Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Iraq Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: What forces would be required to defeat ISIS
phalanx30    8/8/2014 12:14:07 PM
Say you were the commander of CENTCOM, what forces (ground, air, sea) would you need to first halt the ISIS offensive, and then crush them eventually. Lets assume rules of engagement would allow for effective use of those forces.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
CJH       8/8/2014 10:36:56 PM
All three forces if you will. Neutralize any air defense they might have acquired first of course. But then control the air so we can rain down shock and awe somewhere in Iraq to get their attention. Give them something to worry about with some spectacular strike.

Ground forces would be needed in Syria and Iraq to tip the balance in our favor and awe the locals with our resolve, i.e. show we have skin in the game.

Also, use special forces to train moderate opposition forces in Syria and also maybe the Kurds to better fight the Khilafah forces.

But we would probably best seek to sever their moral, logistical and economic roots from the beginning.

Go after their financial infrastructure, their transportation infrastructure, their means of production, etc. Use air and ground forces to deprive them of their crude oil production and refinery assets as well as the dam. Put them all on foot. Go after anyone helping them to smuggle oil out to a market.

Destroy their warehouses and ammo dumps. Pay Sunni tribe leaders in Iraq and Syria to help us.

Be ready to defend Jordan.

Those are some thoughts.

 
Quote    Reply

CJH       8/8/2014 10:55:01 PM
Of course I believe that the American people have already decided that we are safer letting matters take their own course in the Middle East than we would be by intervening.

I am conflicted.

While I agree that experience and the reality of our present role in the world do lead us to intervene, I wouldn't ask anyone to die for Obama and his policies. You don't go into battle behind someone you can't trust.

And I ultimately would prefer that the US pursue a policy of armed neutrality although I know we passed that up a century ago.

So maybe we have to sit this one out.

 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       8/9/2014 5:40:10 AM
The main need is for a political solution that will get the Sunni tribes on your side, otherwise you are just playing a losing game of 'whack-a-mole'.  That will require a believable coalition government, something that al-Maliki cannot deliver, so he has to go.
 
Deprive ISIS of their local support base and ability to hide behind civilians allows your airpower to break up any of their troop concentrations so that 20,000 moderately effective ground troops can push them out (assuming local militia can hold liberated areas).
 
The next problem is you have to continue to pursue the ISIS into Syria or they will come back when the Shia renege (again) on the coalition government.  Invading Syria is a political nightmare, side with Assad and the Sunni will switch support, side with the opposition and, well there isn’t one left that isn’t Sunni radicals, but the Shia will stab you in the back.
 
Any way you look at it, it is a giant CF.
 
Quote    Reply

ker       8/10/2014 12:02:18 AM

Any way you look at it, it is a giant CF.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Mow the yard every 5 or 6 years. We can turn a big chunk of the ME into Gaza by doing counter terorism with out counter insurgency. If you can't trust them to run rocket launchers you can't trust them to run school and meadia
 
Quote    Reply

CJH       8/10/2014 12:02:55 PM

whack-a-mole'.  That will require a believable coalition government, something that al-Maliki cannot deliver, so he has to go.

 

Deprive ISIS of their local support base and ability to hide behind civilians allows your airpower to break up any of their troop concentrations so that 20,000 moderately effective ground troops can push them out (assuming local militia can hold liberated areas).

 

The next problem is you have to continue to pursue the ISIS into Syria or they will come back when the Shia renege (again) on the coalition government.  Invading Syria is a political nightmare, side with Assad and the Sunni will switch support, side with the opposition and, well there isn’t one left that isn’t Sunni radicals, but the Shia will stab you in the back.

 

Any way you look at it, it is a giant CF.
 
 
Speculation - 
 
From what I have heard, paying off Sunni tribal leaders  was the key in Iraq. Otherwise, of course we need this.
 
Once the Khilafah's fighters are hiding behind human shields, we will know we have them contained.
 
The war in Syria is the chief radicalizer. Our role in Syria should be to awe all sides and generally be a moderating influence. Sometimes, well maybe most of the time, that requires we kill people and break things. Europe and others would help if we set a good leadership example. Putin would have interfered and maybe threatened Europe.  We know how to neutralize Putin's energy hold on Western Europe.
 
We should have come in on the side of the most moderate rebels and attrited as it were Hezbollah. We should have gotten control of the supply of arms and supplies to Assad, Hezbollah and the Sunni radicals.
 
Our most effective contribution should have been seen as leadership (organization, encouragement, enthusiasm, support , etc).
 
 Leadership, leadership, leadership!
 
We are in a war for hearts and minds over there whether we want that or not. M.E. people are expressing a desire either for what the Khilafah represents or for more of Western style civil society but seem very discontented with their status quo.
 
 That consideration should inform our whole M.E. foreign policy provided we care and that we want the latter for them rather than the former.
 
Our grand strategic goal against ISIS should be to decisively demonstrate the superiority, military, moral, etc, of Western style civil society. That will undercut ISIS as effectively as our destroying Al Qaeda in Iraq discredited Al Qaeda overall.
 
The primacy of this consideration is why murdering Bin Laden instead of bringing him to trial was a mistake.
 
And Syria-Iraq is a giant C.F.  because and only because of the moral failures of the West and of primarily the US.
 
Quote    Reply

CJH       8/10/2014 12:14:06 PM
Sorry for the rant.
I believe that given our domestic realities, successful intervention in the M.E. is no longer probably.
ation which has murdered 55 million of its helpless infants in 40 years lacks the capacity for effective and beneficial influence.
And maybe it is God's will that the Islamists prevail over us in order to mitigate our practices.
 
Quote    Reply

phalanx30       8/10/2014 2:20:22 PM
I guess I should have been more clear. I am posing a hypothetical question. Intervention: yes. As U.S. Commander on the ground. How many brigades would you need. Assume minimal support from local security forces. Also assume air dominance. For my own part I think these are the forces I would use. Stabilization: 3 brigades, light or Stryker, defensive operations mostly. Offensive: add 3 brigades. Marine Regiment as well. Holding: add 4 more brigades. Brigade Combat Team = 4,000 troops. So in the end there would be roughly 40,000 troops on the ground. Using the cohort system, we could certainly maintain this force in the long term. This might be overkill, from what I can gather ISIS has about 10,000 effective fighters. Is that right? Or do they have more. Their main form of combat power seems to be speed and maneuverability. Surprise and shock effect seem to be their main weapons.
 
Quote    Reply

CJH       8/10/2014 5:22:10 PM

I guess I should have been more clear. I am posing a hypothetical question. Intervention: yes.
As U.S. Commander on the ground. How many brigades would you need. Assume minimal support from local security forces. Also assume air dominance.

For my own part I think these are the forces I would use.

Stabilization: 3 brigades, light or Stryker, defensive operations mostly.
Offensive: add 3 brigades. Marine Regiment as well.
Holding: add 4 more brigades.

Brigade Combat Team = 4,000 troops. So in the end there would be roughly 40,000 troops on the ground. Using the cohort system, we could certainly maintain this force in the long term.

This might be overkill, from what I can gather ISIS has about 10,000 effective fighters. Is that right? Or do they have more. Their main form of combat power seems to be speed and maneuverability. Surprise and shock effect seem to be their main weapons.


I guess you know a whole lot more than I do aboutthis.
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       8/11/2014 12:48:07 AM

I guess I should have been more clear. I am posing a hypothetical question. Intervention: yes.
As U.S. Commander on the ground. How many brigades would you need. Assume minimal support from local security forces. Also assume air dominance.
 
For my own part I think these are the forces I would use.
 
Stabilization: 3 brigades, light or Stryker, defensive operations mostly.
Offensive: add 3 brigades. Marine Regiment as well.
Holding: add 4 more brigades.
 
Brigade Combat Team = 4,000 troops. So in the end there would be roughly 40,000 troops on the ground. Using the cohort system, we could certainly maintain this force in the long term.
 
This might be overkill, from what I can gather ISIS has about 10,000 effective fighters. Is that right? Or do they have more. Their main form of combat power seems to be speed and maneuverability. Surprise and shock effect seem to be their main weapons.
I would call your force underkill, not overkill.
 
To achieve your goal you have to get the Sunni tribes on your side, but to do that you have to convince them of their future safety, most of the Sunni are siding with the ISIS for protection from the current government.  Achieving that goal will require replacing the current government, who they know cannot be trusted to live up to any agreements.  This will trigger a war with the Shia militias (probably happen anyway when you have to stop them from massacring any Sunni they can).  So double your force.
 
You will also need some kind of enforcement mechanism to keep things from falling apart again and starting all over again.  The restriction will be abrogated as soon as possible by succeeding Shia government.  So figure on having to stay a good deal longer, say 20 years.
 
Quote    Reply

phalanx30       8/11/2014 6:20:50 PM
Thanks WarNerd, appreciate the response. I agree with your timeline. 20 years seems a little short to me. However, it was be a good start. Double the force, sounds right. I wonder if we could keep such a force in operation, especially with the current reduction's in force underway. And your right ISIS isn't the only threat in the area. What forces do you think would be the minimum required to simply contain ISIS, stop their offensive operations. I figured 10-15,000 troops. Would you say 20-30,000 troops?
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics