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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In what ways are our anti-guerrilla tactics superior to, say, the Soviets in Afghanistan? Genuinely curious.
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.
Here is an ISIS fighter boasting that the air strikes are not militarily effective.
In what ways are our anti-guerrilla tactics superior to, say, the Soviets in Afghanistan? Genuinely curious.
Not nearly as violent as WW2.
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?
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?