What would you do with regards to ISIL/ISIS/IS...?

Watch
Soldieroffortune
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#1
To give the question a bit of context;
Lets say you're a commander, you have UN backing to use any and all means at your disposal to deal with this group of miscreants what would you do? Stay out, do what's currently being done or do more?


Personally I'd revert back to the tried and tested means used in the Second World War a mass deployment of man and machine to Iraq and Israel and sweep forth like the 7th armoured division did in the days of old, politely ignore the Geneva accords for war and eviscerate these mongrels albeit leaving the states of Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen [and any others they may be in] to function as they would normally. No regime changes just... pest control if you will.


The armies of the regime and indeed the world are armed to the teeth with Tanks, fighters, bombers, MRLS and so on yet when they're actually needed to serve a decent purpose which comes along so rarely we hold back... When Libya was having an uprising we had no qualms about bombing everything there back to the stone age and leaving it a ruin but now we pull our punches using limited insignificant air strikes and trying to get the local army that isn't fit for purpose to clean up our mess, disgraceful.
0
reply
DiddyDec01
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#2
Report 6 years ago
#2
Napalm and carpet bombing.

Posted from TSR Mobile
1
reply
Soldieroffortune
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#3
(Original post by DiddyDec)
Napalm and carpet bombing.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Don't forget Daisy Cutters evil bomb designed to clear helicopter landing sites in the jungle also has the added side effect of sending out a blast wave that cuts people in two :L
0
reply
DiddyDec01
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#4
Report 6 years ago
#4
(Original post by Soldieroffortune)
Don't forget Daisy Cutters evil bomb designed to clear helicopter landing sites in the jungle also has the added side effect of sending out a blast wave that cuts people in two :L
And Beehive Rounds, 105mm fired flat. They have can pin people to trees.
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5
Report 6 years ago
#5
I'd deploy 10,000 British troops to western Syria to deal with Assad and Islamist rebels while in central Syria (ISIS territory) i'd probably carpet bomb them into the Stone Age. Were we not signed up to the Treaty of Paris, i'd possibly use some chemical weapons deployed by drones.

Having increased the size of the armed forces, i'd also deploy similar numbers of troops elsewhere.
0
reply
TheTruthTeller
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#6
Report 6 years ago
#6
Simple:

No1.: Send absolutly no British troops there. This plays into the ISIS East vs West (Crusade) Christian world against Islamic world mentality.

No2: We have sold BILLIONS of pounds worth of BAE system weaponary to gulf countries such as Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, UAE. They have more than enough capabilities to handle ISIS but they DON'T. We must use bases in those countries and coordinate air strikes on ISIS bases which we are doing, but we must RAMP it UP a notch. Apply pressure to these lazy arab states who only care about themselves and oil revenue. Saudi Arabia itself has been OBVIOUSLY funding groups like ISIS as well as other gulf countries.

No3: Who is fighting on the ground right now? KURDS AND IRANIAN BACKED SHIA MILLITIAS. What do the Kurds wants? Democratic peaceful state, which will be independent from Iraq and possibly parts of Syria. They are not the so called "moderate" Syrian rebels who will after being supplied with weapons pull of another "Libya". We must arm and train the Kurds. They are not extremists. Far from that. However, by doing this we must realise that Iraq will no longer be a unified country so we could make a deal to let the Kurds have their autonomous state within Iraq and stay a part of it.

No4: Coordinate attacks with other milliaries actively fighting ISIS. Australia and Iran have already exchanged intelligence regarding ISIS. Iran is funding Shia millitias that are the Iraqi governments only hope of not being destroyed. So try and coordinate these attacks with Iran, a country BORDERING Iraq. They have alot of experience in Iraq due to the Iran-Iraq war and have a lot to lose as it is bordering their country. Futhermore this can help improve relations between the two nations and build trust which they have already been doing in the Nuclear talks.

All of these points combined= ISIS gone. Essentially the islamic countries in the region must help fight them. Also apply pressure to Turkey to help fight ISIS. If they are so desperate to join the EU lol... Or they can help arm the Kurds, but make sure no parts of Turkey will be split into a seperatist Kurdish state.

Remember no more British troops deserve to go there and lose their lives for a war that doesn't concern them. The split second a British troop is on the ground it means the crusades have yet again commenced. The countries around ISIS have easily enough capabilities to destroy them.
4
reply
Soldieroffortune
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#7
(Original post by DiddyDec)
And Beehive Rounds, 105mm fired flat. They have can pin people to trees.
It's impressive the imagination that goes into innovative ways to kill people ahh the days of sword and spears and now we have weapons capable of wiping out entire cities and countries in a single shot...
(Original post by Rakas21)
I'd deploy 10,000 British troops to western Syria to deal with Assad and Islamist rebels while in central Syria (ISIS territory) i'd probably carpet bomb them into the Stone Age. Were we not signed up to the Treaty of Paris, i'd possibly use some chemical weapons deployed by drones.

Having increased the size of the armed forces, i'd also deploy similar numbers of troops elsewhere.
May I ask why Assad? mainly because last time we deposed a countries leader it created this mess due to the power vaccumes in Libya and Iraq.
Other than that I like!
Just imagine though getting every single bomber around from the B-52 to the Blackjack and sending them all in at once, bring back the millennium raids... it would reduce ISIL and its territory to not but a blasted heath.
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#8
Report 6 years ago
#8
(Original post by Soldieroffortune)
It's impressive the imagination that goes into innovative ways to kill people ahh the days of sword and spears and now we have weapons capable of wiping out entire cities and countries in a single shot...

May I ask why Assad? mainly because last time we deposed a countries leader it created this mess due to the power vaccumes in Libya and Iraq.
Other than that I like!
Just imagine though getting every single bomber around from the B-52 to the Blackjack and sending them all in at once, bring back the millennium raids... it would reduce ISIL and its territory to not but a blasted heath.
Assad is a Russia friendly tyrant. And in this scenario i'd keep a province of Syria under permanent occupation while allowing the Kurds to expand into central Syria.
0
reply
the bear
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9
Report 6 years ago
#9
send these mongrels to the bosom of Iblis
0
reply
seaholme
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#10
Report 6 years ago
#10
Have to agree that the people to deal with it should be the Islamic states surrounding... who have a lot to lose from ISIS if they let it get going. European interference just creates a **** load of problems and more of this "us against them" stuff. It is the Europeans who carved up Palestine/Israel and look what that's done. Carving out a Kurdish country could well just create more generations of hellish conflict. I think every time we get involved we create problems for ourselves and also usually just change the landscape of problems for those living in these areas, rather than solving them.

If the nations actually surrounding the problem took action, it would take away a lot of the idealistic ammunition about Western people wanting to crush Islam etc etc etc and reduce the power of these militant groups to recruit young minds in the future. Although having said that I'm sure there's some kind of tribal faction that can get on with some in-fighting... Iraq disintegrated into Shia vs Sunni pretty quickly!

I think international pressure and support to these nations to deal with what is going on. It sounds like Saudi Arabia and so on have actually been *arming* them, from what I've heard in the news, so this sort of attention might also get people to be a bit more transparent about where they actually stand. Shining the light and forcing a decision could get rid of all that too.
0
reply
Illiberal Liberal
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#11
Report 6 years ago
#11
It's telling that the Iraqi 'army' fled from battle (once again) as Ramadi came under attack. The response of al-Abadi? To call for the help of the Iranian-backed Shia militias to help them retake a Sunni area.

To me this shows 3 things: (i) how pathetic the Iraqi army still are; (ii) how crucial Iran is in keeping Iraq from falling to IS; (iii) how desperate the situation has become.

As for how to eliminate IS, I agree with TheTruthTeller's proposals.
1
reply
Soldieroffortune
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#12
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#12
(Original post by Rakas21)
Assad is a Russia friendly tyrant. And in this scenario i'd keep a province of Syria under permanent occupation while allowing the Kurds to expand into central Syria.
I fail to see the point you're making, he has been that way for decades so what? He kept the peace and indeed was allied to us in recent years and the same with Gaddafi and Sadam, removing strong leaders let these countries collapse in on themselves...
Also so what if he's friendly to Russia? Russia's the only reason the pigs in their carrier battle groups haven't rained fire from the heavens on every non military target in sight and allowed ISIL a completely free ride throughout Syria.
Its worth mentioning though any hypothetical move against Assad would cost a lot of men and machines he's well armed especially with those S-300's theres a good reason no one went near the coast or tried air strikes on him those things are good.
0
reply
Aj12
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#13
Report 6 years ago
#13
(Original post by Soldieroffortune)
I fail to see the point you're making, he has been that way for decades so what? He kept the peace and indeed was allied to us in recent years and the same with Gaddafi and Sadam, removing strong leaders let these countries collapse in on themselves...
Also so what if he's friendly to Russia? Russia's the only reason the pigs in their carrier battle groups haven't rained fire from the heavens on every non military target in sight and allowed ISIL a completely free ride throughout Syria.
Its worth mentioning though any hypothetical move against Assad would cost a lot of men and machines he's well armed especially with those S-300's theres a good reason no one went near the coast or tried air strikes on him those things are good.
The Syrians don't have the S-300 yet. Given the toll the war has taken on their military and how Israel seems to stroll in and out quite happily I imagine their air defence system is nowhere near what it was a few years ago.

The lack of strikes has more to do with the political climate, than the power of the Syrian military. America has few allies on striking Syria and is loathe to go it alone any more. Plus as you point out Putin is supporting Syria and could make things difficult. Some of the problems between the West and Russia can be traced back to Iraq and Libya, striking Syria would worsen relations with Russia.
0
reply
Aj12
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#14
Report 6 years ago
#14
(Original post by TheTruthTeller)
Simple:

No1.: Send absolutly no British troops there. This plays into the ISIS East vs West (Crusade) Christian world against Islamic world mentality.

No2: We have sold BILLIONS of pounds worth of BAE system weaponary to gulf countries such as Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, UAE. They have more than enough capabilities to handle ISIS but they DON'T. We must use bases in those countries and coordinate air strikes on ISIS bases which we are doing, but we must RAMP it UP a notch. Apply pressure to these lazy arab states who only care about themselves and oil revenue. Saudi Arabia itself has been OBVIOUSLY funding groups like ISIS as well as other gulf countries.

No3: Who is fighting on the ground right now? KURDS AND IRANIAN BACKED SHIA MILLITIAS. What do the Kurds wants? Democratic peaceful state, which will be independent from Iraq and possibly parts of Syria. They are not the so called "moderate" Syrian rebels who will after being supplied with weapons pull of another "Libya". We must arm and train the Kurds. They are not extremists. Far from that. However, by doing this we must realise that Iraq will no longer be a unified country so we could make a deal to let the Kurds have their autonomous state within Iraq and stay a part of it.

No4: Coordinate attacks with other milliaries actively fighting ISIS. Australia and Iran have already exchanged intelligence regarding ISIS. Iran is funding Shia millitias that are the Iraqi governments only hope of not being destroyed. So try and coordinate these attacks with Iran, a country BORDERING Iraq. They have alot of experience in Iraq due to the Iran-Iraq war and have a lot to lose as it is bordering their country. Futhermore this can help improve relations between the two nations and build trust which they have already been doing in the Nuclear talks.

All of these points combined= ISIS gone. Essentially the islamic countries in the region must help fight them. Also apply pressure to Turkey to help fight ISIS. If they are so desperate to join the EU lol... Or they can help arm the Kurds, but make sure no parts of Turkey will be split into a seperatist Kurdish state.

Remember no more British troops deserve to go there and lose their lives for a war that doesn't concern them. The split second a British troop is on the ground it means the crusades have yet again commenced. The countries around ISIS have easily enough capabilities to destroy them.
I agree with part of what you have suggested here, but further reliance on the Iranian militias will worsen the situation. There are already fears about Shia units operating in Sunni areas and the impact it may have. It will lead to further recruitment and support for ISIS given the relations between the two groups in Iraq. Iraq is a very fragmented society and that is how ISIS has managed to gain so much support. More reliance on Iran will increase this and leave Iraq worse off in the long run. It is all well and good asking for military options here, but to defeat ISIS there needs to be more of a concern for how the group formed and how those tensions can be dealt with.

Anyway yout other ideas make sense. Every time we get directly involved in the Middle East we further feed the extremist crusader narrative. Then we can go back in another ten years to deal with the next incarnation of ISIS that will have formed in response to this intervention. We have powerful allies in the ground, they need to take their own security in hand.
0
reply
RF_PineMarten
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#15
Report 6 years ago
#15
First, I'd arm the Kurds both in Iraq and Syria with more up to date weaponry and heavier weapons, and give aid to the Syrian Kurds to try to organise into a proper army, as they have done in Iraq. Negotiate for Syrian Kurds to have a similar arrangement to the Iraqi Kurds - autonomy and their own military, but probably not full independence.

Throw all the air power we've got at air strikes, so we have a much more intense bombing campaign. Try to get other countries to play a bigger role, like Turkey and the Gulf states.

I'd also want to negotiate an end to the wider Syrian war. There's no way the population in the parts of Syria under ISIS and other rebel control would tolerate the return of potentially vengeful government troops. We'd need to get a government that those people are for the most part happy with, and that is more respectful of human rights. Then back that government militarily to take on the likes of ISIS. This is very unlikely at the moment, but could happen if Assad comes under more pressure from the non-ISIS Syrian rebels.

There's actually not a lot we can do. Western ground troops would simply play into ISIS' propaganda narrative of a war between Islam and infidels, and deposing Assad through force would never end well. The Kurds deserve support but would probably not go far beyond the Kurdish areas - they'd cut supply lines and basically block ISIS expansion, but would not be advancing into ISIS' heartland.
0
reply
Illiberal Liberal
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#16
Report 6 years ago
#16
(Original post by Aj12)
further reliance on the Iranian militias will worsen the situation. There are already fears about Shia units operating in Sunni areas and the impact it may have. It will lead to further recruitment and support for ISIS given the relations between the two groups in Iraq. Iraq is a very fragmented society and that is how ISIS has managed to gain so much support.
The local Sunnis in Anbar have reportedly asked for the help of the Shia militias, so it seems that even the Sunnis recognise the role the Shia militias have in protecting Iraq from IS.

I also read an interesting article (which I can no longer find) about how Sunni and Shia militias have Anbar surrounded and their attack will bring an opportunity for co-operation etc.

That being said, it is largely true that Shia militias in Sunni areas is a recipe for disaster in general.
0
reply
al_94
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#17
Report 6 years ago
#17
Nothing it's none of Britains business to deal with what's going on in the Middle East. The best thing is to completely withdraw from this conflict and let them deal with it themselves.
0
reply
RF_PineMarten
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#18
Report 6 years ago
#18
(Original post by al_94)
Nothing it's none of Britains business to deal with what's going on in the Middle East. The best thing is to completely withdraw from this conflict and let them deal with it themselves.
It is certainly our business if atrocities are happening that we have the power to stop without sending ground troops in. I'm not talking about overthrowing Assad here when I talk about preventing atrocities. I'm talking about ISIS and specific incidents like Sinjar, where thousands of Yazidis escaped genocide because of US air strikes on ISIS. Or Kobane, where Kurds faced a similar attempt by ISIS to wipe them out.

We (UK and USA) kind of contributed to the ISIS problem by invading Iraq and then badly handling it afterwards (e.g. disbanding the army). For us to then sit back and do nothing and distance ourselves from any responsibility for the humanitarian catastrophe we helped create would be morally repugnant.
0
reply
al_94
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#19
Report 6 years ago
#19
(Original post by RFowler)
It is certainly our business if atrocities are happening that we have the power to stop without sending ground troops in. I'm not talking about overthrowing Assad here when I talk about preventing atrocities. I'm talking about ISIS and specific incidents like Sinjar, where thousands of Yazidis escaped genocide because of US air strikes on ISIS. Or Kobane, where Kurds faced a similar attempt by ISIS to wipe them out.
You do realise ISIS and others are not scared of UK, USA? They are not going to just give up because of the western powers. They don't care if they die fighting them in fact they have been saying for Americans to come and fight them. You are acting as if you know the full story when you're not even there. One thing the western media doesn't show us is that ISIS has massive support in the region. It's not just Islamic radicals that support ISIS many of them are Saddam loyalists. They see it as a resistance to their long time enemies in the region and it's all come out from events that have occurred there.

(Original post by RFowler)
We (UK and USA) kind of contributed to the ISIS problem by invading Iraq and then badly handling it afterwards (e.g. disbanding the army). For us to then sit back and do nothing and distance ourselves from any responsibility for the humanitarian catastrophe we helped create would be morally repugnant.
What is America going to do? You don't even know the plan. They tried to hand over Iraq to the Shia and that flopped. I think you should be honest you aint got a clue how to resolve the conflict. The best thing to do is stay out of it they never helped before and they are not going to know.
0
reply
RF_PineMarten
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#20
Report 6 years ago
#20
(Original post by al_94)
You do realise ISIS and others are not scared of UK, USA? They are not going to just give up because of the western powers. They don't care if they die fighting them in fact they have been saying for Americans to come and fight them. You are acting as if you know the full story when you're not even there. One thing the western media doesn't show us is that ISIS has massive support in the region. It's not just Islamic radicals that support ISIS many of them are Saddam loyalists. They see it as a resistance to their long time enemies in the region and it's all come out from events that have occurred there.


What is America going to do? You don't even know the plan. They tried to hand over Iraq to the Shia and that flopped. I think you should be honest you aint got a clue how to resolve the conflict. The best thing to do is stay out of it they never helped before and they are not going to know.
ISIS may not be "scared" of the UK and USA, but air strikes have forced them to retreat in a number of places and have allowed people to escape from them. I mentioned Sinjar and Kobane in my last post. You say ISIS isn't just going to give up because of Western air strikes, but they're certainly not going to give up if Western countries sit back and watch them as they expand their caliphate which is run under what is basically fascism.

Of course I'm not an expert on resolving conflicts in the Middle East, but this is a thread specifically asking what you would do, so I responded to it with a relevant post based on my ideas and what I do know about the situation. And I did specify "without sending ground troops".
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Should the school day be extended to help students catch up?

Yes (27)
27%
No (73)
73%

Watched Threads

View All