Airstrikes in Syria not enough? (Kurds issue desperate plea from Syrian border town as ISIS closes i

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Fire still beats a tank, I'm sure like any good islamic nation explosives aren't hard to come by either. If they really want to they can fight isis.

Air strikes are enough, but you would have to risk a lot more civilian casulties to successfully kill enough ISIS soldiers.
I am talking about pattern-bomb.
In cities like Raqqa a lot of civilians would die, if you risk it the world will not accept it. Furthermore this would only breed a new generation of terrorists that will hate the west for killing their parents.

If you only bomb tactical targets, you won't kill the majority of fighters, only their tools.
Maybe if you get intel on a terror camp or something like this it would work, otherwise you just take their tools which they can easily buy back from all the money they got.

I'd also like to apologize for getting heated. I was wrong and appreciate the sources provided.

Gonna take a break from this war BS.

Get's me heated.

Again, my apologies.

originally posted by: Hijinx
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Fire still beats a tank, I'm sure like any good islamic nation explosives aren't hard to come by either. If they really want to they can fight isis.

They are seasoned fighters but they already lost over 100 villages in 3 days, that tells you that the Kurds are outmatched in firepower.
No amount of your illogical reasoning will work.
Stalin boxcarted in millions at Stalingrad with only a small portion given a firearm and sent into battle. The Kurds have no Stalin with millions of reinforcements to act as meat shields against superior firepower to buy months of time until the coalition armor and guns arrive. It is either airpower takes away ISIS armor and artillery or the Kurds get exterminated.

Airstrikes not enough? Is this really up for consideration?

Sure, Operation Linebacker the whole place. It is not feasible on a world stage. Destroy the village to save the village.

I am going to puke the next time a talking head spews out that the IA or Kurds or whomever will be the boots on the ground. You mean those stellar boots on the ground who have been run over at almost every turn up till now? Yeah sure, just aid 'em with a few airstrikes and it will turn the tide. It's not like our ME buddies have air to ground capabilities...oh wait?

We just pulled out of Iraq. What happened? And now here we are again for the third round in less than three decades.

The POS's who make this stuff happen can't help it. It's what sociopaths do. My beef is with the American public who seems to be gullible beyond measure. Sorry. Rant off.

originally posted by: ABNARTY
Airstrikes not enough? Is this really up for consideration?

Sure, Operation Linebacker the whole place. It is not feasible on a world stage. Destroy the village to save the village.

I am going to puke

the next time a talking head spews out that the IA or Kurds or whomever will be the boots on the ground. You mean those stellar boots on the ground who have been run over at almost every turn up till now? Yeah sure, just aid 'em with a few airstrikes and it will turn the tide.

It's not like our ME buddies have air to ground capabilities...oh wait?

We just pulled out of Iraq. What happened? And now here we are again for the third round in less than three decades.

The POS's who make this stuff happen can't help it. It's what sociopaths do. My beef is with the American public who seems to be gullible beyond measure. Sorry. Rant off.

So you are all for an imminent genocide so you can have a beef with Americans?

I just posted in another thread this exact thing. From a military strategy perspective, a war of this nature, or of any nature for the most part, cannot be won from the air alone. It is just not practical, and military history supports this conclusion. I am a firm believer that if any nation is to get involved in a conflict, let them pull out all the stops to win it as quickly as possible. Obviously it will be easier for the US to maintain some semblance of order in Iraq, where they have more control from the ground, at the moment those boots on the ground being US-trained Iraqi forces.

The US cannot focus on either Iraq or Syria if they hope to make headway, as doing so leaves the enemy forces somewhere to escape the pressure, rather they must focus on both simultaneously. Anyway, to get to the point, we can speculate with conspiracy theories, but whether they are true or not does not change what I said above. It is just common sense where strategy is concerned. Both viewpoints make sense, meaning that if the US is legitimately fighting this terrorist group, as it has been reported to us, then boots on the ground is the obvious next step. And if there is some conspiracy to embroil us in another war or whatever, then boots on the ground also make sense.

But something that needs to be understood is that a war of this nature cannot be won with military forces alone. The true way to beat an insurgency is through the people. You have to provide them LONG TERM security. After what happened when the US pulled out of Iraq, I can guarantee you that many Iraqi's have lost faith, and as such they are not going to be as willing to cooperate, depending on how things play out. They will simply be preparing for their own survival, preparing for when the US leaves. The US must create a better government and military in Iraq, and must ensure that they are truly self-sufficient and able to deal with conflicts before cutting them loose. Rebuilding and revamping and making the Iraqis self-sufficient is the only real strategy that makes any sense.

The entire "hearts and minds" strategy was meant to serve a similar purpose, although this was not carried out properly. Soldiers should not be tasked with such measures anyway. They are not trained for that for the most part. Of course I would be lying if I said it was all this simple. But that is the gist of it anyway. If anyone wants a true understanding of the military perspective, and what it takes to beat an insurgency, the first source of education they should seek are treatises on guerilla warfare or unconventional warfare so as to understand the tactics and strategies employed, such as "On Guerilla Warfare" by Mao Zedong, "Guerilla Warfare" by Che Guevara, and the many books written by analysts rather than fighters, which are also most instructive. Understanding how unconventional forces operate allows one to see that conventional means are often not enough to defeat them, even when the conventional force possesses far superior equipment as well as a numerical advantage.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Ah yes...rhetorical fallacy...Not biting.

Airstrikes-only are political theater not sound military strategy. Clear as day.