War Against ISIL

[Derek 2.0]

I believe that I stated "Japan does not have a military to assist in the war against Isis ..." in my narrative/rant as a very clear description. My point was that Japan is unable to participate militarily. I am sure that you know that the Japanese military consists of; Japan Ground Self-Defense Force (Army), Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (Navy) and the Japan Air Self-Defense Force (Air Force). And I am sure that you understand that the reason for that specific naming is "Self Defense" and cannot be deployed outside of Japan. You might admit that condition to verify that "Japan does not have a military to assist in the war against ISIS". Unless of course Japan uses the old American "preemptive defensive attack" excuse but would still have trouble explaining shooting offshore.

I'm not sure your point........Canada= Department of National Defense....USA= Department of Defense....UK= Ministry of Defense

None the less, the J(M)SDF deployed forces to Iraq in 2004 and naval forces to the Indian Ocean during the GWOT........Perhaps this will help add factual perspective to your narrative/rant

As to how the $200 million pledge would be spent, I suggest that it would either assist ISIS or would not assist ISIS. I suggest that it would not assist ISIS and since the coalition is also not assisting ISIS that they would both be working towards the same goal. But that might be picking at insignificant details that have little to do with the intent of the post.

Thank you for reading my post and your views on my narrative/rant.

Would donating aid to refugees help/hinder ISIS in your view..........as to the intent of your post, it reads (to myself anyways) that the Japanese were unable to join the fight due to lack of a miltary, but instead dropped money instead of bombs to aid the anti-ISIS cabal.......and now two Japanese citizens have been captured as a direct result.

[Big Guy]

I did check your reference to Japanese troop deployment and found you are right. I stand corrected. Thank you for the information. My perception remains that the reason for the demand of $200 million for the Japanese hostages matches the $200 million the Japanese have promised anti-ISIS organizations.

It will be interesting to see if Japan will be prepared to deploy any kind of military intervention to assist the hostages.

[Big Guy]

So when is participating in a ground war not participating in a ground war?

The Canadian military was involved in an exchange of gunfire with ISIS forces on the ground in Iraq. This is exactly how we got sucked into the Afghanistan debacle.

What is the difference?

[overthere]

So when is participating in a ground war not participating in a ground war?

The Canadian military was involved in an exchange of gunfire with ISIS forces on the ground in Iraq. This is exactly how we got sucked into the Afghanistan debacle.

What is the difference?

What do you think those Canadians were doing on the ground?

I'll give you a hint so you don't have to flounder endlessly.

How do you think ISIS ground targets are evaluated and selected by the Allied aerial for subsequent air attacks?

a) throw a dart at that old Esso map of Iraq

b ) pick a direction at random, fly around until you either run low on fuel or see a bunch of people to annihilate

c) have advance teams of spotters on both sides of the front lines, special forces from US, Canada, UK and France that are supported by sniper teams, who select targets and direct air attacks while trying to remain undetected..

[Derek 2.0]

c) have advance teams of spotters on both sides of the front lines, special forces from US, Canada, UK and France that are supported by sniper teams, who select targets and direct air attacks while trying to remain undetected..

Bingo.....Though most modern aircraft have the ability to self-designate targets (sorta, kinda with the French Rafale and Eurofighter), the use of ground-based forward air controllers greatly improve the efficiency of modern air power……..The deployment of FACs and the CP-140s were part in parcel with the deployment of the Hornets……….IIRC, from the DND presser yesterday, 2/3rds of the bombs dropped by Canadian Hornets were located and designated by members of CANSOFCOM working with the Iraqi and Kurdish forces…….

The reaction from the NDP is not a surprise, but the Liberals response is reminiscent of the Chrétien Government waxing over the actual fighting that took place in the FRY, in particular Medak pocket……well Canadian forces wore blue berets…….

[overthere]

^^^

There has been very little chat of collateral damage, meaning civilian slaughter in this most recent air campaign.

I expect the DND presser was fiction with a wee bit of truth in it..... the targeting is done by SF on the ground and I think that the 2/3 is less than the actual number......and I don't believe that anybody is counting on Iraqi forces for much of anything.

I bet the spotting team is in hot water for getting found.

[Topaz]

Debates are going on at CTV and CBC's political programs and so I went and spent a few hours reading foreign newspapers on the net. I did find that the Iraqi military division, called the Golden Division, came under fire last week, and along with them were foreign military. So, could this foreign military be the Canadian military who came under fire with the Iraqis? The government says they are in training and I think that is true, but its on the job training. Canadians are going out with the Iraqis, which lead the way, and the Canadians follow behind and tell them what they should do and not do. I also thought the US did the training already with this Iraqi military, so why all this training. I think Canadians would have more concern for the government lying than having boots on the ground.

[dre]

So if they kill, say, a million people, do we just ignore that? If they start invading other countries, spreading out, killing more people, should we just shrug? How many countries do we let ISIL or ISIS or whatever they're calling themselves conquer? Do we wait until they're at the gates of Vienna to object?

Those are all just silly hypotheticals. ISIL is a tiny military force that has only been able to take control of predominantly Sunni areas where the population no longer wants to be ruled by Iranian Shia proxy governments in Iraq and Syria. They are a symptom of that condition and even if you killed every single member of ISIL it would change nothing. The 20+ Million sunnis in Iraq and Syria are not going to submit to rule by Iranian Shia.

If anything our misguided attempt to force Sunnis to live under Iranian rule will make the problem much worse.

Ever heard of the expression "Fish or Cut Bait"? Its the mindset and ideas of people like you that created this mess in the first place... People like me told you that the invasion of Iraq would distabilize the region and result in sectarian violence and a power vacuum that would be filled by extemists. But you haplessly blundered into it anyways and now we have ISIL. This current round of idiocy will produce the same result... more extremism, and more anti western sentiment. At some point... when all your ideas turn out to be really stupid... when all your plans result in epic failure... when everything you touch turns to feces, you just gotta cut bait. Stand very still, dont move, and shut the hell up. We arent helping anyone, and whats worse we have gotten hundreds of thousands of people killed with these mind-numbingly stupid and costly adventures.

Western governments need to learn to keep their hands to themselves, and stop making things worse in the middle east. Do something for your own citizens for god sakes... fix the looming healthcare crisis... rebuilding a rotting bridge... fix the potholes outside my house.

[Big Guy]

I have no problems with our armed forces doing what our armed forces are supposed to do as directed by our government. I do have problems with this Harper government misrepresenting what is happening on the ground and what Canadian involvement in this conflict entails. If the majority of Canadian people want to send our troops into ground action against ISIS then full steam ahead and do your best.

But when the majority of Canadians want nothing to do with this second Afghanistan, and our Harper government is lying - yes lying - to the Canadian people then I have a lot of problems with that. I do not trust the decisions that Harper is making on this war. If he had his way in the past he would have had us walking arm in arm with the Americans into Iraq - and suffered the same consequences - that is a matter of record. He came into power when the previous government had committed to a promised "holding position" in Afghanistan and managed to, get us into a shooting war that was a disaster. Now, he is lying to us about what the Canadian mission is in the war against ISIS.

We have an election coming this year. It looks like Harper is prepared to let the next government try to extricate Canada from another disaster that he is going to get us into.

[bush_cheney2004]

... He came into power when the previous government had committed to a promised "holding position" in Afghanistan and managed to, get us into a shooting war that was a disaster.

Revisionist history....as the previous (Martin & Chretien) governments had Canada in a shooting war long before PM Harper took office:

QUESTION 13: Did the election of the Conservative government in Ottawa lead to the change in the mandate of the Canadian Armed Forces in Afghanistan?

No. Moving the mission of the Canadian troops from Kabul to Kandahar was a decision of Paul Martin’s Liberal government.

Overall, since the early 1990s, there has been a major change in the international role as well as a progressive integration of the Canadian army with that of the United States and its offensive operations around the world. This has happened without public debate and, to a large extent, without public awareness. It was hastened following the attacks of September 11, 2001, but only made official in 2005 with the Martin government’s International Policy Statement (IPS), whose “3D” approach, linking diplomacy, defence and development, marked the new militaristic turn in Canadian foreign policy^[38]. Afterwards, of course, the minority Conservative government raised the stakes in this new orientation, and under its mandate, the result of this change has become obvious. But it didn’t instigate the change.

http://www.echecalaguerre.org/index.php?id=190

http://www.oiip.ac.at/fileadmin/Unterlagen/Dateien/Summaries/Summary_Civil_Military_Cooperation.pdf

Edited January 21, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[Big Guy]

It appears that the Americans have a slight advantage in night infrared armed drone technology;

https://www.youtube.com/embed/eBEU-OiEvII

I am glad they did not take out those goats.

The Americans seem to be pretty good at deadly video games.

Edited January 21, 2015 by Big Guy

[Big Guy]

Today it was reported that Canadian troops have been involved in two more fire fights with ISIL. That is a total of 3 in the last two weeks. This is the first instance of coalition ground troops trading fire with ISIL so it looks like Canada is leading the way.

I am sure glad that our government has assured us that Canada will not put any boots on the ground! Maybe they are wearing slippers?

[Argus]

^^^

There has been very little chat of collateral damage, meaning civilian slaughter in this most recent air campaign.

I expect the DND presser was fiction with a wee bit of truth in it..... the targeting is done by SF on the ground and I think that the 2/3 is less than the actual number......and I don't believe that anybody is counting on Iraqi forces for much of anything.

I bet the spotting team is in hot water for getting found.

Whatever collateral damage takes place would be a fraction of what ISIS is doing, and a fraction of what they would do in any town or city they conquered.

[Derek 2.0]

Whatever collateral damage takes place would be a fraction of what ISIS is doing, and a fraction of what they would do in any town or city they conquered.

I think you're missing the intent of the post........in that, without Western forces both selecting and designating targets, collateral damage would be far worse.

[Argus]

Those are all just silly hypotheticals. ISIL is a tiny military force that has only been able to take control of predominantly Sunni areas where the population no longer wants to be ruled by Iranian Shia proxy governments in Iraq and Syria.

Absent western military intervention are you saying ISIL would not conquer all, or almost all of Iraq? Recall that Hussein managed to easily hold onto largely Shia Iraq. Why would ISIL not be able to? The Iraqi army is poorly organized and led, and poorly motivated, and has fled from them at every encounter. Only the Kurds and Iraqis with the help of foreign forces are standing up to them. Absent western intervention I see no reason why ISIL could not reassert Sunni control over Iraq. From there, with the resources of the Iraqi state, they could certainly finish off the Baath regime in Syria.

And the thing is, the more success they have, the bigger they get, the more attractive they become in the eyes of world Muslims yearning for a 'Caliphate'. How many Saudis would fight against a united Caliphate to their north? Some, certainly, but Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, again, absent western military intervention, would certainly wind up falling to such a state.

92% of Saudis believe ISIL conforms to the ideals of Islam.

https://muslimstatistics.wordpress.com/2014/08/24/92-of-saudis-believes-that-isis-conforms-to-the-values-of-islam-and-islamic-law-survey/

Two thirds of Muslims in countries from Egypt to Indonesia believe in the idea of a world-wide Islamic Caliphate.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/10/two-thirds-of-muslims-in-egypt-morocco-indonesia-and-pakistan-support-unifying-all-muslim-countries-in-caliphate

They are a symptom of that condition and even if you killed every single member of ISIL it would change nothing. The 20+ Million sunnis in Iraq and Syria are not going to submit to rule by Iranian Shia.

Of course they will. Just like the 40 million Shias submitted to the rule of the 20 million Suunis. You simply have to be brutal enough to crush dissent, and ISIL, like Hussein before him, is certainly brutal.

Ever heard of the expression "Fish or Cut Bait"? Its the mindset and ideas of people like you that created this mess in the first place... People like me told you that the invasion of Iraq would distabilize the region and result in sectarian violence and a power vacuum that would be filled by extemists.

First of all, the region was already destabilized and filled with extremists. The hand-wringers like you offered up no resolution, no ideas, no solutions and no way out. Iraq might have worked if the Americans hadn't screwed it up with their child-like belief in the virtues of democracy. They should have simply conquered the place and put someone reliable in place, then set out to develop its education system. It would take years of close US presence before Iraq could begin to explore democracy, from the bottom up, starting with town councils.

Secondly, the only thing keeping Iraq together was Hussein. As with Yugoslavia, the place was almost bound to break up into civil war upon his death, a civil war which would have been worse than what we've already seen. Think Rwanda on a much larger scale.

Western governments need to learn to keep their hands to themselves, and stop making things worse in the middle east. Do something for your own citizens for god sakes... fix the looming healthcare crisis... rebuilding a rotting bridge... fix the potholes outside my house.

And then when the Islamic Caliphate dominates the middle east and all its oil, and starts swaying the fanatics of Pakistan with money and religious appeal, so that they have nukes. What then? Whoops, too late by then, eh?

Edited January 26, 2015 by Argus

[-1=e^ipi]

Absent western intervention I see no reason why ISIL could not reassert Sunni control over Iraq. From there, with the resources of the Iraqi state, they could certainly finish off the Baath regime in Syria.

What about Iran, or the Kurds, or Saudi Arabia? With no western intervention, it is unlikely that ISIS could take over all of Iraq (specifically the Northeast kurdish territories or the Shia majority territories from Bagdad to the South East), thought they might be able to drive things into a stalemate?

How many Saudis would fight against a united Caliphate to their north? Some, certainly, but Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, again, absent western military intervention, would certainly wind up falling to such a state.

Saudi Arabia is the 4th post powerful country militarily in the world. They are constructing a giant wall along their border with Iraq. If ISIS ever did try to take Saudi Arabia, it would be very bloody and probably lead to a civil war, but I can't see ISIS coming out on top given the vast difference in military strength.

Of course they will. Just like the 40 million Shias submitted to the rule of the 20 million Suunis. You simply have to be brutal enough to crush dissent, and ISIL, like Hussein before him, is certainly brutal.

You mean like the Saudis? ... Oh wait, but you just implied that the Saudi's would get overrun by ISIS without western intervention.

[Argus]

What about Iran, or the Kurds, or Saudi Arabia?

The Kurds are only surviving through western aid and intervention. The Iranians never intervened during Hussein's long reign, and have done little to date. The Saudis have their own problems.

Saudi Arabia is the 4th post powerful country militarily in the world.

That's simply nowhere near to being true. The big achilles heel of Arab armies has always been that the people in them are Arabs. And Arabs make lousy soldiers. Or maybe they're just smarter than others in that their primary motivation, absent religious enthusiasm, is self-preservation. In any event, 92% of the Saudi people think there's nothing wrong with ISIL, and that ISIL is true to the word of Islam. There is a huge enthusiasm through the Muslim world for an Islamic caliphate, and much of that Saudi military would likely melt away in the face of ISIL or go over to the other side. There is no great loyalty to the Saud family amongst ordinary citizens.

[-1=e^ipi]

The Kurds are only surviving through western aid and intervention.

They are not only surviving, but pushing back. Do you really think that the Kurdish territories in Northeastern Iraq would fall to ISIS without the west? I can see the Kurdish territories in Syria such as Kobani falling, but not the mountainous stronghold in Northeastern Iraq along Iran's border.

The Iranians never intervened during Hussein's long reign, and have done little to date.

Yeah, it's not like the Iran-Iraq war ever happened...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War

The Saudis have their own problems.

Of course they do. And they are also autocratic, with a lot of money and the 4th most powerful military in the world.

the people in them are Arabs. And Arabs make lousy soldiers.

Proof? The arabs did manage to conquer quite a lot of the world over the past 1400 years...

In any event, 92% of the Saudi people think there's nothing wrong with ISIL, and that ISIL is true to the word of Islam.

Yes, but that doesn't also mean that many of the 92% don't also think that there is nothing wrong with the Saudi Arabian government, and that the Saudi Arabian government is true to the word of Islam. Both ISIS and the Saudi Arabian government are Wahhabi Islamists and they don't really differ that much. The main point of contention is that ISIS thinks that monarchies are unislamic, which puts the Saudi Arabian government in a difficult position.

Of that 92%, how many are going to side with ISIS over the Saudi Arabian government, especially given media censorship and the autocratic control that the government has. And even if the majority of the 92% sides with ISIS, the Saudi Arabian government are the ones with all the oil money and the expensive weapons.

At worst, you would have a civil war in Saudi Arabia. In which case you have the possibility of the Islamists exhausting each other out, such that many the few liberals might be able to obtain some power. I'm going to agree with Tarek Fatah on this when he says that a conflict between ISIS and Saudi Arabia 'would be the best thing.'

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/featured/prime-time/867432237001/dont-mourn-the-saudi-king/4007890424001

There is no great loyalty to the Saud family amongst ordinary citizens.

There doesn't need to be. As long as the monarchists have control of the weapons.

Edited January 26, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[dre]

Absent western military intervention are you saying ISIL would not conquer all, or almost all of Iraq?

Yes of course Im saying that. ISIL is puny compared to all the players around it. They arent going to take any significant Shia or Kurdish territory.

Of course they will. Just like the 40 million Shias submitted to the rule of the 20 million Suunis. You simply have to be brutal enough to crush dissent, and ISIL, like Hussein before him, is certainly brutal.

No they wont. Nothing we do is going to force Iraq and Syrias sunnis to be ruled by Iranian backed Shia. Theres already a full blown civil war because of that fact.

Secondly, the only thing keeping Iraq together was Hussein.

No the Baathists were extremely stable and well entrenched, and there was plenty of other Husseins to fill Saddams shoes had he died.

And then when the Islamic Caliphate dominates the middle east and all its oil, and starts swaying the fanatics of Pakistan with money and religious appeal, so that they have nukes. What then?

Im not going to comment on whimsical, magical scenarios that exist only in your head. And the reality is, that all this latest idiotic adventure is doing is shifting the balance of power further toward Iran. I bet you have some whimsical magical scenarios that that too.

The Kurds are only surviving through western aid and intervention.

Man this is just pure silliness. Not only are the Kurds much better equipped than ISIL they also outnumber them, and the easily kept kurdish strongholds in the north west.

Edited January 27, 2015 by dre

[Big Guy]

Good news - the Kurds will soon be in control of Kobani!

Bad news - The Kurds will soon be in control of Kobani!

Now are these Kurds going to be the good guys or the bad guys? Are these the good Kurds who are killing ISIS soldiers or are these the bad Kurds who are rebelling against Turkey?

Is Canada supporting these Kurds? How do we know which is which? Do we want the Kurds to take over Turkey?

If Turkey now attacks a Kurdish Kobani do we support the Kurds? Kobani is part of Syria, if Syrian military forces attack a Kurdish Kobani do we fight the Syrians? If Syrian forces attack a Kurdish Korbani from one side and Turkey attacks a Kurdish Kobani from the other side which side do we support?

I wish these guys wore uniforms so we had a clue of what is going on.

We are being played like a fine fiddle.

[PrimeNumber]

We are being played like a fine fiddle.

The worst part is that there is still a large percent of the population of this country that still has no idea, including the current political party in charge and their leader...

[bush_cheney2004]

Looks like Canada is getting jiggy with air strikes, spotting for targets that are off limits to U.S. ground forces:

U.S. soldiers are not allowed to direct airstrikes on ISIS positions in Iraq, the Pentagon said on Tuesday, a practice that their Canadian military allies have been engaged in despite it being seen by some as a combat manoeuvre.

The Canadian government has acknowledged that Canadian advisers have been acting as forward observers, calling in airstrikes on ISIS positions and marking the targets with lasers.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/isis-fight-canadian-advisers-guiding-airstrikes-but-u-s-barred-from-doing-same-1.2934056

Warmongers !!

[On Guard for Thee]

Looks like Canada is getting jiggy with air strikes, spotting for targets that are off limits to U.S. ground forces:

U.S. soldiers are not allowed to direct airstrikes on ISIS positions in Iraq, the Pentagon said on Tuesday, a practice that their Canadian military allies have been engaged in despite it being seen by some as a combat manoeuvre.

The Canadian government has acknowledged that Canadian advisers have been acting as forward observers, calling in airstrikes on ISIS positions and marking the targets with lasers.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/isis-fight-canadian-advisers-guiding-airstrikes-but-u-s-barred-from-doing-same-1.2934056

Warmongers !!

Can you describe what jiggy means?

[Bonam]

Those are all just silly hypotheticals. ISIL is a tiny military force that has only been able to take control of predominantly Sunni areas where the population no longer wants to be ruled by Iranian Shia proxy governments in Iraq and Syria. They are a symptom of that condition and even if you killed every single member of ISIL it would change nothing. The 20+ Million sunnis in Iraq and Syria are not going to submit to rule by Iranian Shia.

No they wont. Nothing we do is going to force Iraq and Syrias sunnis to be ruled by Iranian backed Shia. Theres already a full blown civil war because of that fact.

So if these Sunni Muslims are not going to submit to rule by Iranian backed Shia... will they submit instead to rule by Great Satan backed infidels? Because that's what they are supposed to accept if they are living in Canada, for example. If not, why are we bringing millions of both Shia and Sunni, along with their age-old conflict, into Western nations?

[dre]

So if these Sunni Muslims are not going to submit to rule by Iranian backed Shia... will they submit instead to rule by Great Satan backed infidels? Because that's what they are supposed to accept if they are living in Canada, for example. If not, why are we bringing millions of both Shia and Sunni, along with their age-old conflict, into Western nations?

Thats a pretty lazy question. Why would you compare how 20 million Sunnis feel about being FORCED to live under a Dictator like Assad, to a handful of Muslims that VOLUNTARILY immigrate to Canada?