The Ugly Truth: Defeating ISIS Will Take Decades

Jack Hays · Jan 19, 2016

It is mere wishful thinking to believe that our war against terrorists will be anything but long and hard. That is why wise people preferred to call it the Long War instead of the War on Terror.

The ugly truth: Defeating the Islamic State will take decades

The long commitment no one is talking about.

There’s a scary disconnect between the somber warnings you hear privately from military leaders about the war against the Islamic State and the glib debating points coming from Republican and Democratic politicians.
The politicians fulminate about defeating the terrorists, but they don’t talk much about the costs or sacrifices that will be required. The generals and admirals, who have been at war for 15 years, know that success can’t be bought cheaply. Defeating this enemy will require a much larger and longer commitment by the United States than any leading politician seems willing to acknowledge.
My visit here last week to the headquarters of Central Command, which oversees all U.S. military activities in the Middle East, came as part of a conference organized by the Center for Naval Analyses, which provides research to the Navy and other services. The ground rules prevent me from identifying speakers by name, but I can offer a summary of what I heard. It’s not reassuring.
Military leaders know that they are fighting a ruthless adversary that has adjusted and adapted its tactics as the United States and its partners have joined the fight over the past 18 months. The jihadists have lost about 25 percent of the territory they held in mid-2014, but they have devised innovative methods to compensate for their weakness. . . .

joG · Jan 19, 2016

Jack Hays said:
It is mere wishful thinking to believe that our war against terrorists will be anything but long and hard. That is why wise people preferred to call it the Long War instead of the War on Terror.

The ugly truth: Defeating the Islamic State will take decades

The long commitment no one is talking about.

There’s a scary disconnect between the somber warnings you hear privately from military leaders about the war against the Islamic State and the glib debating points coming from Republican and Democratic politicians.
The politicians fulminate about defeating the terrorists, but they don’t talk much about the costs or sacrifices that will be required. The generals and admirals, who have been at war for 15 years, know that success can’t be bought cheaply. Defeating this enemy will require a much larger and longer commitment by the United States than any leading politician seems willing to acknowledge.
My visit here last week to the headquarters of Central Command, which oversees all U.S. military activities in the Middle East, came as part of a conference organized by the Center for Naval Analyses, which provides research to the Navy and other services. The ground rules prevent me from identifying speakers by name, but I can offer a summary of what I heard. It’s not reassuring.
Military leaders know that they are fighting a ruthless adversary that has adjusted and adapted its tactics as the United States and its partners have joined the fight over the past 18 months. The jihadists have lost about 25 percent of the territory they held in mid-2014, but they have devised innovative methods to compensate for their weakness. . . .

We do not know how long we will have to allocate assets to fighting terror. It could be a matter od a few years or for ever. But it is a type of cost of doing business, of living as we do, in the meantime. We should also clearly understand that it is very probably not the worst military challenge we will have to face in the next 30 or so years.

Thoreau72 · Jan 20, 2016

Asking the average military man whether we need to go to war is very much like asking your barber if you need a haircut.

The GWOT/Long War is a hoax of epic proportions, Ike's worst nightmare.

Jack Hays · Jan 20, 2016

Thoreau72 said:
Asking the average military man whether we need to go to war is very much like asking your barber if you need a haircut.

The GWOT/Long War is a hoax of epic proportions, Ike's worst nightmare.

No one hates war more than those who have to do the fighting.

Thoreau72 · Jan 21, 2016

Jack Hays said:
No one hates war more than those who have to do the fighting.

Well of course, at least for the most part. Equally true is that SOME doing the fighting absolutely positively LOVE it.

But the guys in HQ levels realize that war or a reasonable facsimile thereof is what pays his check, keeps his job, and provides for promotions. :mrgreen:

countryboy · Jan 21, 2016

Islamic terror will never be defeated. It could, but the world simply doesn't have the political will to do the dirty work required to get the job done. We could probably defeat ISIS in a couple of years or less, but there would be much collateral damage.

Casper · Jan 21, 2016

Thoreau72 said:
Asking the average military man whether we need to go to war is very much like asking your barber if you need a haircut.

The GWOT/Long War is a hoax of epic proportions, Ike's worst nightmare.

Actually, asking a military man if we should go to war is nothing like asking a barber if you need a haircut. Military men have to fight, and die and get maimed in wars, few military men want to fight wars, especially those that actually do the fighting. I thought you were a Vet, I must be mistaken.

Thoreau72 · Jan 21, 2016

Casper said:
Actually, asking a military man if we should go to war is nothing like asking a barber if you need a haircut. Military men have to fight, and die and get maimed in wars, few military men want to fight wars, especially those that actually do the fighting. I thought you were a Vet, I must be mistaken.

No, you were right. I was Army in Vietnam, fortunately in the medical end, NOT an infantryman. And I agree that the average foot soldier does not want to fight, but EQUALLY TRUE is that some do. That was particularly apparent back when the draft was operating.

And so, if nobody in the rank & file wants to fight, as you claim, who is it that is responsible for such sophistry as "Global War On Terror" or "The Long War"?

Who, in your opinion, is responsible for that? From where does the impetus come? Was Smedley Butler right?

Casper · Jan 21, 2016

Thoreau72 said:
No, you were right. I was Army in Vietnam, fortunately in the medical end, NOT an infantryman. And I agree that the average foot soldier does not want to fight, but EQUALLY TRUE is that some do. That was particularly apparent back when the draft was operating.

And so, if nobody in the rank & file wants to fight, as you claim, who is it that is responsible for such sophistry as "Global War On Terror" or "The Long War"?

Who, in your opinion, is responsible for that? From where does the impetus come? Was Smedley Butler right?

I was 11B myself.
Those responsible are Politicians, war is the last tool, or should be, in the diplomatic bag of options, some are too quick to use it.

Thoreau72 · Jan 21, 2016

Casper said:
I was 11B myself.
Those responsible are Politicians, war is the last tool, or should be, in the diplomatic bag of options, some are too quick to use it.

Any comments regarding Smedley Butler and his observation that 'war is a racket'?

Do you suppose that Eisenhower's warning in his Farewell Address was valid?

Casper · Jan 21, 2016

Thoreau72 said:
Any comments regarding Smedley Butler and his observation that 'war is a racket'?

Do you suppose that Eisenhower's warning in his Farewell Address was valid?

It is a racket, I have done a lot of work for both the DOD and their vendors, Billions to be made, or is that Trillions.

Yes, he knew the score and called it as it is but has it changed one thing, nope.

Port & Starboard · Jan 21, 2016

Thoreau72 said:
Well of course, at least for the most part. Equally true is that SOME doing the fighting absolutely positively LOVE it.

But the guys in HQ levels realize that war or a reasonable facsimile thereof is what pays his check, keeps his job, and provides for promotions. :mrgreen:

There is a certain truth to your sarcasm..... I like it.

Jack Hays · Jan 21, 2016

Thoreau72 said:
Well of course, at least for the most part. Equally true is that SOME doing the fighting absolutely positively LOVE it.

But the guys in HQ levels realize that war or a reasonable facsimile thereof is what pays his check, keeps his job, and provides for promotions. :mrgreen:

An ugly lie.

Thoreau72 · Jan 22, 2016

Jack Hays said:
An ugly lie.

The ugly truth, and that's why you object. Smedley Butler was right. :mrgreen:

Oozlefinch · Jan 22, 2016

Jack Hays said:
It is mere wishful thinking to believe that our war against terrorists will be anything but long and hard. That is why wise people preferred to call it the Long War instead of the War on Terror.

This war has been going on for over 50 years, and will likely continue for another 50 or more.

However, the worst thing you can do is to simply stop fighting it. That lets them gain a foothold and expand their forces, allowing them to make bigger and bloodier attacks.

We saw that in the 1980's. Several countries gave them safehavens, and they expanded their attacks to other areas with larger attacks. Then in the mid 1980's, several attacks against these state sponsors caused most of them to back off their support, and they were forced to go underground again.

Until the 1990's, when the turmoil and lack of attention in post-Soviet Afghanistan allowed them to regroup and enlarge their forces. So long as they kept their attacks inside Afghanistan, the world largely left them alone.

After 2001 they were fractured and broken for the next decade. Small attacks here and there, not much of consequence. But because of ISIS, they once again have a "country" they can operate out of, and gain new recruits.

Likely, we will never really eliminate them. However, we can keep them fractured and on the defensive, with no place to call home and build up supporters and fighters.

Thoreau72 · Jan 30, 2016

For the Military Industrial Complex, the GWOT is the gift that keeps on giving, the Goose That Lays Golden Eggs

beerftw · Jan 30, 2016

Jack Hays said:
It is mere wishful thinking to believe that our war against terrorists will be anything but long and hard. That is why wise people preferred to call it the Long War instead of the War on Terror.

The ugly truth: Defeating the Islamic State will take decades

The long commitment no one is talking about.

There’s a scary disconnect between the somber warnings you hear privately from military leaders about the war against the Islamic State and the glib debating points coming from Republican and Democratic politicians.
The politicians fulminate about defeating the terrorists, but they don’t talk much about the costs or sacrifices that will be required. The generals and admirals, who have been at war for 15 years, know that success can’t be bought cheaply. Defeating this enemy will require a much larger and longer commitment by the United States than any leading politician seems willing to acknowledge.
My visit here last week to the headquarters of Central Command, which oversees all U.S. military activities in the Middle East, came as part of a conference organized by the Center for Naval Analyses, which provides research to the Navy and other services. The ground rules prevent me from identifying speakers by name, but I can offer a summary of what I heard. It’s not reassuring.
Military leaders know that they are fighting a ruthless adversary that has adjusted and adapted its tactics as the United States and its partners have joined the fight over the past 18 months. The jihadists have lost about 25 percent of the territory they held in mid-2014, but they have devised innovative methods to compensate for their weakness. . . .

The war on terror needs to be fought by the same people who harbor them, military intervention makes progress but can not win overall. Think of racial segregation in america, groups like the kkk were by todays standards terrorists, yet people let them exist. No matter how many were arrested, they continued to grow until the public stopped tolerating and supporting them. When public opinion turned against them, and masses stopped supporting them or looking the other way, they fell into the empty powerless shell they are today.

Against islamic terrorists the same holds true, many support or tolerate them, and even more back them out of fear. When the islamic world stops cheering for them, and when people can protest islamic terrorists without fear of them or their families being killed, those terrorist groups would fade out of the picture.

However our current strategy of bombing them has been counterproductive, they use propoganda from collateral damage to recruit more. Many military leaders have known for decades bombing runs fail to eliminate an enemy, they rather destroy infrastructure and damage their logistics. But history has shown bombing can not stop an enemy, germany bombed britain into a smouldering crater, yet the british never surrendered and germany lost the war.

Jack Hays · Jan 30, 2016

beerftw said:
The war on terror needs to be fought by the same people who harbor them, military intervention makes progress but can not win overall. Think of racial segregation in america, groups like the kkk were by todays standards terrorists, yet people let them exist. No matter how many were arrested, they continued to grow until the public stopped tolerating and supporting them. When public opinion turned against them, and masses stopped supporting them or looking the other way, they fell into the empty powerless shell they are today.

Against islamic terrorists the same holds true, many support or tolerate them, and even more back them out of fear. When the islamic world stops cheering for them, and when people can protest islamic terrorists without fear of them or their families being killed, those terrorist groups would fade out of the picture.

However our current strategy of bombing them has been counterproductive, they use propoganda from collateral damage to recruit more. Many military leaders have known for decades bombing runs fail to eliminate an enemy, they rather destroy infrastructure and damage their logistics. But history has shown bombing can not stop an enemy, germany bombed britain into a smouldering crater, yet the british never surrendered and germany lost the war.

German bombing of Britain was small potatoes compared to the later Allied air offensive against the Reich. Apart from that I agree with much of your post. The way to foster your solution is to put our fighters on the ground with the local population.

beerftw · Jan 30, 2016

Jack Hays said:
German bombing of Britain was small potatoes compared to the later Allied air offensive against the Reich. Apart from that I agree with much of your post. The way to foster your solution is to put our fighters on the ground with the local population.

Yes germany did get harder overall, but the point was the germans used the bombings to destroy infrastructure and demoralize the british into surrendering, which failed. But yes boots on the ground works twofold, it helps eliminate targets with minimal collateral damage, and gives a presence for locals opposed to terrorism to oppose it without fearing for their lives.

Jack Hays · Jan 30, 2016

beerftw said:
Yes germany did get harder overall, but the point was the germans used the bombings to destroy infrastructure and demoralize the british into surrendering, which failed. But yes boots on the ground works twofold, it helps eliminate targets with minimal collateral damage, and gives a presence for locals opposed to terrorism to oppose it without fearing for their lives.

We agree on the main point. Re WW2, the Germans never had enough bombing weight to really have an impact.

Oozlefinch · Jan 30, 2016

I wanted to comment on something I have seen in here. And that is people trying to hold up Smedley Butler as some kind of hero.

They really need to pick who it is they are trying to hold up as somebody who's beliefes they think they share.

Now General Butler is both a hero to the Corps, and a lesson on how to be an outstanding Marine, and how to not screw up.

A 2 time Medal of Honor winner, he appeared to have an outstanding career. Many expected him to become Commandant, but his "insanity" pretty much cost him the top spot, and he was forever bitter because of that.

The son and grandson of Congressmen, he was raised in politics at an early age. It was those connections that allowed him to get a direct commission at the age of 17. A couple of years later he was in the Philippines, where he was relieved of duty because of a drinking problem.

His career in the early 20th century was heroic, but mostly he became known as an able administrator. He had an ability to organize police forces and civic administrations, which kept him in demand during the Banana Wars. But he was also prone to become bored very quickly and try to request other assignments. During WWI he was constantly requesting to be sent to France, but his superiors considered him "unreliable" so when he was finally sent to France a month before the war ended, it was put in charge of cleaning up a debarkation camp because he refused to be posted on the front itself.

Because of his political influence, he took a leave from the Marine Corps to become the Director of Public Safety for Philadelphia. Her served in this position, and the Mayor refused to extend tenure and the President refused to give him any further leave to hold a civilian position. In fact, he was fired shortly before his term was to end, after he stated it was his intention to defy his orders and remain no matter what to "finish the job".

He was also officially reprimanded and almost faced a court martial for publically spreading gossip about Italian dictator Benito Mussolini. At around the same time his father died, removing his most influential political backer. Also at this time the Commandant died, requiring a replacement. General Butler was the most senior General in the Corps at the time, but his career was already over. His actions over the precious 15 years had basically killed his career, and removed any support he had in taking the top spot.

And after his retirement, things got even worse. After loosing in a bid for the Senate as a Republican, he then moved to the far extreme and supported the Socialist Party. Then you have his going full-tilt into the Socialist camp. His entire "war is a racket" lecture tour, followed by his "Business Plot" pretty much destroyed any credibility that he had left.

Major Butler is a hero to generations of Marines. But General Butler is somewhat of an embarasment. The general concensus is that he tried to pass from military to political, and largely lost his mind. And most of his actions from 1926 onward was him lashing out at anything that frustrated him.

Jack Hays · Jan 30, 2016

Oozlefinch said:
I wanted to comment on something I have seen in here. And that is people trying to hold up Smedley Butler as some kind of hero.

They really need to pick who it is they are trying to hold up as somebody who's beliefes they think they share.

Now General Butler is both a hero to the Corps, and a lesson on how to be an outstanding Marine, and how to not screw up.

A 2 time Medal of Honor winner, he appeared to have an outstanding career. Many expected him to become Commandant, but his "insanity" pretty much cost him the top spot, and he was forever bitter because of that.

The son and grandson of Congressmen, he was raised in politics at an early age. It was those connections that allowed him to get a direct commission at the age of 17. A couple of years later he was in the Philippines, where he was relieved of duty because of a drinking problem.

His career in the early 20th century was heroic, but mostly he became known as an able administrator. He had an ability to organize police forces and civic administrations, which kept him in demand during the Banana Wars. But he was also prone to become bored very quickly and try to request other assignments. During WWI he was constantly requesting to be sent to France, but his superiors considered him "unreliable" so when he was finally sent to France a month before the war ended, it was put in charge of cleaning up a debarkation camp because he refused to be posted on the front itself.

Because of his political influence, he took a leave from the Marine Corps to become the Director of Public Safety for Philadelphia. Her served in this position, and the Mayor refused to extend tenure and the President refused to give him any further leave to hold a civilian position. In fact, he was fired shortly before his term was to end, after he stated it was his intention to defy his orders and remain no matter what to "finish the job".

He was also officially reprimanded and almost faced a court martial for publically spreading gossip about Italian dictator Benito Mussolini. At around the same time his father died, removing his most influential political backer. Also at this time the Commandant died, requiring a replacement. General Butler was the most senior General in the Corps at the time, but his career was already over. His actions over the precious 15 years had basically killed his career, and removed any support he had in taking the top spot.

And after his retirement, things got even worse. After loosing in a bid for the Senate as a Republican, he then moved to the far extreme and supported the Socialist Party. Then you have his going full-tilt into the Socialist camp. His entire "war is a racket" lecture tour, followed by his "Business Plot" pretty much destroyed any credibility that he had left.

Major Butler is a hero to generations of Marines. But General Butler is somewhat of an embarasment. The general concensus is that he tried to pass from military to political, and largely lost his mind. And most of his actions from 1926 onward was him lashing out at anything that frustrated him.

Thank you.

jet57 · Jan 31, 2016

Jack Hays said:
No one hates war more than those who have to do the fighting.

The poor people that wind up as collateral casualties are to keen on it either.

War is for those who want it.

Xe Corporation comes to mind. Lockheed Martin...

Jack Hays · Jan 31, 2016

jet57 said:
The poor people that wind up as collateral casualties are to keen on it either.

War is for those who want it.

Xe Corporation comes to mind. Lockheed Martin...

Xe is small time. Lockheed makes money in war and peace.

Oozlefinch · Feb 1, 2016

jet57 said:
Xe Corporation comes to mind. Lockheed Martin...

L-M, who is the primary contractor on the Orion Space Vehicle? The same L-M that is advancing the use of carbon nanotubes? The same L-M that is the main leader in IT and Logistic support for commerical airports?

I bet most had no idea that their most profitable areas are in the field of IT. L-M provides computer services to thousands of companies and government agencies, from the DoS and BLM to McDonalds and USPS.

And really, Xe? You know they have been gone for 5 years now, right?

Yea, shut down all the Capitolist businesses,. Like Montgomery-Ward and Circuit City.

The Ugly Truth: Defeating ISIS Will Take Decades

Jack Hays

Traveler

joG

Thoreau72

Jack Hays

Traveler

Thoreau72

countryboy

Casper

Thoreau72

Casper

Thoreau72

Casper

Port & Starboard

Jack Hays

Traveler

Thoreau72

Oozlefinch

Thoreau72

beerftw

proud ammosexual

Jack Hays

Traveler

beerftw

proud ammosexual

Jack Hays

Traveler

Oozlefinch

Jack Hays

Traveler

jet57

Jack Hays

Traveler

Oozlefinch

The Ugly Truth: Defeating ISIS Will Take Decades

Traveler

Traveler

Traveler

proud ammosexual

Traveler

proud ammosexual

Traveler

Traveler

Traveler

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency