Defeating ISIS/ISIL

[Tjay]

I'm sure this subject is on the minds of many forum members. I am keen to know the opinions of those with recent war fighting experience in the Middle East as to the best combat tactics and methods. E.g. how much can be achieve by airstrikes alone? How could the mistakes made in Iraq and Afghanistan be avoided in future?

However, one person has indicated in another thread the he considers the subject impossible to discuss without straying into the politica arena - which everyone knows is unacceptable.

So may I ask a senior moderator to adjudicate on the matter? Thanks.

[dejawolf]

the main problem is if you do it wrong, it ends up being a game of whack-a-mole.

the tendencies will always be there, even in western civilized countries there's a layer of discord. all you have to do is fan the flames a bit.

[Gibsonm]

Tjay,

Regardless of any pending moderator decision, happy to discuss via PM (with pre-agreed appropriate confidentiality).

Unfortunately though, through the joys of the Internet anything I say here (and any PM content subsequently posted here) would rapidly evolve from:

Mark's personal opinion is “X” to

ADF advocates "X” to

Official Australian response is "X".

[Volcano]

Yep, I agree with Gibson. We are living in a PC world which essentially makes it impossible to voice opinion on the matter. For example, if I personally had a theory or strategy (I have thought of several, actually, as basic exercises in strategic thinking), then it would probably be interpreted as: eSim Games' IS solution is XYZ.

Unfortunately, this is also why politicians are afraid to talk about it as well. We have a current situation here were politicians either refuse to believe we are at war, and/or cannot (or outright refuse to) define what we are at war with. The same is probably true in the EU as well.

In short, there is probably no possibility of defeating IS, given the current social and political climate....

The cake has been baked, now it is time to eat it.

BTW, if Article 5 was invoked every time a NATO member was attacked like this (as per 9-11, the only time it has ever been invoked), then the "problem" *might* be stamped out of existence. The terrorists would be confronted with at least two choices: A) To instead attack a non-NATO member or B) attack a NATO member and get the full wrath, which means they would essentially be knowingly accepting that they will be run out of their known safe havens, at least. My personal opinion is that the solution revolves around more NATO action -- the real brain buster of the problem is what to do afterwards though (destroying is easy to do).

But the fact that Article 5 was not invoked here says a lot about the social and political climate, and (lack of) conviction.

Food for thought...

Edited November 17, 2015 by Volcano
added thought, clarification, typos

[Marko]

Yep, I agree with Gibson. We are living in a PC world which essentially makes it impossible to voice opinion on the matter. For example, if I personally had a theory or strategy (I have thought of several, actually, as basic exercises in strategic thinking), then it would probably be interpreted as: eSim Games' IS solution is XYZ.

Unfortunately, this is also why politicians are afraid to talk about it as well. We have a current situation here were politicians either refuse to believe we are at war, and/or cannot (or outright refuse to) define what we are at war with. The same is probably true in the EU as well.

In short, there is probably no possibility of defeating IS, given the current social and political climate....

The cake has been baked, now it is time to eat it.

BTW, if Article 5 was invoked every time a NATO member was attacked like this (as per 9-11, the only time it has ever been invoked), then the "problem" would be stamped out of existence. The terrorists would be confronted with at least two choices: A) To instead attack a non-NATO member or B) attack a NATO member and get the full wrath, which means they would essentially be knowingly accepting that they will be run out of their known safe havens, at least. My personal opinion is that the solution revolves around more NATO action -- the real brain buster of the problem is what to do afterwards though (destroying is easy to do).

But the fact that Article 5 was not invoked here says a lot about the social and political climate, and (lack of) conviction.

Food for thought...

Have you guys considered opening a PWEC thread like Sim HQ has.

Its not for the meek. but you can for the most part talk freely with the understanding that no personal insults are allowed. there's some pretty radical views but at least a member can vent with out the restrictions imposed. (rightfully on a public forum)

You could set it up so only people interested in such a forum could view its content.

Maybe with a completely different log for the forum.

[Tacbat]

Yes, it's called the FFZ (free-fire zone), but it no longer exists on here.

[12Alfa]

Throw the bankers in jail, end the money, end ISIS, simple really.

They are selling oil to Turkey, and others in the EU :mad3:, under the noses of the so call "air campaign" :confused:, again, end the money, time to wake up people.:c:

Edited November 17, 2015 by 12Alfa

[Ssnake]

If no other moderator is willing to decide here, I'll be ze German Rule Enforcer now.