Generals are in the business of firing bullets, it's what they do for a day job. Politicians are in the business of eradicating a problem in the easiest and quickest way, by spending as least money as necessary, and expending as few lives as possible. It is perfectly clear that ISIS/IS will continue in the way that they are doing unless they are stopped. But any military offensive will not get every one of them, those that are left will regroup, recruit, and start again, and again ....

Ideally, yes, that would be what politicians are supposed to. In reality? No, politicians don't really do things like that. They have personal preferences about how to deal with problems. There are no optimal solutions that minimize costs and maximize effects and even if they exist, they exist in a continuum of policy options, each option having its own group of politicians arguing in favor of it. Hence why politicians never actually solve any problems. At best, they create circumstances in which society solves the problem or the problem solves itself.

The only way to stop them entirely is either to give them what they are fighting for, or make what they are fighting for not worth it. Option 1 is not acceptable, and option 2 is down to the moderates of their own religion to say we don't want you, go away. But they could yet implode, US officials believe IS could have as many as 31,000 fighters in Iraq and Syria. Iraq expert Hisham al-Hashimi says about 30% are "ideologues", with the remainder joining out of fear or coercion. If that 70% could be persuaded to defect, they would be weakened.

I said option 1 was unacceptable, and an IS state across the whole of the Middle East clearly is not on. But, if there are in fact only 10,000 hard liners wanting strict sharia law and their own Caliphate State, is there a small area of the Middle East where they could be allowed to live on their own?

Well we could start perhaps by making it easier for IS troops to defect. I mean, currently we are not helping by throwing all of them in jail the moment they come back. A softer approach might be in order, one where they don't get jailed if they defect, but are forced to do a reintegration program, which is aimed at de-radicalization and re-education. If we could weaken IS by having the bulk of their troops defect and lay down their weapons, the problem might become more manageable.

The problem with the hardliners is that they need to be taken out in one way or another (not necessarily by killing them all). I mean, even if they get their own little free state (wouldnt be more than the size of a small city), the fact that they exist is problematic. They would still draw other hardliners to them, and they would be responsible for programs aimed at radicalizing people from all over the world. Furthermore, if they were all put together, it would essentially create on giant echoing chamber for their radical believes.

But that is only part of the problem, they also intend to free Palestine, and in 2014, the group proclaimed itself to be a worldwide caliphate which claims religious, political and military authority over all Muslims worldwide and that "the legality of all emirates, groups, states, and organizations, becomes null by the expansion of the khilāfah's (caliph's) authority and arrival of its troops to their areas.

And Hitler claimed he was creating a thousand year 'Reich'. He didn't last more then 12 years. Yes, IS claims to want to attack the rest of the world and yes, they claim to have all authority over every Muslim in the world. But those claims are for the most part hollow. Propaganda.

Many might happily go along with that to avoid prison, and pay lip service to it, Then as soon as they get home after that day's "re-training" they carry on the plotting. Putting known risks out of harms way minimises the threat as far as possible, but not entirely of course. One of the biggest UK drugs problems is within the prison system - fact. Some will be able to plot in there whilst waiting for their eventual release.

Well no. I wouldnt let that reintegration training take just one day. It would be done by experts, probably people who know how to deprogram people liberated from other cults. In any case, we got a whole science dedicated to changing peoples thinking and behavioral patterns. They should be used for this. Afterwards, it would make sense to keep monitoring them, at least for a few years, just to be sure.

The real problem might be the underlying problem that has caused so many European Muslims to go to IS. Racism and Islamophobia have become quite common and there are some pretty big, popular political parties who are intensely Islamophobic. They marginalize and push Muslims to the edge and combined with structural racism, poverty and a pretty bleak future and you are just daring them to turn against us.

But one thing is for sure and that is that throwing them in jail is very counter productive.

Well of course, but are the 30% going to let the 70% do that?

Probably not. There already have been reports of IS executing its own members because they wanted to desert and return back home. But thats something we cant control. We can at least make it attractive for people to turn back. If they make it back, great, we can help them, deradicalize them, turn them into productive citizens. If they get killed by IS trying to get back, well then they aren't a problem anymore either. Also, large scale executions of IS fighters by IS is probably gonna hurt morale of other IS troops.

ISIS/IS are mainly contained within Syria and Northern Iraq. I don't like the thought of another bloody war in the Middle East, but the longer we leave it, the stronger they will get, and the harder it will be get rid of them costing even more lives. Operation Enduring Freedom became Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003, with the US led invasion. In terms of land area they had to deal with then, it is about the same now. It is do-able again.

In case you forgot, the American led coalition lost that war. It wasn't doable then, it sure as hell isn't doable now.

I would have thought that with that backup, if a major offensive on the ground and air was announced to wipe them right out, with these coerced 70% being told, get the hell out while you can, could be a strategy for the way forward. But I am quite sure that all the Prime Ministers, Presidents, Ministries of Defence, security agencies in the Western world are talking together, but as in 2003 it will have to be USA led. The UK, France, and now Japan may lead in calling for that to happen. Does the USA have the political will?

They lost in 2003, why would they win this time? IS will go to ground, turn it into a protracted insurgency with car bombs and IED's exploding daily. The whole thing will turn into a slaughter, hundreds of thousands of people would be killed as for every bomb killing one or two Western troops, 40 locals will die as well. Their propaganda will have a field day of painting the invasion as another American led, Imperialist occupation aimed against Muslims and Islam, drawing in even more radicals to fight against the oppressor/occupier. You would also have to get rid of Assad (which would be a good thing) but that would cause further tensions with the Russians who would no doubt increase their effords to destabilize Eastern Europe as a response.

The boots on the ground can under no circumstance be Western boots. They have to be Kurdish or Syrian moderate freedom fighters, armed and funded by the West, and supported with our airstrikes.

Negative on 'The Propaganda'.

They, as Hitler: BELIEVE. It is Their Universe.

Don't look at The World thru your eyes.

Just because they are dumb enough to believe their own propaganda (and I dont think they are dumb enough to think they can really conquer the entire world, or even fully conquer the Middle East) doesn't make it any less of propaganda.

Well no. I wouldnt let that reintegration training take just one day. It would be done by experts, probably people who know how to deprogram people liberated from other cults. In any case, we got a whole science dedicated to changing peoples thinking and behavioral patterns. They should be used for this. Afterwards, it would make sense to keep monitoring them, at least for a few years, just to be sure.

I'm not sure I would want that many experts or the science developed that much. Next thing we would know some person with delusions of grandeur, like Hitler, would foist these experts on the world to program all of us.

---

Just a small item to throw into the mix, IBT - Jewish agency plans massive Aliyah of 120,000 French Jews to Israel

Sorry, my apologies, bad wording on my part. Of course any re-rehabilitation would take weeks if not months, by trained professionals. I meant at the end of any one particular day during that time!

I see what you mean. Well, they would probably have to be set up in a closed institution for as long as they are doing the rehabilitation program, and minimize contact with other fighters, at least in the early stages. They could continue to plot by themselves of course, but the point of rehabilitation is that by the end of it, they realize that violence and terrorism are wrong and unacceptable. And why continue plotting once you learn and accept that violence is not the way forward?

I disagree and you know why.

Prison created IS, prison does not counter any of the radical ideas or believes you have with better, more peaceful ideas, prison only furthers the anger and hate you might feel towards the rest of society. People come out of prison worse than when they went into it.

In fact the USA led forces did win the war. The objective was to topple Saddam's reign of terror which is what they did. He was executed in 2006 for the 1982 killing of 148 Iraqi Shi'ites. What they didn't bargain for was the unrest since then with inter-ethnic violence between the Sunnis and Shias, and the effect of the Syrian Civil War. Militarily it is quite do-able, I just don't think that the political will is there.

The objective was to remove Saddam and turn Iraq into a modern, stable democratic state. They succeeded in removing Saddam, which by all accounts was the easy part, but they utterly failed to improve the situation in Iraq. They substituted Saddams reign of terror with chaos and sectarian violence which killed hundreds of thousands of civilians. By all accounts, the US left that place in a far worse state than when they first attacked it. You know that you messed up when the people think their brutal dictator did a better job at governing a country than you.

And let me remind you of the absolutely worthless trackrecord when it comes to America successfully dismantling these kind of organizations. In Vietnam they failed to root out and destroy the Vietcong. In Afghanistan they failed to root out and destroy both the Taliban and Al Queda. In Iraq, while they did a great job of destroying the Iraqi government, they also turned Iraq into a hot zone filled with terrorists and insurgent organizations. Its safe to say that when they left Iraq, they left it with more terrorist organizations then when they first entered it. In fact, one only needs to consider the fact that IS started out during the American occupation of Iraq, and while the Americans have retreated, IS is still there, and has made significant gains.

So what evidence do you have to suggest that America is even remotely capable of starting a ground war in Syria and Iraq and successfully root out and destroy IS as an organization?

But come an IS attack in the States similar to Paris, or some American beheadings, and we could well see a major turn round in USA opinion. The USA is always the same as in WWII, not on our doorstep not our problem. Then we had Pearl Harbour. I predict the same will happen again before long.

Maybe, but even if they do want to get more involved, it remains to be seen whether they can actually do any good. So far, everything we know suggests that they cant. America is fundamentally incapable of dealing with organizations like IS.

That would be the preferred political option yes, but I doubt the Chiefs of Staff would agree with you.

Which would only support my notion that the US is incapable of fighting this war. The difference between a good general and a bad one is knowing to pick your battles. The chiefs of staff that think this is a battle America needs to wage with ground troops are the ones that have absolutely no clue what their army is capable off. I predict a disaster which in the end only makes things worse.

Interesting graph showing where the "foreign fighters" are coming from.
https://twitter.com/carlbildt/status/560009864047767552/photo/1
Seems almost that every Europian country are involved.

That is not true. But there is a 25% re-offending rate. re-offending

The main point of imprisonment is to remove undesirables from the public domain to give the public a break from their activities. Whilst also hoping that the corrective action will have some lasting effect. As we see, in 25% of cases it doesn't work, we assume that in the remaining 75% it does.

Yes, in cases of normal crime, that rate holds true. Terrorism isn't exactly like theft or fraud now is it? Terrorism is for the most part motivated by ideas that encourage anger and hatred against the state and society. People become terrorists not because they want to make a quick buck or because they see no other way out of poverty than by dealing in drugs, but because they hate and reject what the state and society stand for. And there are ideas underpinning that hatred. I don't think prison is the best place and way to take away that hatred. In fact, I think that for a lot of terrorists or would be terrorists, its only confirming their ideas about our state and society.

People come out of prison worse than when they went into it.

That is not true. But there is a 25% re-offending rate. re-offending

That depends on who runs the prison. http://www.bjs.gov/content/reentry/recidivism.cfm

---

...
America is fundamentally incapable of dealing with organizations like IS.
...
Which would only support my notion that the US is incapable of fighting this war.
...

I find myself agreeing with Мишель on this specific point, though perhaps not for the reasons he makes it.

...
In Vietnam they failed to root out and destroy the Vietcong.
...

Yes, and this is for the exact same reason.


Furthermore, I would submit that Europe is incapable for winning against 'IS' for the EXACT SAME reason...


An unwillingness, with a LOT of moral justification, to do what it takes.

In other words, we would have to become worse than they are to 'win'.

From 'nam... 'We had to DESTROY that village to save it...'

Some lines in the sand we should NOT cross... even IF its the only way to 'win'.

Therefore, since this is a WAR (except those with their 'Heads in the Sand'):

Those captured are either Legal Combatants'. POW's 'till the end of hostilities.

Or... Illegal Combatants'. Executed after capture.

Yeah, that will go over well, executing prisoners. Way to lower yourself to their level.

That depends on who runs the prison

Rubbish!!!

So the figures that you quote say 50% of USA felons get re-convicted, my figures say that 25% of UK felons re-offend.

So does the UK have a better prison system than the USA, or does the USA have a more violent society. Depends upon what you want to read into the figures.

Actually, it is a bit more than half... close to two-thirds... but you are right. much of it is due to cultural differences.

Furthermore, I would submit that Europe is incapable for winning against 'IS' for the EXACT SAME reason...

Agreed, Europe won't be any better at fighting this war than the US.

In other words, we would have to become worse than they are to 'win'.

From 'nam... 'We had to DESTROY that village to save it...'

Some lines in the sand we should NOT cross... even IF its the only way to 'win'.

That remains to be seen. I believe that escalating the level of violence, hence, getting 'worse' in order to 'win' is essentially still following the same kind of rules, fighting the same kind war, only with a lot more firepower. I still don't think you would win in that case.

Again, look at Vietnam. The amount of firepower the US could deploy at a moments notice was almost ridiculous. During Khe Sanh the US dropped so much tons of explosives from Arclight strikes alone that, under the most positive enemy casualty estimates the US dropped about 3 tons of bomb for each enemy casualty. That number goes up significantly if you start to include the tons of bomb dropped by fighter bombers and artillery rounds. And mind you, this is an estimate, the actual number of enemy combatants that died could be much lower. Hell, I think I read somewhere that above Khe Sanh alone the US dropped more tons of explosive than it had dropped above Germany during the entirety of WW2. The US was worse than the enemy, and it never helped.

Terrorism, and guerrilla warfare are strategies designed to counter the traditional Western, state led, performed by professional armies type of war. Its a counter to our traditional rule book so to speak. So I think, if we do want to win this, we need to throw out the rule book, and come up with a new rule book. Design a new strategy. One that isn't based on traditional warfare. Perhaps one that isn't even based around warfare at all.

That depends on who runs the prison

Rubbish!!!

So the figures that you quote say 50% of USA felons get re-convicted, my figures say that 25% of UK felons re-offend.

So does the UK have a better prison system than the USA, or does the USA have a more violent society. Depends upon what you want to read into the figures.

Actually, it is a bit more than half... close to two-thirds... but you are right. much of it is due to cultural differences.

There is that, and there is the huge difference in sentences as well, and overcrowding, amount spent on rehabilitation vs punishment, the list of those differences is very long. I also expect there are differences post incarceration as well, such as the ease or difficulty of obtaining gainful employment with a conviction on record.

---

There is that, and there is the huge difference in sentences as well, and overcrowding, amount spent on rehabilitation vs punishment, the list of those differences is very long. I also expect there are differences post incarceration as well, such as the ease or difficulty of obtaining gainful employment with a conviction on record.

As I said, *cultural differences*. But, then, what does one expect from a former British Colony whose earliest British citizens included a large group of the most extreme of their religious nutcases (the New World Puritans) and was used as a dumping ground for British Convicts from its founding until its independence. As much as one quarter of British "immigration" to their North American Colonies was their criminals getting sentenced to "transportation" until 1776. After that the UK had to start using Australia.

There is that, and there is the huge difference in sentences as well, and overcrowding, amount spent on rehabilitation vs punishment, the list of those differences is very long. I also expect there are differences post incarceration as well, such as the ease or difficulty of obtaining gainful employment with a conviction on record.

As I said, *cultural differences*. But, then, what does one expect from a former British Colony whose earliest British citizens included a large group of the most extreme of their religious nutcases (the New World Puritans) and was used as a dumping ground for British Convicts from its founding until its independence. As much as one quarter of British "immigration" to their North American Colonies was their criminals getting sentenced to "transportation" until 1776. After that the UK had to start using Australia.

Perhaps the first peoples should insist on them being repatriated beck to Britain?!

---

Perhaps the first peoples should insist on them being repatriated beck to Britain?!

Maybe so, maybe so. But then, what would you do about people like me with ancestry both in the 'Native American' side and on the 'British Convict transported to the New World' side?

You WIN Wars by becoming Greater Killer's, than your Enemy. No other way.

That won't win a war. You win a war by convincing the other side to surrender. Doesn't matter how you do it, just that you do. Killing is an inefficient way to that end.

---

Sorry to bring you into the real world.

You WIN Wars by becoming Greater Killer's, than your Enemy. No other way.

So you think you can win wars by simply having a better kill-death ratio? I wasn't aware the 'real world' operated in the same way as a team deathmatch game in Call of Duty or Halo.

It's a combination of winning ground area, and depleting enemy forces, resulting in a non winnable situation for the enemy. That is achieved by manpower and firepower and good tactics.

If it were that simple the Germans should have won from the Soviet Union. German kill death ratios were very much in the Germans favor even when they forced to retreat, the advances they made in terms of territory gained was massive, yet they were unable to knock out the Soviet Union. Why? Because this was in essence an industrial war. The allies won because their industrial output was superior compared to the industrial output of the Axis. Makes sense given the allied superior access to natural resources required to operate a massive industrial economy, where as Germany and Japan are both resource poor and required conquest in order to access the necessary resources.

Modern state armies are extremely economic intensive in their upkeep. Simply put, whoever has the stronger economy will inevitably win the war.

But of course, that no longer applies in modern conflict where the principal enemy of the state is not another state, but a non state actor who is not depending on a massive economy to support it. Where modern state go into heavy debt whenever they want to flex their muscles, these non state actors can actually make a profit from the conflict itself.