“This time it’s war”
Reuters is reporting that the Le Parisien, a French daily, has declared that “This time it’s war” in response to the deadly attacks by eight jihadists, at least one with a Syrian passport, which claimed the lives of at least 127 people and landed another 180 in hospitals. So, if this horrific attack means that “it’s war”, what were the other attacks about?
Reuters also reports that the US and it’s allies struck 27 ISIS targets last night in Syria and Iraq;
Nine of the strikes in Iraq were staged near Ramadi, hitting tactical and fighting Islamic State units, weapons caches and two tunnels, according to a military statement.
The attacks in Syria, near Al Hawl and Ar Raqqah, struck Islamic State tactical units and Islamic State buildings.
It seems like a lot of airstrikes, but, probably not enough. ISIS needs to be carpet-bombed, these “precision air strikes” aren’t “containing” ISIS, despite claims by the President, as late as yesterday. “Contained” means that they are unable to successfully launch strikes like the one last night. The white House would like you to believe that by “decapitating” ISIS, that will somehow stop their global reach into the civilized world. Last night proves that strategy is flawed. It was eight little dudes with guns and explosives and it’s unlikely that they had much contact with ISIS after they left the caliphate.
Oh, by the way, France’s restrictive gun laws didn’t help much, either, other than guarantee the terrorists a target-rich environment. The terrorists have always found a way to get guns and explosives into the Euro-community for the last thirty years. The mass shooting at the Holocaust Museum in Brussels earlier this year and the attack on a train from Amsterdam to Paris that was interrupted by US servicemen are good examples.
Like I’ve said a thousand times before on this blog, the only way to stop terrorism is to kill all of the terrorists. ISIS was born from the terrorists we didn’t kill in Iraq because we couldn’t summon the testicular fortitude in Washington to end that war. The Taliban in Afghanistan has demonstrated their resurgence in the last few months because of the impression that we were leaving.
We have the necessary tools in place in Iraq and Turkey to wipe them out once and for all time. But that isn’t in the cards, I suppose when we can’t get our leaders to even form the words “Islamic terrorism” on their lips.
Category: Terror War
We’ll send a boat load of hashtags to overwhelm them.
Let’s be ‘accurate’ when you say “ISIS need to be carpet bombed” you really mean “Muslims need to be carpet bombed.”
Because there is not way to target ISIS members only with carpet moms and ISIS only makes up a small fraction of the people in ISIS occupied areas.
And ISIS enjoys about 20-50% support among the population. The numbers are very conflicting on this with online polls often showing high support. However online polls are wildly unrelaible due to fall positives caused by ISIS net propagandists using software to inflate the favorable poll responses.
Most Sunnis in Jordan and Egypt strongly dislike ISIS and Shias despise ISIS.
*carpet bombs* not “carpet moms”.
*no* instead of *not*….
I have a form of dysgraphia that makes these mistakes vary common. It is exceedingly frustrating.
Lars, once in a while your solipsisms are funny. I’m good with ‘carpet moms’ as long as they explode on impact.
LOL!
What you have is a severe form of recto-cranial inversion
How about more like a severe case of not taking responsibility for his own mistakes?
How about blaming his mistakes on a ‘condition’ instead of saying ‘Ooops! Typo! My bad!’ like the adults do here and elsewhere?
I think I saw the adult movie with the carpet moms. Odd stuff and I doubt it would work anyways. no goats in it
Well if you want to carpet-bomb all Muslims, that’s fine, you’re entitled to your opinion, but what I said was that ISIS needed to be carpet-bombed.
Never thought I’d hear Lars decree that all muslims should be carpet bombed.
You heard it here first folks.
I only trying to be clear on what you are saying, John. I my interpretation is wrong then please explain what you mean.
Since ISIS makes up a tiny percentage of the people on the ground how would carpet bombing not be essentially just bombing all citizens in ISIS occupied territories whether they are ISIS or not?
I am sure many on this board would agree with doing that, but I just wanted to be clear that that is the practical effect of carpet bombing ISIS.
Uh, Lars, I think a lot of people here know the effects of carpet bombing. Some of them saw it firsthand in Vietnam. You should at least acknowledge that part of history when you say something.
Just looked up “solipsisms” – – perfect! 🙂
My pleasure, LIRight! 🙂
“I only trying to be clear on what you are saying, John.”
Liar.
You were attempting to put words in John’s mouth, you sniveling shit.
If we cannot differentiate between Muslim citizens and ISIS when we carpet bomb then carpet bombing LITERALLY MEANS to bomb Muslim civilians.
I am not putting words in his mouth I am making it clear what those words actually mean.
I’d like to point out the obvious lack of historical reference, in that, to end the War in Europe, the Allies bombed the crap out of numerous targets, with little to no allowance for civilian casualties, friendly or otherwise.
Your argument, as usual, lacks backup and a reality check. I’m SO HAPPY to provide both for you.
And yes, I am old enough to remember the B&W films shown on CBS on Sunday night of the Allies at war in Europe.
When you stop being an apologist, let someone know, okay, LARS?????
“War is hell.”
–Major General William Tecumseh Sherman, USA
Playing nice doesn’t get you very far in warfare. Killing the motherfuckers in the most efficient and effective way possible does.
Using a two-million-dollar missile to smoke three assholes in a shitty Toyota is not efficient, and questionably effective. Finding where those assholes and all their friends hang out, sending a couple of B-52s, and killing EVERYTHING within a half-mile radius is both efficient and effective. That means collateral damage. Well, tough shit. If it was nice and clean and humane, it wouldn’t be a war, would it?
You’d do much better if you just read things as written and stopped “interpreting”.
Give me another interpretation. What other effect would carpet bombing have except to kill a lot of civilians with a negligible increase in death among ISIS.
While likely causing ISIS support to skyrocket.
OK, Lars, then tell us what should be done since you are such a fart smeller.. er, smart feller.
YOU are the one who said carpet bomb Muslims, not Jon. I can see carpet bombing an ISIS training camp, why not?
See my answer here.
http://valorguardians.com/blog/?p=62795&cpage=1#comment-2722387
You see, Lars has a disconnect with reality so he doesn’t really have an answer.
With all due respect L. Taylor, well not really, I hate “F-in” nit pickers when we all knew what Jon meant. Spend your time more productively playing with yourself rather than trying to impress us with your lack of kouth.
Okay, I’ll bite first.
Yep, I think he means Muslims….and Christians and Spaghetti worshipers and anyone else who supports ISIS style terrorism. Strategic, not tactical bombing is what broke the Axis in the last war we won. Break the will of those who support the enemy, you defeat the enemy.
Strategic bombing did not break the will Germany. It did degrade their manufacturing effort to support the war.
ISIS has not manufacturing to bomb.
While atomic bombs did break Japan’s, will, Japan had a functioning government that could surrounded and honor the terms of the surrender.
A nuclear attack against ISIS would kill tens of thousands of Muslim civilians, a few hundred ISIS.
And would accelerate the spread of the war globally.
The over-arching strategic goal of carpet-bombing ISIS would be to kill them, kill them all. It’s the only way to rid the world of their so-called ideology and to bring that part of the world into the 18th century. They are a cancer on the face of humanity – cancer treatments sometimes kill non-cancerous cells. Your brand of “hearts and minds” warfare has brought us to this point – it’s time to accept the fact that the only way to beat barbarism is to be barbaric.
Jonn – to back up you statement, look at what the USA had to do on two separate occasions against the Arab world (the First and Second Barbary Wars). Jefferson and Madison got fed up with having to pay “tribute” to Arab pirates and sent the Navy/Marine Corps over to fight them.
IMO, air power alone isn’t going to do it… unfortunately, it will take boots on the ground, and a solid multi-national coalition to put this to an end.
Strategic bombing leveled the cities, slowed manufacturing, and slowly starved the Axis governments. The general population was no longer in support of the war (at least the Germans) and even numerous high ranking generals knew the war was lost as early as 1944. Strategic bombing did it’s part then.
Today, the use of strategic bombing to level the towns and areas of those who support ISIS could turn those people against ISIS. If they turn against us instead, are we really any worse off? If you know your house is going to be a target because a bad guy took a dump in your bathroom, you’re not letting him come back. Take away the support, safe havens, infrastructure and means to finance and pursue your purpose, your purpose dies.
Well said!!
Nam 69′
“Strategic, not tactical bombing is what broke the Axis in the last war we won. Break the will of those who support the enemy, you defeat the enemy.”
Yep. It’s almost comical how so many can’t get their heads wrapped around such a simple concept.
Alas …
Because it is historically questionable at best that it broke the back if Axis.
While strategic use of Atomic bombs broke the will of Japan strategic bombing did not break the will of Germany.
The Soviets are largely responsible for Germany’s surrender.
And Strategic bombing is not a “simple concept”.
Especially in dealing with something like ISIS.
Oh, the old “Russia won the war” crap again.
Yeah, the Soviets defeated the Nazis. Using American-made rifles (amazing how many Mosin Nagants were turned out by Remington in both world wars) firing American-made ammo, brought to the front in Dodge supply trucks and guarded by Lend-Lease M3 halftracks, delivered from the ports by American locomotives pulling American rolling stock. And all those kickass Russian T-34 tanks, made in Russia out of American steel. And all those bitchin’ Russian Il-2 shturmoviks in the sky, which got shot down by the thousands because the LaGG-3, MiG-3, La-5, and YaK-1 fighters that escorted them were dogshit compared to Messerschmitts. Which is why the most common fighter in the Red Air Force was the Bell P-39 Airacobra, which Russkie pilots fucking LOVED, followed by the British Hurricane and the P-40 Warhawk (which they liked even better). And all of this gear made its way to Russia on Liberty Ships of the US Merchant Marine, escorted by the American and British Navies (most people at the time, including most Russians, didn’t know the USSR even HAD a navy).
And the Reds reaped the very real, tangible benefits of the Strategic Bombing Campaign. First they noticed kraut fighters getting rarer and rarer in 1943. Then in ’44 they noticed the Germans seemed to have a harder time replacing their broken shit. Both of these changes just so happen coincide with the fortunes of war turning in Stalin’s favor.
Yeah, the Russians won, using lots and lots of American gear. Otherwise, Hitler would’ve had to decide just how much of Western Siberia he really wanted.
True about the Russians, but they too used strategic bombing – via artillery.
Okay, Lars. What bright ideas do you have for dealing with this? Keep in mind the following points:
*ISIS deliberately uses civilians, particularly women and children, as human shields and won’t stop doing so.
*ISIS may not be hugely popular among those they oppress, but still enjoy widespread grassroots support amongst sunnis all over the place (including a rather frightening number of sunnis here).
*ISIS’s dogma is drawn straight from islamic holy texts (I won’t call them scripture; sue me). It may be a narrow and xenophobic interpretation thereof, but it’s a very common one. Also, mohammedan text, with its policy of abrogation voiding the “peace and love” parts in favor of violent jihad, among other things, supports this interpretation. No less an intellect than Thomas Jefferson himself, during his time as a diplomat for the Adams administration, read the koran from cover to cover in an effort to build a theological argument against the depredations of the Barbary pirate states. He couldn’t find one.
*Those same mohammedan texts encourage moslems to lie and cheat when dealing with non-moslems.
*ISIS advocates sleeper-cell attacks against the civilian populations of non-moslem nations.
*ISIS is alarmingly popular with islamic teens and young adults in Western nations, where they have been encouraged to adopt a victim mentality. This seems to disprove the claim that education is the answer.
*ISIS is NOT the Saracens under Saladin. They are committed to violence and will not bargain or parley.
So how do you propose we realistically deal with this problem?
Funny thing, we dealt with Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan who were both literate and illiterate.
There were dumbasses telling us that the Quran says to kill Americans. That the US is the evil of the world and must be eliminated. Even trying to explain to them that the US wasn’t around in 670ish AD doesn’t phase them.
So, even some who could read for themselves would exclaim that the US must be destroyed in the Quran. “Well my Imam says so.” “This guy showed up in my village and said true Islam must destroy the US as it says in the Quran.” So that must be the truth, a muslim would NEVER lie to another muslim!”
We deal with it by developing as many alliances as possible.
Particularly among Muslims.
We deal with it through targeted attacks of ISIS personnel.
We deal with it through actually breaking the control the international wealthy elite have on politics preventing the kinds of oversight and controls on the flow of money that are required to strangle ISIS finance. We do not have the legislative power to force banks to freeze or seize it, or even identify the owners of the funds in most cases.
We do massive information operation campaigns to make it absolutely clear that this is not a struggle between Islam and Christianity or even Islam and the west.
Seriously, every time we attempt to generate momentum with that message a bunch of fucking morons in America start screaming that it is about Islam vs Christianity, or Islam vs the West. Which is the ISIS narrative. So moron politicians in America and playing to their dumbfuck constituencies start talking about how much of the threat Islam is and how much this is a struggle between Islam and the West.
Damn near fucking traitors for using their office to recite the ISIS narrative to win votes among the stupid shits that WANT this to be a religious war. Especially senior military officers.
Our best allies against ISIS are Shias, especially Iran, and moderate Sunni groups and nations.
Our worst allies? American and western politicians and groups that are spouting the exact same narrative as ISIS.
We also need to facilitate groups in Kurdistan and Shia groups in Eastern and Souther Iraq. Syrian groups.
Large Western forces on the ground beyond troops specifically tasked with direct action or specifically capable of training, facilitating, and enabling Kurdish and Shia groups would just mire us in the region and increase ISIS recruitment.
Alliances with Muslims?
Where do you propose the U.S. start?
You mean like we’ve been doing for… shit, longer than you’ve been a waste of oxygen? Or are you going to pretend we don’t try to establish allies in the ME?
You’re a sad, deluded idiot that needs to seriously take a trip around the world and get out of your insular college group. The fact that you ignore the Kurds in favor of the Shia for your allies thing says something though.
Well, you’re right about politicians. Your suggestions aren’t necessarily bad ideas, except that they’ve been tried and didn’t work. Who exactly do we build alliances with? ME governments? Name one in that part of the world that isn’t ridiculously corrupt. When we cozy up to them, we’re the evil meddling Americans helping the dictators. If we try to be friendly with any rebel group (who are generally just as bad), we’re the evil meddling Americans trying to destabilize the region. Anything in between, and we’re imperialists trying to subvert their sovereignty. Nobody there wants to be our allies. At most, they want to use us for their own ends so they can blame us later. As Nate Fick once said, “How do we know this guy is gonna mark actual targets and not just have us light up the home of everybody he owes money to?” How do we build those alliances? Foreign aid money? They get metric fuckload of it already. They still hate us. Food shipments? Lots of those. They still hate us. Develop their industry to create jobs? Done, and they hate us. Buy their oil at exorbitantly-high cost? Yep, still hate us. Build schools? Hospitals? Housing? Fucking mosques? All done, they still hate us. Well, except maybe the Kurds, see below. Of course local corruption takes its toll on all of that aid, and we get blamed for that too. Which is fucking stupid, because what are we supposed to do about it? Invade again? Oh yeah, THAT will look great. You can quote any number of complaints about US foreign policy (I strongly doubt most of them pay any attention to it), drone strikes (because Achmed knows a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy whose neighbor’s cousin’s uncle’s brother-in-law knew a guy who heard about a drone strike), or whatever. The bottom line is, if they listen to anybody, it won’t be us. Educate them all you want, it won’t matter. You’re an American, so fuck you, as far as they’re concerned. They may not want to kill you, but they still… Read more »
The difference between us and Rome was that Rome made a habit of acquiring the territories of its neighbors. We don’t do that, because colonialism is BADDD!
There isn’t any single way to stop this. There never has been. Understanding this, that and the other thing about them is a ridiculous waste of time. If we have to ‘understand’ them, they should be required to ‘understand’ us, too.
Brilliant plan! Let’s switch sides and see if we can win with the “death to America” Shia crowd in power in Iran as our partners. You nailed it dude.
We bomb Muslims Mr. Taylor. We kill women and children in the process. We destroy the lives of many who would have never lifted a finger against us. We kill the innocent, the weak, the sick, the elderly, even the cripple. We kill them all Mr Taylor. Thats called War.
Just like we did in Japan. Not the A bomb, the half a million women, children, elderly, and innocent we killed in a few evenings bombing their cities.
Just like we did in Germany, and yes it did work. Without those daily bombings Allied troops would not have marched the streets of Berlin.
We keep killing Muslims until there are no more left that wish to kill anyone else. Not one. One day the price for using half measures in war will be cast aside. We will kill them in mass until the return fire stops.
You and your like thinking crowd will then be free to criticize the manner in which your freedom was preserved.
Muslims…period…if anyone believes in the quoran, then they are targets….if you don’t believe that, read some of the quoran, it won’t take many pages to see what they are about..!
I believe the man said “ISIS”, which I took to mean the Islamic State”.
I do not believe he was referring to Malaysia.
Your straw man is weak.
To defeat an opponent in war, is to take away his belief in victory. All else is pointless, and usually leads to defeat.
You can negotiate some enemies out of that belief in victory, and terrorize it out of some others. The rest require the bayonet.
Might want to have another go at understanding their negotiating position, as they have repeatedly stated it. It is to hold you in their right hand, or to stand over your corpse.
The “good guys” are the people (of all faiths or none at all) that seek to -oppose- that. The other side (of all faiths or none at all) are the ones who are -not- opposing it.
You get to pick a side, but -they- will put you on one if you do not choose your own. We do not generally attack neutrals. -They- do not recognize the concept. In this war, abstention equals submission.
Choose wisely.
‘It is to hold you in their right hand, or to stand over your corpse.’
11BMailclerk, I believe that should read ‘AND to stand over your corpse’.
Ex-PH2, You may have a point.
Slaves have to be alive to work, and the planned society of the Islamic State requires slaves. I concede that they would probably do both, by working to death those held in bondage.
“Oh, by the way, France’s restrictive gun laws didn’t help much … ”
Up in the balcony at the Bataclan theater, it must have been like shooting fish in a barrel.
L. Taylor……If you please Jonn is the administrator on this site. BTW, he also knows how to spell. In spite of your reach for people to want to respond to you personally, adding your email address is similar to adding toilet tissue to a turd….it still stinks and needs to be flushed.
the email was an autofill error. And it is wrong.
What does his spelling have to do with my comments?
Anything written on blogs these days, for the purpose of readers finding it interesting, need be written by a competent Administrator, who BTW can spell. That would include his name. Blog hogs who ramble on for hours and hours just to tweak a few noses become so interested in self-promoting that they don’t ever try to look over their all-so-special posts. All of us now & then make a mistake, but then again not all of us are so absorbed in what we write. Forget I said it and on with your pseudo argumentative ramblings.
Ahh yes. B-52 carpet bombing. I heard it, felt it but never actually saw it many years ago.
In reference to the discussion above….kill all of the damn ISIS scumbags, bomb them into oblivion like the Allied Forces bombed Berlin in 1943 to 1945. I’m sure the US Army 8th Air Force tried as hard as they could to kill only those in uniform and carrying Mausers. Yeah, sure.
Bring the B-52’s back and be very, very careful to kill only the ISIS terrorists, thus avoiding injury to civilians….exactly the same way that ISIS treats civilians around the world.
My Uncle Greg saw a couple of Arc Light strikes from a safe-ish distance in Vietnam. He was impressed, suffice it to say.
I only saw the effects of Arc Light on film at the Navy Photo Center. I would not care to be on the receiving end of that, or the incendiary bombing of Dresden.
I watched B-52 strikes on the Iraqis from the safety of Saudi Arabia in 1991. It was terrifying to watch from miles away.
I don’t remember whether I felt it more or heard it….you’re right, terrifying is the right word.
When Khe Sanh (sp?) was under siege by 15 or 20,000 NVA troops, I think it was during the Tet Offensive of ’68 – – the B-52’s broke the back of the enemy with a very effective carpet bombing saving those US Marines. Thousands of NVA were killed by very accurate targeting.
I got to see a B-51 do one a low-level run during a CAX at the ‘stumps… that was impressive. Never thought that the BUFF could move that fast and do something like that
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9npENBSmfs
video quality isn’t the best… and some HEAVY METAL music
Here’s a pretty good description of the psychological impact of being caught under a B-52 strike in Vietnam:
“Equally as often, though, we were not so fortunate, and had time only to take cover as best we could. The first few times I experienced a B-52 attack it seemed, as I strained to press myself into the bunker floor, that I had been caught in the Apocalypse. The terror was complete. One lost control of bodily functions as the mind screamed futile orders to get out”.
I’d say it had its desired effect.
In Jan. 69 3/26 Marines and the Americal division cordoned off the Batangan Peninsula supposedly to block the escape of several large NVA divisions. After several days of dropping printed flyers and broadcasting to persuade them to surrender the arc-lights from the B52’s and shelling from the New Jersey began. That was a earth shattering event for several days. We didn’t see how anyone could have survived that. Three days later I was on a patrol near the beach and we “captured” over 300 “civilians”. I began looking for the injured and only found an old lady with a cut on her head and an old man with a broken arm. But, they all had a eerie look on their face. I can’t imagine the terror of having gone through what they had been through.
I want to put this quote in here, because I think it makes the same point that Jonn made in his comment above:
‘And the main point I want to make is that Islamic State – ‘so-called’ or otherwise – is not just evil and ‘other’: it embodies tendencies that we all have, and more than that, it arose almost directly out of us westerners acting on those same tendencies, creating a situation of mass slaughter in Iraq: has IS killed as many people as the 250,000 or so killed by the sectarian fighting in the aftermath of the Iraq invasion? ‘ – Barry Goddard
War is and always has been a clash between predators. We can tell ourselves that we’re ‘better than they are’, because we have only good intentions while theirs are bad. But, as Goddard says, we ALL have the same tendencies which come to the surface in any time of war. If we aren’t willing to admit that to ourselves, we will lose, and lose badly.
I, for one, do not wish to lose.
But here’s the difference between us.
After WW2, we put money, resources, and manpower in to rebuilding both Japan and Germany. In Korea, after the armistice we helped rebuild South Korea. After DS/DS we helped rebuild Kuwait. We even dumped money into Bosnia and were there to specifically stop them from fighting. After Iraq and Afghanistan, we pumped billions into those countries to get them rebuilt. And we still are.
After the major fighting was done, we stayed around to help get “them” back on their feet. Our good intentions have gone above and beyond. Once the fight was over, we offered a hand to pick the other guy up.
In the case of these dirtbags, we’ve tried to help and that isn’t good enough for them. Because we are still alive and have chosen not to concede to their way of life. They even kill other muslims who don’t concede to their exact interpretation of the Quran. They don’t have lines they won’t cross. Whatever helps them “win” is what they will do.
We ARE better than them because we want those countries we’ve been in a fight with to get back on their feet. That’s not to say we haven’t made mistakes, but we’ve given of ourselves to try to support other countries down on their luck. (If you want to see some staggering numbers, check out http://beta.foreignassistance.gov/explore for the amount of money we spend to support other countries).
We ARE better than them because we don’t specifically target murder innocent women and children just because they aren’t christian or share our same exact beliefs.
Regardless of if there are personalities in our government who want war because it is good for business, good for them, etc., “We” are better than that.
Good points. But Japan, Germany and Korea all got the message immediately. Even Vietnam knew the way out of their mess was to move forward.
But when you have fanaticism, the only way forward is destruction, by you destroying them. That is why I said that we all have the same tendencies. Those ‘tendencies’, which include the instinct of survival, are what surface in warfare. What happens afterward is up to the survivors.
I would even say that “religious fanaticism” – IMO, the most virulent and destructive kind, can ONLY be dealt with in this manner.
“This time?”
As opposed to, well, the previous attacks the past few years?
Consider that what happened last night is but a pinprick compared to 9/11.
How’s our will to fight these days?
Sure, we deployed troops and spent hundreds of billions of dollars, but don’t even try to tell me it was anything even close to an all out effort.
Both the Bush and Obama administrations played patty cake with these fuckers. We got fucked over by our so-called allies, liberals here at home, and the ROE established served only to get a lot of our people killed and maimed in the process.
Arc light strikes? Meh. We’ll be accused of atrocities even if we sit at home with our thumbs up our asses.
Fuck this politically correct bullshit. Either we want to win, or we don’t. I’m tired of half assing it.
^^^WORD^^^
“Fuck this politically correct bullshit. Either we want to win, or we don’t. I’m tired of half assing it.”
Me, too. Time to fish, or cut bait.
Point 250 long range nuclear missiles at Moscow and we’re the defenders of Democracy vs. the evil commie empire. Discuss carpet bombing one little town full of goat fucking terrorists and we’re the scourge of the Earth.
Who really cares what the rest of the world thinks- just pull the trigger and get it over with.
You will NOT see bodaprez do anything other than mouth whatever predigested pablum he’s given to speak. He has never taken responsibility for anything in his entire life. He even walked away from his own child Malia before he ever ran for president. He’s nothing but a slut for attention. He’s leaving the real punishment by the media for the next person to sit in that seat, whether it’s Trump or shrillary, and while she may get the nomination, there is no guarantee she’ll get elected. So whoever it is gets that job next is the one who will get blamed for the US involvement in anything.
And you know that’s the truth.
Here’s my solution to this crap.
1 – Bomb the shit out of the cities ISIS holds now.
2 – Bomb the dam at Mosul. If that isn’t enough, bomb the other damned dam.
3 – Drop enough post-bombing literature on the targets to make it clear if they don’t stop their shit, another go-round follows.
4 – Round up the ME migrants in western Europe and send back where they came from. If they return to the EU countries, they get shot.
Is that message clear enough?
id like to see you on stage at the next republican debate (as a nominee).
Would you at least consider a cabinet position as SECDEF?
Sure, why not? I’m at least as qualified for it as sKerry, right?
Commander Of The Chiefs!
I’m thinking of dropping a few large blivets of pigs blood on Mecca. That’d get their attention.
Drop hot grits on them. Burns like hell, sticks like jelly, and we can call it a humanitarian mission since it’s a food drop.
The IRA in Belfast used sugar bombs. Does the same thing.
What happens after the carpet bombing? Are we ready to establish permanent bases manned at levels to hold the ground we’ve taken? I think we all know the answer to that. The situation in the ME is a fucking mess that will probably only produce future generational hatred. How the middle east plays out is dependent on the action or inaction of regional players that have the most skin in the game. Nation States can be defeated….. Transnational fanatical fundamentalist movements not so much.
As I said in a different post “Centralized planning/directives and Decentralized execution…almost impossible to stop until after the fact”.
We had it under control until our F@&$head-in-chief pulled out and let the bad guys take control (that was in about 2011). A lot of Americans blood was shed and wasted when he did that.
The only way to stop a bully is to finally get tired of his shit and whoop his ass. It works the same with one or thousands, it’s just relative.
All the feel good ” let’s show them love” BS has not worked. Maybe it’s time to try something else.
But hey, it’s all Bush’s fault anyway.
This says it all, Jonn:
“We have the necessary tools in place in Iraq and Turkey to wipe them out once and for all time. But that isn’t in the cards, I suppose when we can’t get our leaders to even form the words “Islamic terrorism” on their lips.”
Well I know a new world war was started yesterday, as the Pope referred to the attacks as just that and the French President indicated there will be no pity.
And to add a big FU to our enemies the Black Knights showed the world that we don’t forget and we won’t forget our oldest ally.
USMA Cadets sent the strongest message from the USA!
Go Army!
There is a large legal problem with your proposal, Jonn: Since 1949, and the Geneva Conventions of that year, it has been a war crime to target civilians on purpose. (You can strike military targets with collateral damage…but the collateral damage can’t be “disproportionate” to the military target…so no bombing the whole city because you know a hundred enemy fighters are in there somewhere.)
Howsoever effective that may have been, the kind of city-bombing we did in WWII is no longer lawful, which is one reason we haven’t done it since then. That is why the U.S., and Israel too, always go with these “targeted strikes” instead of the kind of thing you’re talking about…it’s not just political will, but international law.
I sometimes think international law has gone too far. WWII is both the last war in which we targeted civilian populations…and the last large war we won decisively. (Which is not to say that attacking civilians is always the right answer, only that decisive victories, in which the defeated side really feels defeated and doesn’t come back for more, often do require just that.) Maybe the nations of the world should get together to modify the Conventions, and revoke that prohibition…but until they do they don’t have a legal choice.
“Developing alliances” is not an alternative answer either…because it leaves unanswered the question, “And what will these alliances do, once you have developed them?”
Time to scrap the Geneva Conventions. None of our enemies pay any attention to them anyway.
Including our domestic enemies, re: every terrorist ever locked up at Gitmo. They are Illegal Combatants and have zero rights.
The Supreme Court says otherwise. (Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, for example, relies heavily on Common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions of 1949.) Until those conventions actually are “scrapped” (or at least modified), what you say won’t be legally correct.
Alberich, in case you had not noticed, ISIS has targeted entire cities and entire civilian populations. I do not think the Geneva Convention’s rules mean a damned thing to them.
I am well aware of that, ex-PH2. But it doesn’t make a difference.
Criminals in general break the law…but the Government still has to obey it. You can’t beat a confession out of a prisoner just because he broke laws himself. Analogously, some of the basic protections of the Law of War (particularly Common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions, and the prohibition on attacking civilians) do not rely on any kind of “reciprocity.”
It would be kind of weird if it did…enemy combatants ignore the law, so you get to attack civilians to stop them…but, anyway, it doesn’t.
Understood, but since the majority of civilians are people who were enslaved by ISIS in the first place, and ISIS has no uniformed presence except for its flag, how do you propose to distinguish between civilians and ISers?
I’d also like to point out that during the carpet bombing runs in Laos and Vietnam, a whole lot of civilians were killed as collateral damage. They not officially part of any military struck, but they were all considered to be Viet Cong, not south Vietnamese. There was no distinction at all between the guerrilla force and RVN.
As I said, how do you propose to sort out who is and is not ISIS? I don’t think it is possible to do that with what is essentially a loosely-organized guerrilla army.
Understood, but since the majority of civilians are people who were enslaved by ISIS in the first place, and ISIS has no uniformed presence except for its flag, how do you propose to distinguish between civilians and ISers?
I don’t. Or rather, I don’t have a better answer than the one Jonn is complaining about in the original post…targeted strikes when we have PID (positive identification), plus fighting on the ground in the old familiar way. And even that is problematic, as Afghanistan showed well…you can overwhelm their cities, but if they can still hide among the civilian population, finding them is devilish hard.
And that is really my point…Jonn’s idea may well be sound strategy, but it can’t be made to work under the current state of the law. Thus, the issue requires more than just “testicular fortitude.” There may not be a working strategy that is allowable under the current law. A depressing thought for a rule-of-law person like me, but so it is.
An interesting book, which I highly recommend to you, is Lincoln’s Code by John Fabian Witt. It’s largely focused on the Lieber Code, the Law of War order from the Civil War…in formulating his understanding of the law, Lieber put “saving the country” first and “humanitarian concerns” only second…he was determined not to lawyer his way out of a decisive victory. (The North also had the excellent idea of delivering copies to the South while the war was still going on…letting them know in advance, “When we win, this is the kind of stuff that we will prosecute as war crimes if you do it.”)
I fear the parties to the 1949 conventions let their enthusiasm…or their horror at what they’d just been through…get the better of their judgment on this point.
The Geneva Conventions DO NOT APPLY to a war against Terrorists. In an international conflict, the Conventions apply between Two signatory nations in a declared war and non declared (police action like Korea/ Vietnam), and the Conventions apply to both NATIONS if one side is a signatory and the other is not IF they accept the tenets and principles of the Conventions.
Common Article Two relating to International Armed Conflicts.
Reread my posts a little more carefully. Common Article 3 (three, not two) does apply to “conflicts not of an international character”…including fights against terrorists. It would certainly apply to what Jonn is talking about…carpet-bombing ISIS territory.
Chase my link to Hamdan v. Rumsfeld and you will see that the Supreme Court applies it even to persons captured in the U.S. conflict with al Qaeda, a much closer call. (Hamdan was bin Laden’s driver.)
Common Article 3 is sometimes called a “mini-convention” because it is the one part that applies to non-international conflicts…the rest of the treaties are about fights between high contracting parties, but Common Article 3 is not.
‘He will win who knows how to handle both superior and inferior forces. He will win whose army is animated by the same spirit throughout all its ranks. He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take the enemy unprepared. He will win who has military capacity and is not interfered with by the sovereign.’ – Sun Tzu
They (ISIS) expect a retaliatory attack. It is best to wait.
Until we start wiping out bloodlines we will get no where. These scum care about somethings and they have a support network. We need to target them.
Re: Geneva Convention; war crime trials are usually conducted by the victor.
Just sayin….
But not always…see United States v. William Calley.
Anyway, without a change in the law, you can give orders to slaughter civilians all day…and the Armed Forces won’t obey them. You don’t want to go there.
So what you’re saying, Alberich, is that you do not have a solution to the problem.
I only know two: (1) radical solution, have a new convention and modify the Geneva Conventions of 1949, or (2) go on fighting the way we already do, under the laws we have now….which allows us many victories, but does not allow the “carpet-bombing” of populated territory and cities.
Conquest and counterinsurgency can work, and sometimes do. But if Jonn is right, and a serious attack on the civilian population is required to win this fight, then it’s not enough to elect new leaders with “testicular fortitude.” We’d need a serious change in international law.
I understand your take on this, but because this enemy ISIS is implacable and wants ONLY to kill off anyone and everyone who is not like them, I think the choices are few, if any.
The reason I say this has to do with the simple fact that ALL ISERS want to kill ALL OF US. Period. They do NOT want to negotiate anything. They just want to get rid of us.
So we do have a choice and that is to meet and deal with them on THEIR terms, or curl up and die.
I, for one, do not believe there is any in-between on this.