HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Here is my ISIS strategy ...

Sat Sep 27, 2014, 03:24 PM

Here is my ISIS strategy in a nutshell.

As far as I can tell, ISIS moves about the Country in pickup trucks. If that's true, where are they parking them at night when they aren't in use. Locate the parking lots, go by air and blow up every single truck. How are they going to wage their war without them?

They are a marauding horde riding pickup trucks instead of horses or camels. Wipe out their transportation and they all become pedestrians.

53 replies, 11122 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 53 replies Author Time Post
Reply Here is my ISIS strategy in a nutshell. (Original post)
ladjf Sep 2014 OP
cali Sep 2014 #1
ladjf Sep 2014 #4
Sopkoviak Sep 2014 #7
ladjf Sep 2014 #8
KurtNYC Sep 2014 #38
Baclava Sep 2014 #2
ladjf Sep 2014 #5
ladjf Sep 2014 #9
Baclava Sep 2014 #13
ladjf Sep 2014 #15
Baclava Sep 2014 #17
freshwest Oct 2014 #51
Baclava Oct 2014 #52
freshwest Oct 2014 #53
madokie Sep 2014 #36
customerserviceguy Sep 2014 #3
ladjf Sep 2014 #6
customerserviceguy Sep 2014 #16
ieoeja Sep 2014 #18
customerserviceguy Sep 2014 #21
mythology Sep 2014 #28
customerserviceguy Sep 2014 #30
pinboy3niner Sep 2014 #32
customerserviceguy Sep 2014 #44
pinboy3niner Sep 2014 #45
panader0 Sep 2014 #49
ieoeja Sep 2014 #48
Scootaloo Sep 2014 #33
pinboy3niner Sep 2014 #35
Turbineguy Sep 2014 #10
ladjf Sep 2014 #14
cali Sep 2014 #11
ladjf Sep 2014 #22
pinboy3niner Sep 2014 #23
ladjf Sep 2014 #26
pinboy3niner Sep 2014 #29
ladjf Sep 2014 #37
pinboy3niner Sep 2014 #46
JonLP24 Sep 2014 #12
ladjf Sep 2014 #24
JonLP24 Sep 2014 #25
ladjf Sep 2014 #27
JaneyVee Sep 2014 #19
Scootaloo Sep 2014 #34
JaneyVee Sep 2014 #42
bigwillq Sep 2014 #47
TheKentuckian Sep 2014 #20
JonLP24 Sep 2014 #31
TheKentuckian Sep 2014 #43
KurtNYC Sep 2014 #39
ladjf Sep 2014 #40
randome Sep 2014 #41
ladjf Sep 2014 #50

Response to ladjf (Original post)

Sat Sep 27, 2014, 03:31 PM

1. and what if the park them among civilians?

 

not to mention that you're wrong about they're only moving about in pickup trucks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #1)

Sat Sep 27, 2014, 03:39 PM

4. When they get on the move to another town, they will be concentrated

in lines along the unprotected roads.

How else do they travel in bulk? I have seen videos of some tanks and armored vehicles both of which can be knocked out on the roads as easily as the trucks. They have a few tanks also. The A-10 Warthog aircraft specialized in tank destruction.

I'm sure that the buildings that are being hit contain war material that is valuable to them. But, why not expand the initiatives?

If they need to launch an attack, they will have to expose themselves. Hit them when they move.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #1)

Sat Sep 27, 2014, 03:41 PM

7. So we sneak some guys in to mark their parking lots with "ISIS ONLY" parking signs

 

Problem solved!

What?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sopkoviak (Reply #7)

Sat Sep 27, 2014, 03:45 PM

8. We've got stationary satellites and UAV's all over the place.

Their trucks would be concentrated. If not, we wait until they get on the move to another town and hit them on the road.

I just don't think that bombing hundreds of buildings for a roving band of armed marauders is the best and only way to stop them.
They are a modern day "Golden Horde", who lived and died by their mobility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sopkoviak (Reply #7)

Sun Sep 28, 2014, 10:09 AM

38. We could set up a fake "ISIS Valet Parking" sign and just drive off with the trucks when they give

us their keys.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ladjf (Original post)

Sat Sep 27, 2014, 03:38 PM

2. where's my A-10 guy? that's what you need to strafe moving targets on the ground

not high altitude precision attacks against fixed positions but planes down on the deck in close ground support





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baclava (Reply #2)

Sat Sep 27, 2014, 03:40 PM

5. I've been suggesting the A10's for weeks. They are perfect for this kind of situation. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baclava (Reply #2)

Sat Sep 27, 2014, 03:47 PM

9. I've heard that the air force has several hundred of them in inventory and

that some have already been move into the area. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ladjf (Reply #9)

Sat Sep 27, 2014, 03:54 PM

13. THX - I just read they are sending in A-10's - ANG headed to Iraq

The Pentagon is deploying 300 airmen and 12 A-10 combat jets to the Middle East in early October, according to the Indiana Air National Guard.

The six-month deployment from the 122nd Fighter Wing is not specifically part of President Obama’s fight against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, but the airmen and jets could provide air support to troops battling ISIS on the ground.

12 of the 21 A-10 combat jets flown by the Fort Wayne base would be part of the deployment.


http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20140917/NEWS03/140919553/1006/news

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baclava (Reply #13)

Sat Sep 27, 2014, 04:00 PM

15. That's good news. The A10's are old but they could handle this task.

I would imagine that a flight of say 15 of them attacked their moving column, there would be no ground vehicles still running.

There is always a possibility of them having SAMS. But, the A10 is well equipped to evade them. We might lose a few planes.
The A10's can attack from all altitudes and angles. They carry heavy machine guns as well as air to ground missiles. They are a terror weapon.

We also have some Hercules gun ships that are even more lethal but not as maneuverable or versatile.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ladjf (Reply #15)

Sat Sep 27, 2014, 04:23 PM

17. ONE A-10 would take out a whole column of Toyotas

no doubt

You can bet the C 130 gunships will on their way if they're not there already





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baclava (Reply #17)

Sat Oct 18, 2014, 06:52 PM

51. Please explain the large event in the second picture? I see ground fires, flares, and a what?

The 'What?' having a white crescent in the sky and a mid air narrowing before it flares out again at the ground.

I've seen the large, brilliant white spotlights that used to be aimed at the sky to spot aircraft going up left over from WW2 in my city used for other events later. Is this something like that?

Because they didn't do things like this. I can't imagine how anything would create that effect, from above or below. I've never been in a battle and hope you can help me out with this.

I see a number of photos on DU that are from areas in conflict that make no sense to me, and perhaps they don't make sense to others, either.

TIA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #51)

Sat Oct 18, 2014, 07:02 PM

52. It's tracer fire from the gatling guns aboard a 130 gunship






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baclava (Reply #52)

Sat Oct 18, 2014, 07:31 PM

53. Ah. Checked on this in another thread on aircraft. My BNL was a gunner in the Vietnam War:

I looked up active aircraft in Wikipedia. The version of Spooky he flew is now gone, but replaced with another called Spooky:

Lockheed AC-130 Spectre / Spooky / Ghostrider / Stinger II



Picture says 'AC-130H Spectre jettisons flares' but why it would, IDK.

The Lockheed AC-130 gunship is a heavily armed ground-attack aircraft variant of the C-130 Hercules transport plane. The basic airframe is manufactured by Lockheed, while Boeing is responsible for the conversion into a gunship and for aircraft support.[1] The AC-130A Gunship II superseded the AC-47 Gunship I during the Vietnam War.

The gunship's sole user is the United States Air Force, which uses AC-130H Spectre, AC-130U Spooky, AC-130J Ghostrider, and AC-130W Stinger II variants for close air support, air interdiction and force protection. Close air support roles include supporting ground troops, escorting convoys, and flying urban operations. Air interdiction missions are conducted against planned targets and targets of opportunity. Force protection missions include defending air bases and other facilities. AC-130Us are based at Hurlburt Field, Florida, while AC-130Hs and AC-130Ws are based at Cannon AFB, New Mexico.[3] The AC-130s deploy to bases worldwide in support of operations. The gunship squadrons are part of the Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC), a component of the United States Special Operations Command (SOCOM).[4]

This sounds very much like my BNL was doing. Although he didn't volunteer to be weapons expert. Testing when he joined the Air Force (he knew he'd be drafted and wanted a choice) showed he'd be good with computers. But they didn't need that, so he was trained on weapons instead. This is how these are used for today:

All of the weaponry aboard is mounted to fire from the left (port) side of the non-pressurised aircraft. During an attack the gunship performs a pylon turn, flying in a large circle around the target, allowing it to fire at it far longer than a conventional attack aircraft. The AC-130H Spectre was armed with two 20 mm M61 Vulcan cannons, one Bofors 40mm autocannon, and one 105 mm M102 cannon, although after 1994 the 20 mm cannons were removed for most missions. The upgraded AC-130U "Spooky" has a single 25 mm GAU-12 Equalizer in place of the Spectre's twin 20 mm cannons, an improved fire control system, and increased ammunition capacity. New AC-130J gunships based on MC-130J Combat Shadow II special operations tankers were planned as of 2012[update]. The AC-130W is armed with one 30 mm Bushmaster cannon, AGM-176 Griffin missiles, and GBU-39 Small Diameter Bombs.[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lockheed_AC-130&printable=yes

That was in a thread with cstanleytech where GGJohn and I talked but you and I didn't talk there.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014911243


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baclava (Reply #2)

Sun Sep 28, 2014, 03:40 AM

36. that is one bad ass

Mo'fo

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ladjf (Original post)

Sat Sep 27, 2014, 03:38 PM

3. Here's my strategy in a nutshell

Get the hell away from the place, that means military, commercial, tourism, everything. Let the neighbors of ISIS fight their own battles with them. The only 'ally' we are treaty-bound to support is Turkey because of NATO, and I think they can hold their own. Just ask the Armenians about that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to customerserviceguy (Reply #3)

Sat Sep 27, 2014, 03:41 PM

6. You may be right. But, we are in it now. Might as well be efficient about it. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ladjf (Reply #6)

Sat Sep 27, 2014, 04:21 PM

16. Since we're not going to bomb them into the Stone Age

even though the distance required is not exceptionally great from where they are to that place, efficiency requires that we pull out now, and let other countries who have a more vested income in the outcome take over, without our expenditure of munitions. I'd say that Iran is a lot more likely to be 'efficient' about it than we will.

Ask the North Koreans and the Viet Cong about our will to stick it out in something that is so much less than a scorched-earth type of war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to customerserviceguy (Reply #16)

Sat Sep 27, 2014, 08:38 PM

18. North Koreans?

 


We only left North Korea because MacArthur ordered it so he could drop the bomb after UN troops left. Fortunately, the Pacific Theater SAC commander refused to drop the bomb because he did not believe MacArthur's claim that he had authority "lying around here somewhere".


As to Vietnam, the Navy/Marines have won wars identical to Vietnam dozens of times during the previous century. The differences are: (1) North Vietnam had the backing of major outside forces, and (2) the US Army (at McNamara's insistence) led the war instead of the Navy/Marines. The USA thought they could win the war. The Navy/Marines won all those previous wars by NOT winning the war. They HELPED an indigent force win the war instead.

People forget: South Vietnamese capitalists fought the French just as hard as North Vietnamese communists. In fact, far more Vietnamese moved north to south than south to north when the country was granted split independance. The north still maintained numerical superiority. But most people do not want to leave their homes. Those committed to leaving their homes overwhelming supported the south over the north.

The early Communist successes resulted from what happened after the Japanese retreated to their barracks. The war was over, and Japanese troops were waiting to be taken home. Communist elements of the Vietnamese resistance took over the government. Non-communist elements took over the businesses. The various Communist factions then started fighting among themselves. Then the British arrived and kicked the Communists out of the government. And handed the Michellin plantations back to their previous French owners.

Neither group of Vietnamese wanted to return to pre-WWII status quo under the French. The Communists decided to meet and work out their differences so they would not repeat the post-Japanese debacle. Ho Chi Minh, heir to the King who hired the French to come in and conquer his enemies in the first place (another thing few people realize) solved the problem in the age-old way such disputes are settled: he killed all his rivals.

As a result, when the Brits handed control back to the French, the Communists were consolidated while the non-Communist native forces were still split. When the combined Vietnamese got the French to call it quits, the North was united while the South began fighting amonst themselves. Diem did come out on top, and was every bit Ho Chi Minh's equal. But he began oppressing the religious majority opening up cracks for Ho to utilize. Diem had to go.

The CIA took care of that.

Maybe, another veteran leader of the anti-French resistance would have taken reins. But nobody was given a chance. Instead, there came the US Army with their "we can win this ourselves" stratgey that married perfectly with McNamara's "we need to prove to the Communists we are willing to fight" strategy. The Navy/Marine "protect the borders; let ARVN handle the interior" strategy that had proven itself in dozens of wars over the previous century was discarded.

And the rest is (disputed) history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ieoeja (Reply #18)

Sat Sep 27, 2014, 09:06 PM

21. Yes, there are all kinds

of scholarly excuses, but the result is the same. When it comes to a long campaign, America loses home support for the wars, so the only thing we can pop off is a Grenada or a Kuwait.

Our enemies know that if they stay strong, and we don't use overwhelming force, that eventually they will a least get a draw, like happened in Korea, or a total loss like in Vietnam. Each situation will have it's own set of "why we couldn't do it" excuses, and had we lost WWII, or fought it to some sort of a draw, we'd have them there, too.

We just don't use overwhelming force in the majority of the post-WWII conflicts, and when that happens, the result is pretty predictable for the enemy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to customerserviceguy (Reply #21)

Sun Sep 28, 2014, 12:53 AM

28. We didn't win Vietnam, but I think it's a case where nobody won

 

We lost about 58,000 men. The North Vietnamese lost by their count 1.1 million. I don't think that's exactly a win for them.

But I think the biggest reason we've had trouble winning wars in a post WWII world, is that most of our conflicts have been fought in the name of containing communism and/or an idiot (either Reagan or the second Bush) was in charge.

You could argue that the war on terror is similar to containing communism, but I think it's different in that neither al Queda or IS are state actors and thus have more limited resources than either the former Soviet Union or China and so are far more restrained in their reach geographically. The radical islamists aren't likely to find a foothold in South America for example. They are in that sense more limited to the Middle East outside of individual actors like those two idiots who killed the English soldier a few years ago.

That makes it easier to begin to cut off their resources and influence, especially when we can get the cooperation of the local nations. Granted it would be better if countries like Saudi Arabia or Qatar had better human rights records, but they are still at least a small step up from Pinochet for example.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mythology (Reply #28)

Sun Sep 28, 2014, 01:15 AM

30. You don't think the Viet Cong won?

Tell that to the people in Saigon, er, make that Ho Chi Minh City.

Yeah, the North won, even though there was a peace treaty to leave the South alone so we could bug out. The little bastards argued for years about the shape of the fucking table, just to delay the whole process and make sure we were damned sick of the war, and wouldn't come back when they violated the Paris Peace Accords.

Life is cheap in many parts of the world, Vietnam and most of the Islamic nations have that in common. They regard the 3K lives lost on 9/11 as chump change.

I still think we hang back, and let the Saudis and the Iranians knock themselves out dealing with ISIS. They're likely to be ruthless enough to get the job done better than we possibly could. Of course, then we have to deal with the victor, but it won't be long before the Saudis and the Iranians are at each others' throats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to customerserviceguy (Reply #30)

Sun Sep 28, 2014, 02:09 AM

32. The North won a political (not military) victory, but the VC lost

One of the VN War movies (I forget which one, but it may have been 'The Siege of Firebase Gloria'?) perceptively depicted a VC soldier reporting to his Colonel after a battle that they've been wiped out. The Colonel says something like, "I wonder if the North didn't have it planned that way."

After the fall of Saigon, the North promptly moved its people south to fill government positions. Apart from a few token positions, the Northern government never intended to share power with the VC.

And despite the "official" name change, the people in Saigon never stopped calling it that and they still call it 'Saigon' today.

The 'Life is cheap' to (some cultures, races, ethnicities, or whatever) is a horribly bogus notion used to portray the 'other' as inferior. Ironically in light of your comment, it was used in the VN War to characterize our VC and NVA enemies as subhuman, somehow different from 'normal' human beings. All human beings, of all races, cultures, ethnicities, feel deep personal loss and grief in response to deaths. You really should stop and think about that other notion and whether you really want to repeat it...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinboy3niner (Reply #32)

Sun Sep 28, 2014, 12:41 PM

44. I suppose that technically, you're right

Viet Cong, North Vietnamese, to me a distinction without a difference. All I know is that nearly 50,000 Americans lost their life to fight for only a peace treaty that in the end, wasn't worth the paper it was written on.

As for the "life is cheap", all I'm going by is the behavior of the political and military leaders who commit their nations to wars. Western nations used to be as bad as any tin pot despot that you could find in the Third World. "Be fruitful and multiply" or its equivalent, was important for a society that had turned to agriculture as a method of survival, and once civilization developed 'leaders' who needed soldiers, they kept the old Bronze Age traditions going, as it fed their needs.

We got tired of seeing the body bags coming home on the evening news, our enemies' leaders didn't feel that way, and were thus able to perservere. We who have a limited form of representative government can eventually defund a war, and thus withdraw, but the people who I acknowledge suffer real loss in a war don't have that ability.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to customerserviceguy (Reply #44)

Sun Sep 28, 2014, 06:43 PM

45. It was nearly 60,000, and I knew more than 60 of them

Currently there are 58,299 names on the Wall.

To those who served in-country the VC/NVA difference was a huge distinction. The NVA were well-trained and well-equipped, a formidable enemy for whom we had a lot of respect.

I knew a Vietnamese family in the south that was evicted from their house after the fall so a North Vietnamese Colonel and his wife could move in. On one visit back to Vietnam many years later, I was invited to tea by that Colonel and his wife and we cried together as we shared stories about the war. I also funded construction of a home adjoining that NVA Colonel's house for the family that had been evicted. We made sure that their porch extended out farther than his, which was an important statement of defiance for them.

I also was invited to lunch at a coffee plantation with my former allies and enemies--ARVN, NVA and VC veterans. We laughed and joked and shared many funny and sad stories. When I remarked that I wished we could have been doing this instead of killing each other back then we were all in tears...

Some of us saw the body bags before you got it on the nightly news. We had to fill them...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinboy3niner (Reply #45)

Mon Sep 29, 2014, 10:23 AM

49. ......damn.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to customerserviceguy (Reply #30)

Mon Sep 29, 2014, 10:12 AM

48. The Viet Cong were nearly wiped out during the Tet Offensive.

 


The rebuilt VC were finally massacred by North Vietnamese forces after they conquered the south.

An underground force like the VC could have easily gone underground again. And they were a pretty independant minded lot. The original Viet Minh refused to follow orders and completely screwed up Ho's plans during the French withdrawal.

So the NVA killed them while they were out in the open.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mythology (Reply #28)

Sun Sep 28, 2014, 03:03 AM

33. Body counts are not a measure of victory

 

That they have come to symbolize such i nthe American discourse is sort of an admission of an inability to actually achieve goals. The Vietnamese won the Vietnam War; they wanted the United States out, the United States left. No treaty, no concessions, just an end of occupation and a collapse of an illegitimate regime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #33)

Sun Sep 28, 2014, 03:26 AM

35. VN vets have almost a kneejerk reaction to statements that the VC or NVA 'won' the war

We who fought there knew we were winning in military terms, and we naturally reject any notion that we were beaten on the battlefield. There may be a little AARGH there on our part, but it's essentialy true. We were winning the battles, but we lost the politics. C'est la vie may be an especially appropriate expression here...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ladjf (Original post)

Sat Sep 27, 2014, 03:49 PM

10. I was thinking they could send over

all those gun toting teabaggers who hang around places like Clive Bundy's ranch. Or is it that they just want to kill Americans too?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Turbineguy (Reply #10)

Sat Sep 27, 2014, 03:54 PM

14. The Tea Baggers aren't brave enough to take on some genuine

"bad ass" fighters. (And in a hand to hand situation, I wouldn't do it either.)

The U.S. has the Worlds' mightiest military. We can definitely handle the band of sadistic soldiers of fortune, if you use the right military strategies at the right time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ladjf (Original post)

Sat Sep 27, 2014, 03:51 PM

11. there's something sickening about your op

 

It's that you're treating this as a video game.

In any case, ISIS has known for weeks we were going to start bombing and odds are they've taken some precautions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #11)

Sun Sep 28, 2014, 12:04 AM

22. I offered an honest opinion about a strategy that I thought would help.

DU is, after all, an opinion board.

I didn't say that ISIS "only" moved in pickup trucks and I don't view the ISIS problem as a game.

Would you care to share your thoughts on how our Government could best deal with ISIS?

What do you think the ISIS "precautions" might be that would allow them to move from place to place without being hit?







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ladjf (Reply #22)

Sun Sep 28, 2014, 12:20 AM

23. As for precautions when necessary to move...

It would be easy to fill some vehicles with captured civilians and mix those vehicles in with their convoys as a human shield deterrent to strikes. If a convoy should be hit by airstrikes, the civililan casualties will make it a PR victory for ISIS, so either way it's win/win for them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinboy3niner (Reply #23)

Sun Sep 28, 2014, 12:34 AM

26. So, do you advocate that we just continue blowing up buildings to hurt ISIS?

They are mobile marauders. Their power comes from moving in like the Vikings and plundering at will.

According to news reports they are murdering thousands in the towns they have captured. Should this be allowed to continue?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ladjf (Reply #26)

Sun Sep 28, 2014, 01:01 AM

29. You asked a question; I thought I was being helpful by offering an answer

It was a valid point cali made about the ability of ISIS to reduce their vulnerability to airstrikes. An analyst on cable news this morning made much the same point when he described military conflict as a series of actions and reactions.

When I was training for Vietnam in Army Infantry OCS the officers teaching our courses were recent combat vets who were giving us the latest 'lessons learned' from experience with VC and NVA tactics. Constant adaptation to counter and overcome the enemy's successful tactics is the norm, even for ISIS when faced with the threat of devastating U.S. and coalition airstrikes. It's not exactly a novel idea.

When you ask a question and someone politely responds, coming back argumentatively about it may not be the best way to get answers to your questions in the future. Someone might be inclined think twice about trying to offer a helpful answer...especially when you start demanding new answers and begin with "so...."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinboy3niner (Reply #29)

Sun Sep 28, 2014, 10:00 AM

37. Cali posted "... odds are they've taken some precautions"

But, she hasn't responded to my question about that. If she has something concrete in mind, I wanted to know so that I could give it
some thought.

Your response about inserting civilians into their war convoys was strong and does indeed present a dilemma. Do we attack the convoy assuming that there will be collateral damage and weigh that against the deaths that normally occur with ISIS conquers a town? Or, allow ISIS to move freely and continue their mayhem.

I didn't consider myself demanding anything by my questions. I wanted to know what you and cali suggested for handling the ISIS situation. Your response was polite. Others were definitely not polite. I think I've shown good restraint under the circumstances.

That's all I all to say about my simple, and obvious suggestion to cripple their mobility as we did to Iraq during the Gulf War.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ladjf (Reply #37)

Sun Sep 28, 2014, 08:44 PM

46. What "dilemma"?

When you know civilians are present you do not fire. Period. Firing on civilians knowingly is a war crime.

I served as a combatant in a war that was pretty crazy, with crazy RoE rules like "free fire" zones where you were authorized to kill anything that moved.

A couple of times I encountered Vietnamese civilian woodcutters out in the jungle in a free fire zone. I stopped and talked to them and sang them a Vietnamese song that left them in stitches. Then we went on our separate ways. With no body count.

It's possible to go to war and to fight honorably, despite the madness that surrounds you. Despite the horrors you see, you can still hang onto your humanity. It will still kick your ass later, down the road, even though you knew and observed the difference between right and wrong. And firing on civilians is always wrong. There is no dilemma.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ladjf (Original post)

Sat Sep 27, 2014, 03:52 PM

12. Then they find another way or acquire more pickup trucks

Look, I have no idea what to do about this. I can't figure out why they seem eager and would want to start a war w/ one of the strongest, if not the strongest military in the world but all that would do is slow them down or causes a change-up but they are still there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JonLP24 (Reply #12)

Sun Sep 28, 2014, 12:24 AM

24. The Viet Cong were able to move undetected in the dense jungles. Irag and most of Syria is flat

and open like a desert. ISIS has been moving across that terrain from town to town while meeting no resistance.
I think our ability to limit their capabilities would be to move in the open. We certainly have the technologies to do that and I don't know that we aren't already hitting them when they are in the open. The media just states that we "struck ISSIS targets.

It doesn't matter very much what any of us here on DU say in our comments. I think that most of us simply enjoy communicating with others about our concerns for Americans and life on Earth.

I regret that I initiated this thread. It seemed to have created more negative thoughts than I had imagined.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ladjf (Reply #24)

Sun Sep 28, 2014, 12:34 AM

25. I think most of them are up in Northern Iraq

It is a very mountainous region though I haven't been up to Mosul. Just a little southwest from it on a base called "Key West". Actually my trailer breaks went out up there on my 2nd convoy and I had to keep a large following(stopping) distance in the mountains. It was dark so I couldn't stay back too far.

I don't mind your comments and apologize for coming off as harsh. In the open seems like a good idea as any.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JonLP24 (Reply #25)

Sun Sep 28, 2014, 12:36 AM

27. I wasn't referring to your comments as being negative, only a few others. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ladjf (Original post)

Sat Sep 27, 2014, 08:42 PM

19. ISIS, meet Ebola. Ebola, meet ISIS. Problem solved.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #19)

Sun Sep 28, 2014, 03:06 AM

34. I've seen some stupid shit posted on DU, but I think this might be the winner of that competition

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #34)

Sun Sep 28, 2014, 11:30 AM

42. Thank you. Mission accomplished.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #42)

Sun Sep 28, 2014, 08:45 PM

47. BWAH!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ladjf (Original post)

Sat Sep 27, 2014, 08:44 PM

20. Mine is to grab a steaming, hot cup of get the fuck out before we make

matters worse yet again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #20)

Sun Sep 28, 2014, 01:40 AM

31. That as well seems like as good idea as any

How do you do that w/ a group that kidnaps, torture, rape, and execute and a bit of ethnic cleansing? Then w/ US involved we'll certainly see a hell of a lot more beheadings.

No matter what, I only see this heading to a disaster agree we'll probably make matters worse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JonLP24 (Reply #31)

Sun Sep 28, 2014, 12:34 PM

43. See Africa. See dictators propped up. Apparently, it isn't that hard as we ignore such always.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ladjf (Original post)

Sun Sep 28, 2014, 10:20 AM

39. the vehicle that is preferred in ME ground battles is the Toyota Hilux

ISIS parades around in them. Many are brand new and there is a rumor that some new trucks we supplied for the "good terrorists" wound up quickly in the hands of the "bad terrorists."

The trucks are so well loved by militias that some have gotten tattoos of the logo. They are so common that one conflict in Chad and Libya was nic-named "the Toyota War."

UK TV show Top Gear put one of the trucks to the test. They tried to bust the myth that these thing could withstand bombing with Daisycutters and the like. They bought a used one for $2000 and....



In an odd twist, Toyota makes a vehicle called "Isis."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Isis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_War

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KurtNYC (Reply #39)

Sun Sep 28, 2014, 10:30 AM

40. It's cavalry warfare except that trucks are used rather than horses.

We are dealing with a opportunistic band of marauders who have capitalized on the basic helplessness of the Governments in Iraq and Syria. They are as ruthless as the tenth Century Vikings but not as well organized.

Our military will be able to thwart their initiatives. It's a matter of using appropriate methods and equipment. When that happens, ISIS will be reduced to troublesome but insignificant pockets of terrorists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ladjf (Original post)

Sun Sep 28, 2014, 10:33 AM

41. I think you have ISIS confused with the border militia.

 

Still a good strategy, though. Blowing things up, I mean.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ladjf (Original post)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 02:54 PM

50. As an update to my original OP,


Both the British Defense Ministry and the American Centcom announced (Sep. 30) that armored trucks and other vehicles were attacked today by British and American air strikes, some in the vicinity of Kobani.

I was pleased to see that our forces didn't allow ISIS to just walk in and capture a strategic position such as Kobani.

Our military has what it takes to subdue the main initiatives of the ISIS. At some point, they will be reduced to scattered bands of
nuisance thugs, hiding out among the general population.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread