« Our enemy in the Middle East and what to call it | Main | So how do we defeat ISIS then? »

November 19, 2015


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


The key to controlling these countries is to have a strong but slightly unpalatable secular dictator in charge of each country. Kind of like Gaddafi, Mubarak, Hussein (Saddam, not Barack), Assad, or even the Shah of Iran. In all but one of these cases, we have helped depose these useful people, with unfortunate results in every case. To try to get rid of the last holdout, Assad, we have created ISIS. Stupid plan.
There has to be a better strategy than the one to which we continue to cling.


Keep in mind that the reason the Syrian Civil War started was that Assad couldn't keep a lid on things there.


I disagree in part with the article. The solution is to force ISIS into enclaves where they would do exactly as Cinn. says. They would try to wage a guerrilla asymmetrical operation.
To defeat that, you keep western troops out and let the Peshmerga, Egyptians and Jordanians sort it out.
That's were allies boots on the ground would work.
The biggest reason is they are not politically correct.


I have a much different take.
Successful wars are fought to a bloody conclusion. The only war I put in this category is WWII. WWI does not qualify.
The Germans and Japanese suffered horrific civilian casualties. There was no strength left in those people to continue a war in ANY way.
This is actually MORE humane than being a gentle victor. In that case, your enemy doesn't learn to leave you alone. They can tell themselves to come back in 3 months and try again. AND MANY MORE PEOPLE DIE.
WWI ended in armistice - not military defeat for the Germans. Because of this - and the humiliating treaty forced on the Germans by (mostly) the French - WWII happened. Serious historians all agree on this principle.
So, if WWI had gone into 1919 and 1920, but WWII had never happened, would that have been better than the what actually happened? The answer is a no brainer.
This lengthy 'what-if' is meant to illustrate the idea that brutal, nasty warfare - fighting with everything that you have - to defeat the enemy without regard for his casualties OR civilians ends up saving lives in the long run.
So force conventional warfare on your enemies. Round up males of military age and place them in internment camps. Fingerprint them. Get their DNA. Get a family hostage (very powerful for amoral familialists). Then turn the rest loose. If any family member commits a terrorist act and you get DNA, then the hostage and the whole family dies.
Brutal? Yes. Supportable by international law? Who cares, write your own. Less people die overall? WITHOUT A DOUBT.

The comments to this entry are closed.

e-mail address

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 02/2008

Blogging Tories

  • Blogging Tories