Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ladjf

(17,320 posts)
Sat Sep 27, 2014, 03:24 PM Sep 2014

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 = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Here is my ISIS strategy in a nutshell. (Original Post) ladjf Sep 2014 OP
and what if the park them among civilians? cali Sep 2014 #1
When they get on the move to another town, they will be concentrated ladjf Sep 2014 #4
So we sneak some guys in to mark their parking lots with "ISIS ONLY" parking signs Sopkoviak Sep 2014 #7
We've got stationary satellites and UAV's all over the place. ladjf Sep 2014 #8
We could set up a fake "ISIS Valet Parking" sign and just drive off with the trucks when they give KurtNYC Sep 2014 #38
where's my A-10 guy? that's what you need to strafe moving targets on the ground Baclava Sep 2014 #2
I've been suggesting the A10's for weeks. They are perfect for this kind of situation. nt ladjf Sep 2014 #5
I've heard that the air force has several hundred of them in inventory and ladjf Sep 2014 #9
THX - I just read they are sending in A-10's - ANG headed to Iraq Baclava Sep 2014 #13
That's good news. The A10's are old but they could handle this task. ladjf Sep 2014 #15
ONE A-10 would take out a whole column of Toyotas Baclava Sep 2014 #17
Please explain the large event in the second picture? I see ground fires, flares, and a what? freshwest Oct 2014 #51
It's tracer fire from the gatling guns aboard a 130 gunship Baclava Oct 2014 #52
Ah. Checked on this in another thread on aircraft. My BNL was a gunner in the Vietnam War: freshwest Oct 2014 #53
that is one bad ass madokie Sep 2014 #36
Here's my strategy in a nutshell customerserviceguy Sep 2014 #3
You may be right. But, we are in it now. Might as well be efficient about it. nt ladjf Sep 2014 #6
Since we're not going to bomb them into the Stone Age customerserviceguy Sep 2014 #16
North Koreans? ieoeja Sep 2014 #18
Yes, there are all kinds customerserviceguy Sep 2014 #21
We didn't win Vietnam, but I think it's a case where nobody won mythology Sep 2014 #28
You don't think the Viet Cong won? customerserviceguy Sep 2014 #30
The North won a political (not military) victory, but the VC lost pinboy3niner Sep 2014 #32
I suppose that technically, you're right customerserviceguy Sep 2014 #44
It was nearly 60,000, and I knew more than 60 of them pinboy3niner Sep 2014 #45
......damn..... panader0 Sep 2014 #49
The Viet Cong were nearly wiped out during the Tet Offensive. ieoeja Sep 2014 #48
Body counts are not a measure of victory Scootaloo Sep 2014 #33
VN vets have almost a kneejerk reaction to statements that the VC or NVA 'won' the war pinboy3niner Sep 2014 #35
I was thinking they could send over Turbineguy Sep 2014 #10
The Tea Baggers aren't brave enough to take on some genuine ladjf Sep 2014 #14
there's something sickening about your op cali Sep 2014 #11
I offered an honest opinion about a strategy that I thought would help. ladjf Sep 2014 #22
As for precautions when necessary to move... pinboy3niner Sep 2014 #23
So, do you advocate that we just continue blowing up buildings to hurt ISIS? ladjf Sep 2014 #26
You asked a question; I thought I was being helpful by offering an answer pinboy3niner Sep 2014 #29
Cali posted "... odds are they've taken some precautions" ladjf Sep 2014 #37
What "dilemma"? pinboy3niner Sep 2014 #46
Then they find another way or acquire more pickup trucks JonLP24 Sep 2014 #12
The Viet Cong were able to move undetected in the dense jungles. Irag and most of Syria is flat ladjf Sep 2014 #24
I think most of them are up in Northern Iraq JonLP24 Sep 2014 #25
I wasn't referring to your comments as being negative, only a few others. nt ladjf Sep 2014 #27
ISIS, meet Ebola. Ebola, meet ISIS. Problem solved. JaneyVee Sep 2014 #19
I've seen some stupid shit posted on DU, but I think this might be the winner of that competition Scootaloo Sep 2014 #34
Thank you. Mission accomplished. JaneyVee Sep 2014 #42
BWAH! bigwillq Sep 2014 #47
Mine is to grab a steaming, hot cup of get the fuck out before we make TheKentuckian Sep 2014 #20
That as well seems like as good idea as any JonLP24 Sep 2014 #31
See Africa. See dictators propped up. Apparently, it isn't that hard as we ignore such always. TheKentuckian Sep 2014 #43
the vehicle that is preferred in ME ground battles is the Toyota Hilux KurtNYC Sep 2014 #39
It's cavalry warfare except that trucks are used rather than horses. ladjf Sep 2014 #40
I think you have ISIS confused with the border militia. randome Sep 2014 #41
As an update to my original OP, ladjf Sep 2014 #50
 

cali

(114,904 posts)
1. and what if the park them among civilians?
Sat Sep 27, 2014, 03:31 PM
Sep 2014

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

ladjf

(17,320 posts)
4. When they get on the move to another town, they will be concentrated
Sat Sep 27, 2014, 03:39 PM
Sep 2014

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.



 

Sopkoviak

(357 posts)
7. So we sneak some guys in to mark their parking lots with "ISIS ONLY" parking signs
Sat Sep 27, 2014, 03:41 PM
Sep 2014

Problem solved!

What?

ladjf

(17,320 posts)
8. We've got stationary satellites and UAV's all over the place.
Sat Sep 27, 2014, 03:45 PM
Sep 2014

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.

KurtNYC

(14,549 posts)
38. We could set up a fake "ISIS Valet Parking" sign and just drive off with the trucks when they give
Sun Sep 28, 2014, 10:09 AM
Sep 2014

us their keys.

 

Baclava

(12,047 posts)
2. where's my A-10 guy? that's what you need to strafe moving targets on the ground
Sat Sep 27, 2014, 03:38 PM
Sep 2014

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





ladjf

(17,320 posts)
9. I've heard that the air force has several hundred of them in inventory and
Sat Sep 27, 2014, 03:47 PM
Sep 2014

that some have already been move into the area. nt

 

Baclava

(12,047 posts)
13. THX - I just read they are sending in A-10's - ANG headed to Iraq
Sat Sep 27, 2014, 03:54 PM
Sep 2014
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

ladjf

(17,320 posts)
15. That's good news. The A10's are old but they could handle this task.
Sat Sep 27, 2014, 04:00 PM
Sep 2014

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.


 

Baclava

(12,047 posts)
17. ONE A-10 would take out a whole column of Toyotas
Sat Sep 27, 2014, 04:23 PM
Sep 2014

no doubt

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





freshwest

(53,661 posts)
51. Please explain the large event in the second picture? I see ground fires, flares, and a what?
Sat Oct 18, 2014, 06:52 PM
Oct 2014

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.

freshwest

(53,661 posts)
53. Ah. Checked on this in another thread on aircraft. My BNL was a gunner in the Vietnam War:
Sat Oct 18, 2014, 07:31 PM
Oct 2014

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


customerserviceguy

(25,183 posts)
3. Here's my strategy in a nutshell
Sat Sep 27, 2014, 03:38 PM
Sep 2014

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.

customerserviceguy

(25,183 posts)
16. Since we're not going to bomb them into the Stone Age
Sat Sep 27, 2014, 04:21 PM
Sep 2014

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.

 

ieoeja

(9,748 posts)
18. North Koreans?
Sat Sep 27, 2014, 08:38 PM
Sep 2014

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.

customerserviceguy

(25,183 posts)
21. Yes, there are all kinds
Sat Sep 27, 2014, 09:06 PM
Sep 2014

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.

 

mythology

(9,527 posts)
28. We didn't win Vietnam, but I think it's a case where nobody won
Sun Sep 28, 2014, 12:53 AM
Sep 2014

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.

customerserviceguy

(25,183 posts)
30. You don't think the Viet Cong won?
Sun Sep 28, 2014, 01:15 AM
Sep 2014

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.

pinboy3niner

(53,339 posts)
32. The North won a political (not military) victory, but the VC lost
Sun Sep 28, 2014, 02:09 AM
Sep 2014

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...

customerserviceguy

(25,183 posts)
44. I suppose that technically, you're right
Sun Sep 28, 2014, 12:41 PM
Sep 2014

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.

pinboy3niner

(53,339 posts)
45. It was nearly 60,000, and I knew more than 60 of them
Sun Sep 28, 2014, 06:43 PM
Sep 2014

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...

 

ieoeja

(9,748 posts)
48. The Viet Cong were nearly wiped out during the Tet Offensive.
Mon Sep 29, 2014, 10:12 AM
Sep 2014

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.


 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
33. Body counts are not a measure of victory
Sun Sep 28, 2014, 03:03 AM
Sep 2014

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.

pinboy3niner

(53,339 posts)
35. VN vets have almost a kneejerk reaction to statements that the VC or NVA 'won' the war
Sun Sep 28, 2014, 03:26 AM
Sep 2014

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...

Turbineguy

(37,276 posts)
10. I was thinking they could send over
Sat Sep 27, 2014, 03:49 PM
Sep 2014

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?

ladjf

(17,320 posts)
14. The Tea Baggers aren't brave enough to take on some genuine
Sat Sep 27, 2014, 03:54 PM
Sep 2014

"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.

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
11. there's something sickening about your op
Sat Sep 27, 2014, 03:51 PM
Sep 2014

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.

ladjf

(17,320 posts)
22. I offered an honest opinion about a strategy that I thought would help.
Sun Sep 28, 2014, 12:04 AM
Sep 2014

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?







pinboy3niner

(53,339 posts)
23. As for precautions when necessary to move...
Sun Sep 28, 2014, 12:20 AM
Sep 2014

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.

ladjf

(17,320 posts)
26. So, do you advocate that we just continue blowing up buildings to hurt ISIS?
Sun Sep 28, 2014, 12:34 AM
Sep 2014

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?

pinboy3niner

(53,339 posts)
29. You asked a question; I thought I was being helpful by offering an answer
Sun Sep 28, 2014, 01:01 AM
Sep 2014

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...."

ladjf

(17,320 posts)
37. Cali posted "... odds are they've taken some precautions"
Sun Sep 28, 2014, 10:00 AM
Sep 2014

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.

pinboy3niner

(53,339 posts)
46. What "dilemma"?
Sun Sep 28, 2014, 08:44 PM
Sep 2014

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.

JonLP24

(29,322 posts)
12. Then they find another way or acquire more pickup trucks
Sat Sep 27, 2014, 03:52 PM
Sep 2014

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.

ladjf

(17,320 posts)
24. The Viet Cong were able to move undetected in the dense jungles. Irag and most of Syria is flat
Sun Sep 28, 2014, 12:24 AM
Sep 2014

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.

JonLP24

(29,322 posts)
25. I think most of them are up in Northern Iraq
Sun Sep 28, 2014, 12:34 AM
Sep 2014

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.

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
34. I've seen some stupid shit posted on DU, but I think this might be the winner of that competition
Sun Sep 28, 2014, 03:06 AM
Sep 2014

JonLP24

(29,322 posts)
31. That as well seems like as good idea as any
Sun Sep 28, 2014, 01:40 AM
Sep 2014

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.

KurtNYC

(14,549 posts)
39. the vehicle that is preferred in ME ground battles is the Toyota Hilux
Sun Sep 28, 2014, 10:20 AM
Sep 2014

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

ladjf

(17,320 posts)
40. It's cavalry warfare except that trucks are used rather than horses.
Sun Sep 28, 2014, 10:30 AM
Sep 2014

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.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
41. I think you have ISIS confused with the border militia.
Sun Sep 28, 2014, 10:33 AM
Sep 2014

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]

ladjf

(17,320 posts)
50. As an update to my original OP,
Tue Sep 30, 2014, 02:54 PM
Sep 2014

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.
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Here is my ISIS strategy ...