9 thoughts on “France’s “Merciless” Response To ISIS”
The French have to learn that what happened in Paris is a clear signal they need to tighten up their notoriously lax gun laws. France isn’t the Wild West, Jacques! If you feel threatened, instead of indulging macho self-defense fantasies, Inspector Clouseau is only a phone call away!
There’s a mental illness dynamic on display here (with both France and the USA) that’s downright terrifying, because it has already caused death on a near Hitlerian scale.
We see it clearly with the rules of engagement that required the US Air Force to drop warning leaflets, and then do a warning strafing run, before attacking ISIS tanker trucks. Apparently, this was to let the drivers get away (and some of them did so behind the wheels of trucks). It also placed our pilots in grave danger due to letting the enemy know in advance where an air strike would occur.
This is, at best, mental illness on display. It’s also bloodthirsty. What we are doing is hobbling ourselves to the point of uselessness out of fear of a few civilian casualties, and thus letting ISIS keep getting the money that feeds it. This insanity is why ISIS still exists.
So, our worries over a few civilian casualties have caused the death of at least 100,000 innocent people at the hands of ISIS. Even if someone is motivated only by humanitarian ideals, there is no sane way to excuse our policy.
I’m waiting to see what the Russians do to ISIS now that Russia has blamed ISIS for bringing down their airliner. I’m no fan of the Russians, but at least they aren’t stupid – I suspect their response won’t be merely symbolic, nor hamstrung by self-defeating idiocy the way ours is.
C. 1940 we knew how to win a war: pound the enemy however you had to until they were unable to fight back effectively. Whether busting a dam to disable a hydro-power facility and flood industry downstream, or systematic bombing of ball bearing factories. Yes, civilians were killed, but getting the war against brutal killers done with as quickly as practical is more merciful on the bottom line.
I think they realize that they cannot win. As soon as they start winning, the cynical politicians will convince the ADHD segments of the public it wasn’t worth it in the first place, ride that sentiment into power, then order a bug out before the job is completed, rendering all their sacrifices in vain, and setting them up to have to do it all over again in a tortuous unending cycle.
Better to break the cycle, let things get so awful that the opportunists are thoroughly discredited, and then go in and kick butt once and for all.
@ Bob-1,
Interesting read, thanks.
I largely agree with it.
I’ve long said that we should be directly arming the Kurds, and also that using US ground forces against ISIS would be both bloody and folly.
First, taking out ISIS could be done fairly simply, without ground forces, via relaxing our current idiotic rules of engagement.
The key is looking at the strategic achillies heels of ISIS. A look at any map of their territory says it loud and clear; they are road-centric. Another vulnerability is their dependance on money and supplies. Essentially, they are dependent upon a road network, plus the money they get from selling oil and in aid sent into the region they control (much of said aid is taken by ISIS).
So, how to kill ISIS? Wreck the road network at points where its easy to do so and hard to repair; bridges, plus roads through mountainous areas (use ground penetrating ordinance to cause landslides in the latter- landslides are darn hard to clear). Also, target their refined fuel infrastructure (gas stations, distribution systems); they have almost no refining capacity, and they can’t run vehicles on crude. Kill every tanker truck spotted. Doing this would dry up most of their funding and also wreck their operational style, which is heavily reliant on tecnicals (converted civilian vehicles) moving en mass.
This would cripple ISIS, making it far easier for the Kurds (and likely Assad in the west) to finish them on the ground.
To stop something like ISIS from growing again, the West needs to recognize the fact that islamists in general are our enemy, and act accordingly. That means helping people like Egypt’s President Al Sisi, who has done good work in reducing islamist power in Egypt (such as via getting rid of much of the Muslim Brotherhood, for one). He now needs help in the Sinai against islamists, and he’ll get that help from either us or the Russians. If we’re smart, it’ll be us (and it’d help make amends for our betrayal of Mubarak, which put the Muslim brotherhood in power for a while).
Then there’s Libya, another foreign policy debacle. Kadafy (or however its spelled) was no friend, but he wasn’t bothering us at the time we went to war to overthrow him. That was a manifestly stupid move, which put the islamists in control of Libya.
The key to fighting the islamists, IMHO, is a multifaceted approach, with the military as just one tool in the bag – to be used only when absolutely needed. Unfortunately, with ISIS, it’s needed.
Of course, in a few months later, yet another organization would emerge, with a new name.
We aren’t at war with “terrorism.” Saying “we are at war with terrorism” is like saying, after December 7th, 1941, “we are at war with aviation.”
Until we realize that Islam has been at war with the rest of the human race for 1300 years, and that includes us, we are going to keep on blundering into the Middle East and wondering why defeating Al-Qaeda just led to a new war against ISIS which just led to a new war against the People’s Front for the Liberation of West Derkaderkastan which just led to a new war against the Sword of Allah which just led to a new war against the Secret Army of the Prophet which just led to a new war against…
For better or for worse, in 1942 we didn’t have this kind of problem. Imagine if we did. “We apologize to all persons of Japanese ethnicity and wish to emphasize that we are not at war with you, and we will tolerate no intolerant talk suggesting that otherwise. We are just waging a police action against the captain and officers of the aircraft carriers Akagi and Kaga, really this is a law-enforcement matter, and we promise to give them civilian trials when captured…”
Oops, the comment by “a”, above in response to Bob-1 and now waiting for moderation, is mine. Sorry for the typo. (I usually do manage to correctly spell my own name, just not, apparently, always).
CJ
The French have to learn that what happened in Paris is a clear signal they need to tighten up their notoriously lax gun laws. France isn’t the Wild West, Jacques! If you feel threatened, instead of indulging macho self-defense fantasies, Inspector Clouseau is only a phone call away!
There’s a mental illness dynamic on display here (with both France and the USA) that’s downright terrifying, because it has already caused death on a near Hitlerian scale.
We see it clearly with the rules of engagement that required the US Air Force to drop warning leaflets, and then do a warning strafing run, before attacking ISIS tanker trucks. Apparently, this was to let the drivers get away (and some of them did so behind the wheels of trucks). It also placed our pilots in grave danger due to letting the enemy know in advance where an air strike would occur.
This is, at best, mental illness on display. It’s also bloodthirsty. What we are doing is hobbling ourselves to the point of uselessness out of fear of a few civilian casualties, and thus letting ISIS keep getting the money that feeds it. This insanity is why ISIS still exists.
So, our worries over a few civilian casualties have caused the death of at least 100,000 innocent people at the hands of ISIS. Even if someone is motivated only by humanitarian ideals, there is no sane way to excuse our policy.
I’m waiting to see what the Russians do to ISIS now that Russia has blamed ISIS for bringing down their airliner. I’m no fan of the Russians, but at least they aren’t stupid – I suspect their response won’t be merely symbolic, nor hamstrung by self-defeating idiocy the way ours is.
C. 1940 we knew how to win a war: pound the enemy however you had to until they were unable to fight back effectively. Whether busting a dam to disable a hydro-power facility and flood industry downstream, or systematic bombing of ball bearing factories. Yes, civilians were killed, but getting the war against brutal killers done with as quickly as practical is more merciful on the bottom line.
Arizona CJ, what do you think of this article, which claims military officials believe that killing every last ISIS member wouldn’t nearly be enough.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/isil-pentagon-syria-terror-paris-216003
I think they realize that they cannot win. As soon as they start winning, the cynical politicians will convince the ADHD segments of the public it wasn’t worth it in the first place, ride that sentiment into power, then order a bug out before the job is completed, rendering all their sacrifices in vain, and setting them up to have to do it all over again in a tortuous unending cycle.
Better to break the cycle, let things get so awful that the opportunists are thoroughly discredited, and then go in and kick butt once and for all.
@ Bob-1,
Interesting read, thanks.
I largely agree with it.
I’ve long said that we should be directly arming the Kurds, and also that using US ground forces against ISIS would be both bloody and folly.
First, taking out ISIS could be done fairly simply, without ground forces, via relaxing our current idiotic rules of engagement.
The key is looking at the strategic achillies heels of ISIS. A look at any map of their territory says it loud and clear; they are road-centric. Another vulnerability is their dependance on money and supplies. Essentially, they are dependent upon a road network, plus the money they get from selling oil and in aid sent into the region they control (much of said aid is taken by ISIS).
So, how to kill ISIS? Wreck the road network at points where its easy to do so and hard to repair; bridges, plus roads through mountainous areas (use ground penetrating ordinance to cause landslides in the latter- landslides are darn hard to clear). Also, target their refined fuel infrastructure (gas stations, distribution systems); they have almost no refining capacity, and they can’t run vehicles on crude. Kill every tanker truck spotted. Doing this would dry up most of their funding and also wreck their operational style, which is heavily reliant on tecnicals (converted civilian vehicles) moving en mass.
This would cripple ISIS, making it far easier for the Kurds (and likely Assad in the west) to finish them on the ground.
To stop something like ISIS from growing again, the West needs to recognize the fact that islamists in general are our enemy, and act accordingly. That means helping people like Egypt’s President Al Sisi, who has done good work in reducing islamist power in Egypt (such as via getting rid of much of the Muslim Brotherhood, for one). He now needs help in the Sinai against islamists, and he’ll get that help from either us or the Russians. If we’re smart, it’ll be us (and it’d help make amends for our betrayal of Mubarak, which put the Muslim brotherhood in power for a while).
Then there’s Libya, another foreign policy debacle. Kadafy (or however its spelled) was no friend, but he wasn’t bothering us at the time we went to war to overthrow him. That was a manifestly stupid move, which put the islamists in control of Libya.
The key to fighting the islamists, IMHO, is a multifaceted approach, with the military as just one tool in the bag – to be used only when absolutely needed. Unfortunately, with ISIS, it’s needed.
Of course, in a few months later, yet another organization would emerge, with a new name.
We aren’t at war with “terrorism.” Saying “we are at war with terrorism” is like saying, after December 7th, 1941, “we are at war with aviation.”
Until we realize that Islam has been at war with the rest of the human race for 1300 years, and that includes us, we are going to keep on blundering into the Middle East and wondering why defeating Al-Qaeda just led to a new war against ISIS which just led to a new war against the People’s Front for the Liberation of West Derkaderkastan which just led to a new war against the Sword of Allah which just led to a new war against the Secret Army of the Prophet which just led to a new war against…
For better or for worse, in 1942 we didn’t have this kind of problem. Imagine if we did. “We apologize to all persons of Japanese ethnicity and wish to emphasize that we are not at war with you, and we will tolerate no intolerant talk suggesting that otherwise. We are just waging a police action against the captain and officers of the aircraft carriers Akagi and Kaga, really this is a law-enforcement matter, and we promise to give them civilian trials when captured…”
Oops, the comment by “a”, above in response to Bob-1 and now waiting for moderation, is mine. Sorry for the typo. (I usually do manage to correctly spell my own name, just not, apparently, always).
CJ
Kerry’s response to ISIS: Charlie deserved it.