do - kill bad guys and the IS terrorists are the worst of the worst. Yes - it's time that bulldozers were used to create giant pits in the desert for dead IS recruits.

The land is being terraformed as we speak: who wants to live there? Who wants to start again in such a hostile environment??

Whatever happens in Syria, the West will find itself supporting one branch of Islam against the others. The only thing that Muslims can agree on is that Infidels should die.