Post by dustdevil28 on Nov 25, 2015 20:51:37 GMT -8
As we know President Hollande of France came up empty in his visit to the US. However, he still has a visit to Moscow as he seeks to build a coalition to take on ISIS. I am curious what the final formation of this coalition will look like and what their commitment to action by ground forces will be.
So far within the US their has been plenty of talk about the need for ground forces with several Presidential candidates (GOP and Dem) stating the solution is to have sunni muslim ground forces, either from Jordan, Saudi Arabia, or elsewhere, take the fight to ISIS. This all seems like a common sense solution to present to an American public but it ignores the obvious fact the strategy has already been tried by the Obama administration. When the Sauds and the Jordanians balked at the idea the Obama administration attempted to build its own Syrian opposition force. We might remember they invested around 500 million dollars in this venture, yet it was so unsuccessful it only lead to the training of five Syrians....
Action by the air forces of the world is seen as an attractive option by those of little military knowledge because it produces immediate results with little threat to our service members. Those in the US may be happy at increased airstrikes by Russian and French aircraft as they strike targets the US has avoided due to concerns over civilian casualties. Indeed if an aircampaign similar to the ones carried out in world war two were conducted, (i.e. carpet bombing whole towns) there might be results, but it remains to be seen wither the French or even the Russians will ever reach that point. America certainly wont. It should also be noted the Syrian air campaign throughout the conflict has been as ruthless as possible, with their use of helos to conduct barrel bomb attacks on whole neighborhoods with no regard for civilian casualties. Couple this with the fire and forget shelling of towns held by the opposition and the Syrian regime should have one this campaign by now, but at best it has remained a stalemate with the Syrian regime only holding on due to its massive aid flowing from Iran and Russia. The lesson to be learned, of course, is an air campaign alone does not win a war. Their needs to be a capable ground force to coordinate with and who will follow up the attacks by occupying the land.
As President Hollande of France makes his rounds and builds his coalition there is commentary which states the French do not have a military capable of strikeing and occupying lands held by ISIS. Perhaps this is true of this moment. It should also be noted the muslim population radicalization within France has gotten so bad they are going to be fighting a counterinsurgency within their own country. That said I have one suggestion to President Hollande. He has called this attack an act of war, and stated the French would be ruthless in their fight against ISIS. If that is the case then at some point it calls for a massive call to arms by the French. Hollande has to see this attack as one which can not be tolerated in the least, and realizing his military is not adequately funded, he has to advocate for a massive increase in spending in order to build the French armed forces. His goal should be an increase in the French forces which in one year will be large enough to meet its commitments at home, while also taking the war to ISIS on the ground. The goal of the ground attack should be initially to take over land held by ISIS in Syria. If they can work our an arrangement with Turkey and the Syrian Kurds, or through Russia and Syrian President Assad, they should have a path to attack ISIS.
Provided the Iraqis can follow up with an offensive within their own country it should squeeze ISIS and make it a shell of what it is today.
The issues with this idea are obvious, but are something I hope the French undertake regardless. Otherwise I am afraid we are just waiting for the next attack, and the one after that.
-DD
So far within the US their has been plenty of talk about the need for ground forces with several Presidential candidates (GOP and Dem) stating the solution is to have sunni muslim ground forces, either from Jordan, Saudi Arabia, or elsewhere, take the fight to ISIS. This all seems like a common sense solution to present to an American public but it ignores the obvious fact the strategy has already been tried by the Obama administration. When the Sauds and the Jordanians balked at the idea the Obama administration attempted to build its own Syrian opposition force. We might remember they invested around 500 million dollars in this venture, yet it was so unsuccessful it only lead to the training of five Syrians....
Action by the air forces of the world is seen as an attractive option by those of little military knowledge because it produces immediate results with little threat to our service members. Those in the US may be happy at increased airstrikes by Russian and French aircraft as they strike targets the US has avoided due to concerns over civilian casualties. Indeed if an aircampaign similar to the ones carried out in world war two were conducted, (i.e. carpet bombing whole towns) there might be results, but it remains to be seen wither the French or even the Russians will ever reach that point. America certainly wont. It should also be noted the Syrian air campaign throughout the conflict has been as ruthless as possible, with their use of helos to conduct barrel bomb attacks on whole neighborhoods with no regard for civilian casualties. Couple this with the fire and forget shelling of towns held by the opposition and the Syrian regime should have one this campaign by now, but at best it has remained a stalemate with the Syrian regime only holding on due to its massive aid flowing from Iran and Russia. The lesson to be learned, of course, is an air campaign alone does not win a war. Their needs to be a capable ground force to coordinate with and who will follow up the attacks by occupying the land.
As President Hollande of France makes his rounds and builds his coalition there is commentary which states the French do not have a military capable of strikeing and occupying lands held by ISIS. Perhaps this is true of this moment. It should also be noted the muslim population radicalization within France has gotten so bad they are going to be fighting a counterinsurgency within their own country. That said I have one suggestion to President Hollande. He has called this attack an act of war, and stated the French would be ruthless in their fight against ISIS. If that is the case then at some point it calls for a massive call to arms by the French. Hollande has to see this attack as one which can not be tolerated in the least, and realizing his military is not adequately funded, he has to advocate for a massive increase in spending in order to build the French armed forces. His goal should be an increase in the French forces which in one year will be large enough to meet its commitments at home, while also taking the war to ISIS on the ground. The goal of the ground attack should be initially to take over land held by ISIS in Syria. If they can work our an arrangement with Turkey and the Syrian Kurds, or through Russia and Syrian President Assad, they should have a path to attack ISIS.
Provided the Iraqis can follow up with an offensive within their own country it should squeeze ISIS and make it a shell of what it is today.
The issues with this idea are obvious, but are something I hope the French undertake regardless. Otherwise I am afraid we are just waiting for the next attack, and the one after that.
-DD
