Her Lao
2015-02-23 00:36:39 UTC
The horror of editing, and posting, on the fly!
After a couple times, it's all gone to hell, with junks missing and things I've never written or read popping up out of thin air!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Here's a better edited (and final) draft.
If it were to be published, again, I would have to do an additional 50% reduction, with tons of additional editing & spelling checks; but for general reading purposes alone, here, this is decent enough.
My original title was called "THE TOYOTA TUNDRA WAR."
But, as usual, I changed my mind and thought "You Are No Sun Tzu, Sir" was a bit more irrelevant!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sunday, December 28, 2014
Friday, February 20, 2015
Saturday, Feb. 21, 2015
Sunday, Feb 22, 2015
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
You Are No Sun Tzu, Sir!
Sun Tzu and THE ART OF WAR can be read on-line, so I will not talk about them here.
But this was written with Sun Tzu in mind, in terms of "thinking outside the box."
I asked myself, "How would Sun Tzu, the great war theoretician, deal with these peace-loving Islamists in the 21st century who quote the QURAN, on the one hand, while they decapitate and display severed heads on poles in downtown squares wherever they rule, on the other"?
Here, I tried to articulate a strategy that would help win a war against ISIS. There are different ways to defeat ISIS. And ISIS is easily defeated, if casualties among the populations were no object. But since civilian casualties are now high in America's consciousness, given the recent wars America has conducted in this same region, this new strategy, then, is the most palatable.
But, first, a few about ISIS...
Arguments to the contrary notwithstanding, ISIS is just like Al Qaida, a terror organization. But ISIS is more organized and better-funded.
Initially funded by some Middle Eastern Sunni Muslim conservatives, ISIS is now largely self-sufficient. It has taken over cities with banks, with hundreds of millions in cash. It also has captured a lot of lands with oil fields. And, despite the bombings by Americans and a few Arab allies, oil still earns ISIS millions of dollars, per month, in small trucking operations.
Two other noticeable income generators for ISIS are racketeering (the extortion of money and goods from local businesses) and kidnapping. It is estimated that ransom payments have netted ISIS and close affiliates tens of millions over just the last 2 years alone.
Each war has its own peculiarity and unique circumstances. This stratagem here pertains to this war against ISIS only. And since about 99.5% of ISIS enemies are Muslims in the Middle East, Muslims, I will argue, must take the lead in this fight.
More specifically, Syrians and Iraqis must be the ones who do the actual town to town, door to door fighting.
America, Europe, and other non-Syrian and non-Iraqi partners should only play a supporting role. But that supporting role must be more than just dropping bombs from 30K to 50K feet up. Dropping a few big bombs and lopping a few missiles from distances, with complete game-like infrared pictures of exploding warehouses, is viscerally satisfying; unfortunately, that is NOT going to be enough to dismantle or destroy an enemy as resourceful and adaptive as ISIS.
Self-propaganda notwithstanding, ISIS knows that the West does not bomb indiscriminately. ISIS knows, for example, that having its members living in small groups of 2-3 in local citizen apartments and homes ensures their safety to very high degrees. Yes, Kobani was bombed to rubble; but that's because roughly 98% of the people from Kobani had already left for Turkey.
On the other hand, we know roughly 98% of the citizens of Raqqa and Mosul, totaling over two million people, ARE STILL LIVING in those cities.
NO INDISCRIMINATE BOMBINGS IN RAQQA AND MOSUL BY AMERICA.
That, indeed, is invaluable information for ISIS.
Further, living in small cells among local citizens also allows ISIS members to monitor the citizens in ways they couldn't have, if they were living among themselves in the desert, in dug-out and "fortified" tunnels or holes, in mountains or training facilities.
I'll say only a few words about wars, in general, and about the two Bush wars, in specific: "If we had kept 10K-50K soldiers there, none of these would have happened" is simply a fanciful wish. There are many kinds of "facts," but here is one that stands the test of time: occupying forces and colonialism breed generational contempt and resentment.
Unless the locals wanted you occupying their country, and hardly anyone does, it doesn't matter how powerful you are, militarily, they'd eventually find a way to defeat you and send you home. Even when the locals are somehow forced to be receptive to the idea as it was with Germany, South Korea, and Japan after WWII and the Korean War, respectively, it's too costly.
The TENS OF THOUSANDS of troops still stationed in bases across Europe and Asia, for example, cost America MANY BILLIONS of dollars, per year.
Thus, leaving 10K-50K American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, each, for years to decades, is a non-starter. But, again, doing that would create so much resentment and distrust on both the occupied and the occupiers, there'd never be peace.
That old line of argument, therefore, has little to no merit. And that's that.
Please, note that at the time I first started writing this, late 2014, shortly after Obama started bombing ISIS, there were no more than a few hundred active American soldiers in Iraq, in the various obscure "training" or spying roles and capacities.
Today, there are, in Iraq alone, close to 4,000 uniformed, active American soldiers. Possibly more. They're not at the front-line, true.
But "the front line" is always shifting, so any day of the week, they could be attacked or captured. The situation in the city of Baghdadi and the base a few miles from it, with those 300-500 American marine "trainers," showed that ISIS could attack any city, any time they want. ISIS has a web of conquered towns and cities dotting the Syrian and Iraqi landscapes.
Being merely confined to "just military bases" doesn't make American soldiers all that safe.
The main thrust to this piece, therefore, is how to successfully fight ISIS, with no more than a 1.5 to 2 full brigades (5,000 to 8,000) of SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES from America and its allies, using an "out of the box" strategy.
I won't cite any map here that shows the territories under ISIS control. Some maps show, for example, lands from eastern Syria all the way to the periphery of Baghdad, Iraq, as being controlled by ISIS. I don't think that's very accurate. Most of that are just unoccupied and unlivable deserts.
The more detailed maps show the exact routes and locations under ISIS control. And while it's been estimated that one to two thousand ISIS members have been killed due to bombings the last a couple months, many more thousands have been recruited, during that same period. The range I'd use for active ISIS fighters, based on the reading I've done in the last a couple months, therefore, puts ISIS's strength between 20,000 and 40,000.
So, yes, it is true it'd be foolish to take on 20K-40K fanatics using only 5K-8K special operations forces, in urban settings, doing door to door fighting in towns and cities.
That's not what I am suggesting...
Here, I am talking about inserting small and highly mobile units of 100-200 special operations forces in the various important nodes and junctures OUT THERE IN THE DESERTS, away from urban areas.
In this strategy, anyone who approaches such units, seen miles out, 24/7, needs to be annihilated immediately.
How is that possible?
Unlike North America, Latin America, South Americas, Southeast Asia, or tropical Africa where there are dense forests and jungles and deep valleys and tall mountains in which large groups in the hundreds to thousands could easily hide and survive, for months and years, most of the Middle East is desert or other inhospitable terrains.
To get from points A to B, for supply and re-enforcement purposes, you need to travel through routes; cutting across vast deserts with freezing and boiling temperatures all happening in a 24-hour cycle, TO AVOID SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES, is not going to be easy for ISIS.
We have night vision, Apaches, Black Hawks, satellites, drones, F-22s, F-15s, F-16s, F-18s, B-1s, B-52s, etc.
When you control those important nodes and junctures, in such hostile desert environments, you have a very significant say in how a group like ISIS operates.
It used to be the case that, for example, ISIS would parade in new, gleaming Toyota Tundras, with scary black flags flying proud and high in the air, as they marauded from one town to the next. After some 6 months of constant bombing, no more such large activities or parades.
But ISIS is still expanding. Why? Because they are still able to move as they please, traveling in smaller contingents.
By deploying 5K-8K special operations forces from the USA, Europe, and (Sunni-majority) Arab countries like Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates --- and by deploying them in small, mobile units at important nodes and junctures between Syria and Iraq --- you largely stop all easy ISIS vehicular traffic.
A strangle-hold on ISIS supply, re-supply, and re-enforcement activities means eventual death for the terror organization.
And there should be only ONE RULE, in this strategy: KILL ALL WHO APPROACH YOU IN THE VAST DESERT.
No exceptions made.
Millions of leaflets, therefore, are needed to be dropped in villages, towns, and cities all over Syria and Iraq. Harsh and unfair, true, but it must be done. A short term acute suffering is likely better than a long term and unstoppable ISIS-like cancerous infestation all over the Middle East, Africa, and beyond.
That would allow tens to hundreds of thousands of local Syrian, Iraqi and Kurdish forces to fight in towns and cities, doing door to door fighting against ISIS in terrain lay-outs and among local people Syrian and Iraqi forces know and understand best.
And this, or a similar strategy, needs to be implemented. Better sooner than later.
Contrary to Obama's nonsensical assertion --- e.g., "This war on terror won't be over in weeks or months; it will take years" --- TIME IS THE ESSENCE.
And time is NOT on our side.
If ISIS is a cancer, as Obama and his advisors correctly argue it is, then giving a vicious, fast-spreading cancer YEARS to spread defeats any point in trying to stop it in the first place. A cancer that is both vicious and fast-spreading needs to be operated on and taken out ASAP.
This strategy accomplishes three major aims as follows:
#1: It will minimize injuries and deaths to both American troops as well as civilians, since most civilians will stay in town.
#2: It allows Syrians and Iraqis to do city to city, street to street, and door to door fighting among civilian populations with traditions and languages they know best.
How or why does this strategy work?
Napoleon and Frederick the Great were right: an army, even one like ISIS, marches on its stomach.
We are very MOBILE, both vertically and laterally.
ISIS IS 100% NOT VERTICALLY MOBILE.
Adding a strangle-hold on their lateral movements, too, and you pretty much starve them of the men and supplies they had to have in order to keep up with and to expand their pillaging and killing.
#3: This approach cannot easily be propagandized by ISIS and their sympathizers as an invasion, much less an occupation.
A 5K-8K SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES contingent can be air-lifted out of their desert posts, within a week or two, once Syrians and Iraqis have taken back all their villages and towns and cities.
This latter aspect of point #3 is, indeed, one of the most "sticky points" in large troop application in foreign countries. We all know that when you send tens to hundreds of thousands of troops to a FOREIGN COUNTRY to fight, the question always is: what do you do, once you've defeat the enemies?
Do you create large bases and stay to occupy the country? Or do you leave, after having sacrificed thousands of wounds and dead, in town to town, city to city, doing door to door fighting?
To me, then, sending in a rapid deployed contingent of highly armed, highly mobile special ops forces is the most palatable, intelligent, and effective approach to this ISIS crisis.
But, again, TIME IS NOT ON OUR SIDE.
ISIS is expanding.
Month after month, even under constant American and ally bombing, ISIS has been able to consistently recruit thousands of fresh faces. More worrying, new groups are sprouting all over the Middle East and Africa ... all pledging allegiance to ISIS.
Again, the Obama people keep saying fighting ISIS would take years, not months.
But the American people are already starting to turn against that doctrine and belief; even Obama himself is already starting to equivocate...
Right now, there are around 4K American "advisers" in, over, or around Iraq and Syria. What would happen, ask yourself, if one, two, or ten uniformed men and women were captured and then decapitated, or BURNT ALIVE, like that Jordanian pilot?
Do you really think Obama would stick with his usual "no American boots on the ground"? Of course not! If THAT GRIM SCENARIO HAPPENED, many thousands would be sent in immediately.
But IF THAT WHOLE MORBID CASCADE CAME TO PASS it would NOT, then, be a proactive approach.
Knee-jerk responses are not sound foreign policies.
In early 2014, when ISIS was just starting to become more visible and formally splitting away from Al Qaida, the percentage of Americans favoring "ground troops" was in the high teens to 20% range.
By late summer of 2014, when ISIS was running in circles around Syrian rebels, Iraqis armed forces and Kurds, that number ticked up only very slightly.
Now, "the Ides of March" approaches, 2015.
The percentage of Americans supporting the "ground troops" approach is now in the 50% range. More worrying still, the percentage of Americans saying "Obama doesn't have a plan to defeat ISIS" or that "his bombing campaign has failed" is also around the 50% range.
As the pressure slowly builds, Obama finds that "no troops on the ground," for both doctrinal and practical purposes, simply because "the American citizens are tired of wars" is almost as bad as putting thousands of troops on the ground, in combat roles, simply because most American citizens are now "for it."
This complex and shifting reality, then, is Obama's greatest dilemma.
After a couple times, it's all gone to hell, with junks missing and things I've never written or read popping up out of thin air!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Here's a better edited (and final) draft.
If it were to be published, again, I would have to do an additional 50% reduction, with tons of additional editing & spelling checks; but for general reading purposes alone, here, this is decent enough.
My original title was called "THE TOYOTA TUNDRA WAR."
But, as usual, I changed my mind and thought "You Are No Sun Tzu, Sir" was a bit more irrelevant!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sunday, December 28, 2014
Friday, February 20, 2015
Saturday, Feb. 21, 2015
Sunday, Feb 22, 2015
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
You Are No Sun Tzu, Sir!
Sun Tzu and THE ART OF WAR can be read on-line, so I will not talk about them here.
But this was written with Sun Tzu in mind, in terms of "thinking outside the box."
I asked myself, "How would Sun Tzu, the great war theoretician, deal with these peace-loving Islamists in the 21st century who quote the QURAN, on the one hand, while they decapitate and display severed heads on poles in downtown squares wherever they rule, on the other"?
Here, I tried to articulate a strategy that would help win a war against ISIS. There are different ways to defeat ISIS. And ISIS is easily defeated, if casualties among the populations were no object. But since civilian casualties are now high in America's consciousness, given the recent wars America has conducted in this same region, this new strategy, then, is the most palatable.
But, first, a few about ISIS...
Arguments to the contrary notwithstanding, ISIS is just like Al Qaida, a terror organization. But ISIS is more organized and better-funded.
Initially funded by some Middle Eastern Sunni Muslim conservatives, ISIS is now largely self-sufficient. It has taken over cities with banks, with hundreds of millions in cash. It also has captured a lot of lands with oil fields. And, despite the bombings by Americans and a few Arab allies, oil still earns ISIS millions of dollars, per month, in small trucking operations.
Two other noticeable income generators for ISIS are racketeering (the extortion of money and goods from local businesses) and kidnapping. It is estimated that ransom payments have netted ISIS and close affiliates tens of millions over just the last 2 years alone.
Each war has its own peculiarity and unique circumstances. This stratagem here pertains to this war against ISIS only. And since about 99.5% of ISIS enemies are Muslims in the Middle East, Muslims, I will argue, must take the lead in this fight.
More specifically, Syrians and Iraqis must be the ones who do the actual town to town, door to door fighting.
America, Europe, and other non-Syrian and non-Iraqi partners should only play a supporting role. But that supporting role must be more than just dropping bombs from 30K to 50K feet up. Dropping a few big bombs and lopping a few missiles from distances, with complete game-like infrared pictures of exploding warehouses, is viscerally satisfying; unfortunately, that is NOT going to be enough to dismantle or destroy an enemy as resourceful and adaptive as ISIS.
Self-propaganda notwithstanding, ISIS knows that the West does not bomb indiscriminately. ISIS knows, for example, that having its members living in small groups of 2-3 in local citizen apartments and homes ensures their safety to very high degrees. Yes, Kobani was bombed to rubble; but that's because roughly 98% of the people from Kobani had already left for Turkey.
On the other hand, we know roughly 98% of the citizens of Raqqa and Mosul, totaling over two million people, ARE STILL LIVING in those cities.
NO INDISCRIMINATE BOMBINGS IN RAQQA AND MOSUL BY AMERICA.
That, indeed, is invaluable information for ISIS.
Further, living in small cells among local citizens also allows ISIS members to monitor the citizens in ways they couldn't have, if they were living among themselves in the desert, in dug-out and "fortified" tunnels or holes, in mountains or training facilities.
I'll say only a few words about wars, in general, and about the two Bush wars, in specific: "If we had kept 10K-50K soldiers there, none of these would have happened" is simply a fanciful wish. There are many kinds of "facts," but here is one that stands the test of time: occupying forces and colonialism breed generational contempt and resentment.
Unless the locals wanted you occupying their country, and hardly anyone does, it doesn't matter how powerful you are, militarily, they'd eventually find a way to defeat you and send you home. Even when the locals are somehow forced to be receptive to the idea as it was with Germany, South Korea, and Japan after WWII and the Korean War, respectively, it's too costly.
The TENS OF THOUSANDS of troops still stationed in bases across Europe and Asia, for example, cost America MANY BILLIONS of dollars, per year.
Thus, leaving 10K-50K American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, each, for years to decades, is a non-starter. But, again, doing that would create so much resentment and distrust on both the occupied and the occupiers, there'd never be peace.
That old line of argument, therefore, has little to no merit. And that's that.
Please, note that at the time I first started writing this, late 2014, shortly after Obama started bombing ISIS, there were no more than a few hundred active American soldiers in Iraq, in the various obscure "training" or spying roles and capacities.
Today, there are, in Iraq alone, close to 4,000 uniformed, active American soldiers. Possibly more. They're not at the front-line, true.
But "the front line" is always shifting, so any day of the week, they could be attacked or captured. The situation in the city of Baghdadi and the base a few miles from it, with those 300-500 American marine "trainers," showed that ISIS could attack any city, any time they want. ISIS has a web of conquered towns and cities dotting the Syrian and Iraqi landscapes.
Being merely confined to "just military bases" doesn't make American soldiers all that safe.
The main thrust to this piece, therefore, is how to successfully fight ISIS, with no more than a 1.5 to 2 full brigades (5,000 to 8,000) of SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES from America and its allies, using an "out of the box" strategy.
I won't cite any map here that shows the territories under ISIS control. Some maps show, for example, lands from eastern Syria all the way to the periphery of Baghdad, Iraq, as being controlled by ISIS. I don't think that's very accurate. Most of that are just unoccupied and unlivable deserts.
The more detailed maps show the exact routes and locations under ISIS control. And while it's been estimated that one to two thousand ISIS members have been killed due to bombings the last a couple months, many more thousands have been recruited, during that same period. The range I'd use for active ISIS fighters, based on the reading I've done in the last a couple months, therefore, puts ISIS's strength between 20,000 and 40,000.
So, yes, it is true it'd be foolish to take on 20K-40K fanatics using only 5K-8K special operations forces, in urban settings, doing door to door fighting in towns and cities.
That's not what I am suggesting...
Here, I am talking about inserting small and highly mobile units of 100-200 special operations forces in the various important nodes and junctures OUT THERE IN THE DESERTS, away from urban areas.
In this strategy, anyone who approaches such units, seen miles out, 24/7, needs to be annihilated immediately.
How is that possible?
Unlike North America, Latin America, South Americas, Southeast Asia, or tropical Africa where there are dense forests and jungles and deep valleys and tall mountains in which large groups in the hundreds to thousands could easily hide and survive, for months and years, most of the Middle East is desert or other inhospitable terrains.
To get from points A to B, for supply and re-enforcement purposes, you need to travel through routes; cutting across vast deserts with freezing and boiling temperatures all happening in a 24-hour cycle, TO AVOID SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES, is not going to be easy for ISIS.
We have night vision, Apaches, Black Hawks, satellites, drones, F-22s, F-15s, F-16s, F-18s, B-1s, B-52s, etc.
When you control those important nodes and junctures, in such hostile desert environments, you have a very significant say in how a group like ISIS operates.
It used to be the case that, for example, ISIS would parade in new, gleaming Toyota Tundras, with scary black flags flying proud and high in the air, as they marauded from one town to the next. After some 6 months of constant bombing, no more such large activities or parades.
But ISIS is still expanding. Why? Because they are still able to move as they please, traveling in smaller contingents.
By deploying 5K-8K special operations forces from the USA, Europe, and (Sunni-majority) Arab countries like Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates --- and by deploying them in small, mobile units at important nodes and junctures between Syria and Iraq --- you largely stop all easy ISIS vehicular traffic.
A strangle-hold on ISIS supply, re-supply, and re-enforcement activities means eventual death for the terror organization.
And there should be only ONE RULE, in this strategy: KILL ALL WHO APPROACH YOU IN THE VAST DESERT.
No exceptions made.
Millions of leaflets, therefore, are needed to be dropped in villages, towns, and cities all over Syria and Iraq. Harsh and unfair, true, but it must be done. A short term acute suffering is likely better than a long term and unstoppable ISIS-like cancerous infestation all over the Middle East, Africa, and beyond.
That would allow tens to hundreds of thousands of local Syrian, Iraqi and Kurdish forces to fight in towns and cities, doing door to door fighting against ISIS in terrain lay-outs and among local people Syrian and Iraqi forces know and understand best.
And this, or a similar strategy, needs to be implemented. Better sooner than later.
Contrary to Obama's nonsensical assertion --- e.g., "This war on terror won't be over in weeks or months; it will take years" --- TIME IS THE ESSENCE.
And time is NOT on our side.
If ISIS is a cancer, as Obama and his advisors correctly argue it is, then giving a vicious, fast-spreading cancer YEARS to spread defeats any point in trying to stop it in the first place. A cancer that is both vicious and fast-spreading needs to be operated on and taken out ASAP.
This strategy accomplishes three major aims as follows:
#1: It will minimize injuries and deaths to both American troops as well as civilians, since most civilians will stay in town.
#2: It allows Syrians and Iraqis to do city to city, street to street, and door to door fighting among civilian populations with traditions and languages they know best.
How or why does this strategy work?
Napoleon and Frederick the Great were right: an army, even one like ISIS, marches on its stomach.
We are very MOBILE, both vertically and laterally.
ISIS IS 100% NOT VERTICALLY MOBILE.
Adding a strangle-hold on their lateral movements, too, and you pretty much starve them of the men and supplies they had to have in order to keep up with and to expand their pillaging and killing.
#3: This approach cannot easily be propagandized by ISIS and their sympathizers as an invasion, much less an occupation.
A 5K-8K SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES contingent can be air-lifted out of their desert posts, within a week or two, once Syrians and Iraqis have taken back all their villages and towns and cities.
This latter aspect of point #3 is, indeed, one of the most "sticky points" in large troop application in foreign countries. We all know that when you send tens to hundreds of thousands of troops to a FOREIGN COUNTRY to fight, the question always is: what do you do, once you've defeat the enemies?
Do you create large bases and stay to occupy the country? Or do you leave, after having sacrificed thousands of wounds and dead, in town to town, city to city, doing door to door fighting?
To me, then, sending in a rapid deployed contingent of highly armed, highly mobile special ops forces is the most palatable, intelligent, and effective approach to this ISIS crisis.
But, again, TIME IS NOT ON OUR SIDE.
ISIS is expanding.
Month after month, even under constant American and ally bombing, ISIS has been able to consistently recruit thousands of fresh faces. More worrying, new groups are sprouting all over the Middle East and Africa ... all pledging allegiance to ISIS.
Again, the Obama people keep saying fighting ISIS would take years, not months.
But the American people are already starting to turn against that doctrine and belief; even Obama himself is already starting to equivocate...
Right now, there are around 4K American "advisers" in, over, or around Iraq and Syria. What would happen, ask yourself, if one, two, or ten uniformed men and women were captured and then decapitated, or BURNT ALIVE, like that Jordanian pilot?
Do you really think Obama would stick with his usual "no American boots on the ground"? Of course not! If THAT GRIM SCENARIO HAPPENED, many thousands would be sent in immediately.
But IF THAT WHOLE MORBID CASCADE CAME TO PASS it would NOT, then, be a proactive approach.
Knee-jerk responses are not sound foreign policies.
In early 2014, when ISIS was just starting to become more visible and formally splitting away from Al Qaida, the percentage of Americans favoring "ground troops" was in the high teens to 20% range.
By late summer of 2014, when ISIS was running in circles around Syrian rebels, Iraqis armed forces and Kurds, that number ticked up only very slightly.
Now, "the Ides of March" approaches, 2015.
The percentage of Americans supporting the "ground troops" approach is now in the 50% range. More worrying still, the percentage of Americans saying "Obama doesn't have a plan to defeat ISIS" or that "his bombing campaign has failed" is also around the 50% range.
As the pressure slowly builds, Obama finds that "no troops on the ground," for both doctrinal and practical purposes, simply because "the American citizens are tired of wars" is almost as bad as putting thousands of troops on the ground, in combat roles, simply because most American citizens are now "for it."
This complex and shifting reality, then, is Obama's greatest dilemma.