Dramatic Change in Russian Attack Helicopter Tactics

[Codename Duchess]

Joch, 100% chance it wouldn't be that easy. 100% chance it's not worth a single US casualty. The exception being actions like the SF raid that cost the life of a single US operator last week.

Furthermore if it is that easy, why haven't the Iraqi or Syrian armies crushed ISIS ages ago? Their localized quantitative superiority  (several orders of magnitude above your proposed forces) should easily make up for qualitative US superiority. They also should at least enjoy a whole lot more local community/cultural support seeing as, you know, that's who they are rather than strange foreigners.  Remember these forces (Iraq more than SAA) are already getting help from the things the US absolutely does better than anyone else in the world: C4ISR and air support with precision guided munitions.

As for your Korea analogy, stationing those same forces you propose in Israel/Jordan/Turkey for defensive purposes is much more comparable than employing them offensively in Syria.  Surely you can't view Damascus and Seoul on the same level?

Edited October 25, 2015 by Codename Duchess

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

1. ISIS: controls eastern Syria/western Iraq, mostly desert, low population density, similar to Northern Mali. According to the CIA, there are a total of 20,000-30,000 ISIS fighters in Syria and Iraq. In Mali, there were an estimated 5-10,000 Islamic militants, so to maintain a similar force ratios, you would need a minimum 10-15,000 regular troops.

French forces in Mali were basically equivalent to a Stryker brigade on a budget, so U.S. forces at a minimum could be a Stryker Brigade (4500 men, 300 vehicles), which was designed for this type of operation and was the lead invasion force in CMSF. Again, prescience? The other 5-10,000 could come from other NATO members. Several EU members would have their own reasons to join, as well as perhaps Turkey, Iraq and Jordan.

Check your geography again chief.  It's not one person per however many thousand miles, it's population centered on various towns and cities.  To put your estimates to lie, it took 10,500 USMC and US Army soldiers to retake just Fallujah plus 2,000 Iraq soldiers with an assist from about 800 British Army soldiers.  Urban terrain against an asymetrical enemy is not the simple easy fight you make it out to be.  The much smaller size of the enemy, and the relative ease of isolating the smaller population centers of Mali worked to the advantage of the French.  

Iraq and Syria (and you'll have to go to Iraq too if you're looking to defeat ISIS) are not the same problem as Mali, and it continues to baffle me why you're drawing the connection.

 

2. Rebels: if the FSA/"moderate Rebels" want U.S. aid and have apparently the same aim, they should not have an issue with getting help from NATO troops. 

Which you've spent quite a long time describing how either ineffective, or secretly sunni extremists they are.  I find it interesting that their base utility entirely varies based upon what argument you're trying to make.  

 

3. Syrian Army: the last group, manned mostly by Alawites at this point. After 4 years of war, the Alawites are the Assad's only remaining domestic power base. Now is that because they love the Assad family or because the only other alternative is to hope the "moderate Rebels" won't kill them all if they take over? Maybe if they had a third alternative, they might be more open to a compromise solution. If not, it is certainly easier to negotiate a compromise if you have troops on the ground that can go into action to support the Rebels.

Pretty big assumption.  Assad is still playing for all the marbles.  As long as he's going for being the one and sole ruler of Syria, while being backed up by Russia, Iran, and various Shia terrorist groups, I'm going to say your assessment is hopelessly rosy.

Regardless you are rather setting things up for Libya part two in that you're neither addressing the reasons the Sunnis revolved in the first place, or giving the Shia a reason to feel safe around the Sunnis.  This is likely what'll happen if/when ISIS collapses anyway, but you propose doing it at great cost to everyone vs simply to the involved parties.


 

Now does the U.S. have a national interest in Syria? probably not. Does the U.S. have a national interest in South Korea? The U.S. still has 38,000 troops there 62 years after the end of the Korean War even though the South Korean army has 500,000 men.

South Korea is a very close ally, major trading partner, and someone we have a long standing defensive agreement with. Also of those 38,000 guys  only around 5,000 were "combat" soldiers, all of them located in the now defunct 1 ABCT 2 ID (which has been replaced by a rotational ABCT).  The remainder all served in chiefly strategic level missions providing capabilities that the South Koreans lacked (space based assets, long range precision fires, advanced sensors, and a sort of skeleton to hang follow on UN forces in the event of DPRK invasion on).

As the case is, the threat of US intervention went a long way to keeping the North Koreans on the right side of the DMZ, at little cost in human life and fairly modest expense.  Syria is not a close ally, never was a trading partner, and whatever intervention there would cost greatly in blood and treasure, for an ambiguous outcome in a sort of marginal US interest at best.  

 

The U.S. does not have to send troops to Syria, but then it has to accept that other troops will decide the future of Syria. The Iranians are already reshaping Syria into a satellite.

They're welcome to it.  It's a poop sandwich and they're already devouring it and savoring the flavor at this point judging by results on the ground.  Iran already has its hands full in Iraq too, while at the same time the Sunni parts of the middle east are salivating at the proxy wars offered.  Not to worried about Iran ascendant at this point.  

 

you know "Captain" this is a public war gaming discussion forum. Just repeating the same arguments over and over gets boring, it is much more interesting to think out of the box.

You laid out some credentials, I laid out mine.  I feel I am equally, if not better qualified than either folks you cited.  My arguments have not changed simply because I do not believe you have addressed them.  Thinking outside of the box is important, but it must also be tempered with ensuring those plans are practical, and executable (and perhaps legal and moral).  I contend a large scale NATO invervention does not meet any of those conditions, and it has not been seriously considered not because of close minded individuals failing to see how a merely 15,000 guys and two months will sort this out, but instead a large number of paid professional military types sat down, looked at the situation said "nope!" and went on their merry way.   

 

why don't you lay out what you would do if you were President.

I'd stay out of Syria, focus on degrading ISIS using air power, select special forces type operations, and economic warfare.  Keeping them as a Syrian-Iraqi problem, and doing low risk options to assist the Syrians and Iraqis against ISIS are okay, but full on commitment is hopping into a decade of someone else's war.  

[db_zero]

Getting back to the original topic, someone mentioned that these low flying attack helos could be vulnerable to 12.7 mg fire. I was under the assumption the Mi24 is pretty well armored and is pretty resistant to small arms fire up to 7.62 and fairly resistant to 50 cal fire.

ATGMs ve low flying helos. IIRC it was mentioned on the past that under certain circumstances a low flying attack helo could be shot down by an ATGM like the TOW.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Getting back to the original topic, someone mentioned that these low flying attack helos could be vulnerable to 12.7 mg fire. I was under the assumption the Mi24 is pretty well armored and is pretty resistant to small arms fire up to 7.62 and fairly resistant to 50 cal fire.

It's pretty resistant in places, but a lot of those assumptions aren't "flew over a well cited ambush" location, but instead "flew by a US Formation circa 1989 and caught some .50 cal bursts at range."  If a helicopter uses a consistent ingress-egress route it's pretty possible to set a massed small arms ambush that'll rather heavily maul a helicopter.

 

ATGMs ve low flying helos. IIRC it was mentioned on the past that under certain circumstances a low flying attack helo could be shot down by an ATGM like the TOW.

It's possible.  Still tricky and requires some good firing locations.  Also it isn't like they've got ATGMs to spare in a lot of cases.  

[sburke]

I have an idea, this time around how about Canada and the rest of NATO pony up and do the dying?  Why does it have to be a US commitment to resolve things?  Other NATO nations can go and get some battle experience this time and then deal with the painful aftermath of looking after your vets who have paid the price.  And please don't say they already have, the numbers just don't cut that argument.

 

I for one agree with the position argued here that putting boots on the ground isn't gonna help here.  If Russia, Iran and Hezbollah want to spend their soldiers lives getting mired in this, have at it.  Frankly the power structure that exists in most of the Middle East is not based on a real national awareness and until it is there isn't much anyone is gonna do to help build solid national institutions.

 

As to the Helo discussion- part of the reason this thread is going off topic is the original postulation was wrong and enough people chimed in on that to make it a moot point.  Russia will eventually learn that their helos aren't immune, ISIS and the rebels will eventually come up with effective counter measures.  A few Helos shot down will see the Russians adapt.

Edited October 25, 2015 by sburke

[Codename Duchess]

I don't see why you couldn't use an ATGM against a low helo.  Early MANPADS were SACLOS guided like a TOW.  The British Starstreak still is.

[AttorneyAtWar]

I'd stay out of Syria, focus on degrading ISIS using air power, select special forces type operations, and economic warfare.  Keeping them as a Syrian-Iraqi problem, and doing low risk options to assist the Syrians and Iraqis against ISIS are okay, but full on commitment is hopping into a decade of someone else's war.  

Panzer for prez, couldn't have said it better myself.

[Sgt Joch]

Which you've spent quite a long time describing how either ineffective, or secretly sunni extremists they are.  I find it interesting that their base utility entirely varies based upon what argument you're trying to make.  

That is only because everyone here is so quick to argue that they are "moderate rebels". Odd how everyone wants to give them advanced weapons, but no one  trusts them. I am guessing understanding sarcasm is not your strong suit.

Regardless you are rather setting things up for Libya part two in that you're neither addressing the reasons the Sunnis revolved in the first place, or giving the Shia a reason to feel safe around the Sunnis.  This is likely what'll happen if/when ISIS collapses anyway, but you propose doing it at great cost to everyone vs simply to the involved parties.

and how exactly is the current U.S. policy leading anywhere other than Libya II in any case?

Iraq and Syria (and you'll have to go to Iraq too if you're looking to defeat ISIS) are not the same problem as Mali, and it continues to baffle me why you're drawing the connection.

and it continues to baffle me why you are unable to see the parallels.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Just going to keep it simple and fast then.

1. As to your first point, slander aside, it's confusing when you mention them, THEN extol the virtues of working with rebels. 

It undermines your sarcastic point if you somehow tangle it in your actual argument.

2. Tell me this, how much worse off is the US with Libya a total mess?  Would it be worth it to suffer loss of life and spend lots of money to fix it, or is it broken not really a pressing matter?  Did a functional Syria even matter to the US in the long run?

I contend the answer to the last question is no.  It is not important, and will likely never be important.  And given that understanding it becomes confusing why someone would believe the US should go in unless someone simply believed it was the duty of the US to fix all global problems.

3. I've stated my position, and done what I have felt I needed to refute yours.  Several folks have agreed with my stance, which to me leads me to believe I'm making some sense to some people.  As a gesture of good faith, I would invite you to discuss why my example of Fallujah is invalid, given that it as one objective would consume nearly all forces you believe are required for Syria and Iraq.

[Luka]

@Codename Duchess thanks for the informative response, much appreciated

 

... given that understanding it becomes confusing why someone would believe the US should go in unless someone simply believed it was the duty of the US to fix all global problems..

I get the feeling that that is his point really.

I for one agree with the position argued here that putting boots on the ground isn't gonna help here.  If Russia, Iran and Hezbollah want to spend their soldiers lives getting mired in this, have at it.  

I doubt Russia would want any serious commitment on the ground either for the same reasons. Its too costly an option for realising their interests in the region when other options seem available. Both Russia and the US do not  desperately need a "functioning state" in Syria as both have their interests adequately protected (perhaps Russia a bit less so) in the current state of affairs, so neither will make the  huge commitment to resolve the crisis and make one.

[Vanir Ausf B]

.However, if the U.S. did commit ground forces, there is a good chance other NATO countries (i.e. UK, France, maybe Germany) would as well.

I think the odds of Germany or France jumping in under any circumstance is roughly nil but I don't know why we are even talking about them when Turkey is RIGHT THERE and has far more at stake than anyone else in NATO. Yet they have also chosen to limit their involvement to the air. It's not like they don't have 5000 troops to spare.

[VladimirTarasov]

Turkey's military isn't a joke, They could give hell to ISIL but they'd rather handle their Kurdish problems. Turkey being a NATO member and being directly next to the action they should indeed be fighting against ISIL fully, A US/Turkish partnership would be enough to handle ISIL working together with Assad and FSA but sadly politics make stuff like that look childish. Back to the topic though, (I know I just said something political and am now switching onto topic but you know, Sometimes I cant help it)

MI-24s are great, I still see potential in them for years to come. In Afghanistan, Helicopters would come back shot with dozens of bullets from .50 caliber weapons. There was a helicopter that was hit by a stinger, Luckily he was hit in a non-vital area he made it back home. As far as I know stingers are more powerful then Strelas or older model Iglas, So countermeasures like flares will do, Keep in mind old soviet manpads are not fire and forget. I started to see why using MI-24Ps with static 30mm is better for these situations. MI-24P pilots come flying onto their target how CAS jets do, It is more accurate and more effective per building or static targets. I think that the Russian air force is good with the MI-24s at the moment.

[Battlefront.com]

Just repeating the same arguments over and over gets boring

True.  And the Mali example proves your point   Seriously, it's not a good model for comparisons with Syria.  There are too many fundamental differences, which you are choosing to ignore even when they are pointed out very clearly.

The US will not put boots on the ground in Syria unless it feels its direct national interests are MORE than averagely threatened.  Something would have to change very, very dramatically for that to kick in.  Therefore, any suggestions based on the notion of the US putting such a force on the ground is about as realistic as having Martians putting boots on the ground.  It just simply is not going to happen unless there is a massive change in what is going on there.

Does the U.S. have a national interest in South Korea?

Yes it does.  Big time.  If you don't understand why then you're not likely going to have your finger correctly on the pulse of what it would take to get the US involved directly in Syria.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

I have an idea, this time around how about Canada and the rest of NATO pony up and do the dying? 

Fun fact... Canada just informed the coalition that it will withdraw its combat aircraft from the operations against ISIS.

 

Why does it have to be a US commitment to resolve things?  Other NATO nations can go and get some battle experience this time and then deal with the painful aftermath of looking after your vets who have paid the price.  And please don't say they already have, the numbers just don't cut that argument.

Worse than that... the US usually gets criticized far more when it actually does something than when it does not.  Sgt Joch was a huge critic of US and NATO doing so much as criticizing Putin in regards to Ukraine.  Which is rather odd when you consider on the one hand he's arguing the US should do absolutely nothing but capitulate when its core national interests are threatened, but go all kinds of Rambo in a place that has almost nothing to do with US national interests.

I for one agree with the position argued here that putting boots on the ground isn't gonna help here.  If Russia, Iran and Hezbollah want to spend their soldiers lives getting mired in this, have at it.  Frankly the power structure that exists in most of the Middle East is not based on a real national awareness and until it is there isn't much anyone is gonna do to help build solid national institutions.

The only way to fix Syria is to get rid of all the people that are fighting since none of them are willing to compromise about anything.  Since Russia and Iran will never allow that to happen, the idea that the US can fix this is off to a very bad start right from the get go.  Russia and Iran want the end result to be a despotic and murderous regime that they control which allows Russia a base in the ME and Iran a platform for threatening Israel.  I fail to see how furthering Russia and Iran's interests is in the US' strategic interests.

Which gets us back to why Sgt Joch's "thinking outside of the box" is a dead end very quickly.  Doing nothing is more in the US' national interests than aiding Russia and Iran. 

Steve

Edited October 26, 2015 by Battlefront.com

[Luka]

US should do absolutely nothing but capitulate when its core national interests are threatened, but go all kinds of Rambo in a place that has almost nothing to do with US national interests.

If I may ask, what far greater, more "core", interests does the US have in Ukraine as opposed to Syria/Levant? I'm not saying you're wrong I'm just curious as to what you see as the US interests in the Ukraine situation other than containment of Russia? I don't mean to say I'm oblivious to the US having interests in the whole Ukraine saga just inquiring as to what is it that makes it much more important than the middle east since you likely have better insights I haven't thought of. 

[Battlefront.com]

If I may ask, what far greater, more "core", interests does the US have in Ukraine as opposed to Syria/Levant? I'm not saying you're wrong I'm just curious as to what you see as the US interests in the Ukraine situation other than containment of Russia?

That is the major difference right there.  Russia is an aggressive, border expanding nation state armed with nuclear weapons and posing a direct threat to NATO nations.  Europe is the US' biggest trading partner, biggest allies (political and military), and very similar culturally.  The US' two largest military engagements outside of its borders were fought in Europe (Pacific against Japan being the third biggest).  Syria has none of this.

In fact, there is an argument that allowing Russia to burn itself in Syria will help US national interests by weakening Russia's ability to do such things in the near future.  There is also an argument that so long as ISIS and Al Nusra are busy killing Syrians and Iraqis they can't afford to attack US interests elsewhere.

I don't mean to say I'm oblivious to the US having interests in the whole Ukraine saga just inquiring as to what is it that makes it much more important than the middle east since you likely have better insights I haven't thought of. 

The Middle East was a mess before Syria and it is a mess now.  It is always a mess, therefore the US accepts a certain amount of mess as "just the way things are".  The degree of threat posed by Syria on Israel and oil will influence the degree of US military involvement.

Steve

Edited October 26, 2015 by Battlefront.com

[Luka]

Thanks Steve. My thoughts were along the same lines

I suppose the point is its just as beneficial to put little effort keeping it a mess so long as no one is  able to completely exert their influence and no great threat is posed further afield  then to try the more demanding approach of creating and maintaining friendly, stable, regimes. Russia definitely has more interest in seeing a more stable situation develop given its ME bases and the threat of competing pipelines going through Syria to Europe. I doubt even they would be pushed to commit many more resources unless their proxy hits a terrible losing streak perhaps.

[Sgt Joch]

Worse than that... the US usually gets criticized far more when it actually does something than when it does not.  Sgt Joch was a huge critic of US and NATO doing so much as criticizing Putin in regards to Ukraine.  Which is rather odd when you consider on the one hand he's arguing the US should do absolutely nothing but capitulate when its core national interests are threatened, but go all kinds of Rambo in a place that has almost nothing to do with US national interests.

Steve

you know Steve, at one point you will have to decide exactly what hat you wear in these debates, moderator, participant or website owner. I don't appreciate you personalising and misrepresenting my personal opinions. You are the one who wants to risk war with Russia over Ukraine which no, IMHO has no national interest whatsoever to the USA and which BTW, is now pretty much contained. Meanwhile everyone's policy on Syria, which is a real international crisis is to do nothing constructive and let it fall to pieces.

If you can't run these debates in an objective and impartial manner, as other websites seem to have no problem doing, you should just shut them down.

[Kinophile]

Fun fact... Canada just informed the coalition that it will withdraw its combat aircraft from the operations against ISIS.

Yup, this was pretty much on the cards once Harper started to slide.

On the other hand, there will also be a drastic increase in our intake of refugees.

Edited October 26, 2015 by kinophile

[Kinophile]

MI-24s are great, I still see potential in them for years to come. In Afghanistan, Helicopters would come back shot with dozens of bullets from .50 caliber weapons. There was a helicopter that was hit by a stinger, Luckily he was hit in a non-vital area he made it back home. As far as I know stingers are more powerful then Strelas or older model Iglas, So countermeasures like flares will do, Keep in mind old soviet manpads are not fire and forget. I started to see why using MI-24Ps with static 30mm is better for these situations. MI-24P pilots come flying onto their target how CAS jets do, It is more accurate and more effective per building or static targets. I think that the Russian air force is good with the MI-24s at the moment.

Is the Hind usually used in a much more close-in approach, in contrast to the AH-64 stand off methods?

I know the Apache certainly can and does come in hard and low, but I'm curious how much stand-off capability the Hind has?

I'm assuming the US helos have much better optics/thermals, which allows them to stay back that bit more, where must the Hinds close in fast to ensure on-target CAS, eg VERY close air support.

[Battlefront.com]

you know Steve, at one point you will have to decide exactly what hat you wear in these debates, moderator, participant or website owner.

When I debate something that is not directly related to my company or the mechanics of the games we make (i.e. not historical topics), I always debate as a participant.  If I have to put on my moderator's hat I make that explicitly known and what specifically required me to do so.  Since I've made absolutely no statements with my moderator's hat on towards you, I have no idea what you are referring to.

I don't appreciate you personalising and misrepresenting my personal opinions.

Personalizing?  Is it possible to have a debate with someone without directly discussing the points that person raises?  And as far as misrepresenting your opinions, I have done nothing of the sort.  In fact, you have just confirmed that I have understood your points very clearly and correctly.  You believe (though I have no idea why) that the US has no national interests in protecting Europe but does have interests in conducting a large multi-year military campaign and nation building exercise, single handedly if necessary, to attempt to put an end to a bloody civil/religious/proxy war.  Further, you wish the US to do this despite the fact that it has a horrid track record of making things worse AND that any large action would put it into direct conflict with Russia and Iran's core interests in the region.  This is a head scratcher for me as an American with a degree in history who has a very strong sense of what my country's national priorities are and are not.  What you've proposed makes absolutely no sense to me what-so-ever.

You are the one who wants to risk war with Russia over Ukraine, which no, IMHO has no national interest whatsoever to the USA and which BTW, is now pretty much contained. Meanwhile everyone's policy on Syria, which is a real international crisis is to do nothing constructive and let it fall to pieces.

You see, this is the problem right here.  You apparently have determined what the US' national interests are based on your own point of view instead of what the US' actual beliefs about what its interests are.  That is a very dangerous thing to do. 

You appear to believe the US has the responsibility to be the world's policeman without regard to national self interests.  The US does not view its role in that way.  Can you show me a document that the US signed that obligates it to fix Syria specifically?  No, because none exists.  Can you show me some history of the US being responsible for Syria in any way?  No.  Now, can I show you a document that says that the US guarantees Ukraine's territorial integrity in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nukes?  Yes.  Can I show you 50 years of the US confronting Russia in Europe?  Yes. 

You understand legal principles, so you tell me which one the US is legally obligated to be involved in even if it doesn't want to be?  You also understand the importance of precedence.  Which scenario has strong precedence... standing up to Russian aggression or intervening in an active civil war fueled by ethnic and religious motivations?  Of the times it has done both of these sorts of actions, which has it had more success with... the Cold War in Europe or Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Afghanistan, and Iraq?

As for risking war with Russia, you seem to not understand that the US getting involved with Syria in the way you advocate puts us closer to war with Russia than anything done so far in Ukraine.  I suggest you do not understand this because it's been mentioned several times already and you've not addressed it at all.

With that said, I think the industrialized nation's response to Syria sucks badly.  I think the US' entire Middle East policies for the previous 50+ years has sucked badly.  I think the Obama Admin's approach to foreign policy sucks badly on most days in most ways.  Which means I do think something better should be done to deal with Syria.  Unfortunately, I've not heard anybody come up with a viable means of making things better until the parties involved decide they want to stop fighting or fueling the fighting.  And yes, I've heard lots and lots of informed people debate about what to do and I've still not heard a viable solution.  Yours certainly is not an exception.
 

If you can't run these debates in an objective and impartial manner, as other websites seem to have no problem doing, you should just shut them down.

What exactly is bothering you?  I don't see a single thing in any of my responses that warrants this sort of commentary from you.

Steve

 

Edited October 26, 2015 by Battlefront.com

[Sgt Joch]

 Steve,

On Syria. I will guess you did not read my post of yesterday morning where I said:

First, in the interest of full disclosure, I don't believe the U.S. will ever send any combat troops into Syria, not under this President any way.

Second, the Syrian civil war has been going on for 4 years and is no closer to being resolved. The current policy is not working IMHO, so nothing wrong with doing some "what ifs" CMSF was a "what if" about the invasion of Syria after it was taken over by Islamic terrorists. Prescience?

Third, U.S. forces would have to be involved for the simple reason that if the U.S. does not go in, no other NATO ally will. However, if the U.S. did commit ground forces, there is a good chance other NATO countries (i.e. UK, France, maybe Germany) would as well.

now on this I agree:

With that said, I think the industrialized nation's response to Syria sucks badly.  I think the US' entire Middle East policies for the previous 50+ years has sucked badly.  I think the Obama Admin's approach to foreign policy sucks badly on most days in most ways.  Which means I do think something better should be done to deal with Syria.

so what I am getting from this discussion is that even though everyone agrees the current approach is not working, no one has any interest whatsoever in even discussing possible alternatives.

On Ukraine, we have had this discussion way too many times and it always ends the same way. Anyway, it is really academic at this point, the ceasefire is holding and both sides are talking.

[Battlefront.com]

 Steve,

On Syria. I will guess you did not read my post of yesterday morning where I said:

Saw it and all the arguments against it applies.  The US populace will NOT support the US taking the lead for a ground war in Syria unless the people believe it is in their national interests to do so.  Contrary to your view of US national interests, it is not now and unlikely to ever be.  Europe, on the other hand, does have strategic national interests in Syria because of the refugee crisis.  Why should the US get the Europeans to do something that they should be doing for themselves for their own reasons?  If Germany and France came to the US and asked for it to assist it in something, don't you think the US would do so?  I certainly do.  And why?  Because supporting our European allies is of vital and critical US national interests.

Everything else I said about national interests, in particular Ukraine, stills stands despite you not addressing it in any way.  Ukraine is in the US strategic national interests, Syria (on its own) is not.  Fact.

 

now on this I agree:

so what I am getting from this discussion is that even though everyone agrees the current approach is not working, no one has any interest whatsoever in even discussing possible alternatives.

No, people are not interested in discussing things which are so off the mark that we might as well talk about sending in the Avengers or Fantastic 4 to sort out the problem.  You don't seem to understand US national interests and you feel the US should be the world's policeman only when you personally think it's a good idea (e.g. Ukraine should be fed to the wolves, Syria should be bled over to save).

How about you make a proposal for a different course of action that isn't based on extremely questionable founding principles?  Here, I'll do it for you.

The US should petition the UN to approve the redrawing of national borders.  Syria would become divided up into three areas (Alawite to the west, Sunni to the east and south, Kurdish to the north) and Iraq would be as well (Shia to the south and east, Sunni to the west, Kurdish to the north).  The Sunni sections would become their own country, Shia would become its own, and Kurdish its own.  The governments would be set up along a semi-representational system which guaranteed Human Rights and regional security, but otherwise leaves them to work out the details for themselves.

This is the only practical way to stop the killing long term.  Unfortunately, it has no chance for success because certain parties (Russia, Iran, and Turkey in particular) would never agree to it.  So it's dead in the water as is pretty much every single other reasonable means of ending this war.  In that light, my suggestion is just as useless as yours is because it's never going to happen.

Pragmatic alternative?  It pretty much boils down to "wait for it to burn out", which is what is happening now.  ISIS is inherently unstable and will collapse at some point.  Assad's regime is already on its last legs.  Russia's military adventure will fail sooner rather than later, which will make Russia more flexible in the future.  Iran can be bought off under the right circumstances, which currently do not exist.  The US should pressure Sunni Gulf States to cut off all forms of aid to make the ISIS collapse happen sooner.  Arming of Sunni and Kurdish opposition groups should increase.  Bombing should continue.  A US ground force contingent in Iraq should be contemplated if the Shia lead government agrees to certain concessions.  Diplomatic pressure to settle the conflict with a new status quo (i.e. no Assad) should continue.  Europe needs to figure out a better approach to refugees, such as investing in refugee intervention along the borders of Syria so people don't feel they have no choice but to go to Europe.

The pragmatic alternative means this war drags on for another 2-3 years minimum.  The misery and suffering continues, though hopefully starts to drop off simply because the country is becoming depopulated.  But until the warring parties exhaust themselves, I do not see any alternatives.

On Ukraine, we have had this discussion way too many times and it always ends the same way.

Yup, with events on the ground proving my positions correct.  I'm pretty content with that track record

Steve

Edited October 26, 2015 by Battlefront.com

[A Canadian Cat]

The US should petition the UN to approve the redrawing of national borders.  Syria would become divided up into three areas (Alawite to the west, Sunni to the east and south, Kurdish to the north) and Iraq would be as well (Shia to the south and east, Sunni to the west, Kurdish to the north).  The Sunni sections would become their own country, Shia would become its own, and Kurdish its own.  The governments would be set up along a semi-representational system which guaranteed Human Rights and regional security, but otherwise leaves them to work out the details for themselves.

This is the only practical way to stop the killing long term.  Unfortunately, it has no chance for success because certain parties (Russia, Iran, and Turkey in particular) would never agree to it.  So it's dead in the water as is pretty much every single other reasonable means of ending this war.  In that light, my suggestion is just as useless as yours is because it's never going to happen.

Now you are talking!  But alas as you said it would die before it started because that border redrawing exercise would need to include a few more countries to make it work - Turkey and Iran to name two for sure.  Not to mention that any border redrawing would have to be based on what was good for the local populations not some other agenda.  Last time any borders were redrawn in that area the locals were totally ignored and the other agendas ruled.  I personally think that border rearrangement is the only way things might settle down long term.  Border rearranging has historically not been very pleasant.

Pragmatic alternative?  It pretty much boils down to "wait for it to burn out", which is what is happening now.  

I do wish there was a way to do something that would take the pressure off the refugees.  I personally thought that a no fly zone over the entire Syria would help a lot.  Mind you if we thought that was hard to get done before, now it would be politically much harder.

ISIS is inherently unstable and will collapse at some point.  ... The US should pressure Sunni Gulf States to cut off all forms of aid to make the ISIS collapse happen sooner.  Arming of Sunni and Kurdish opposition groups should increase.

Well I agree that ISIS's method of rule is not sustainable I am not so sure it would collapse in the near term.  I look at the radical actions taken by the Republican Guard in Iran after its revolution and how its activities have been moderated in the years that followed. What I am getting at is once you institutionalize your violence against citizens it does not need to be as brutal, frequent or chaotic.  I think ISIS would do the same - if it succeeds which has yet to be determined.

As for Gulf states having influence over ISIS via funding - I think that ship has sailed.  The leader of ISIS was pretty crafty and took their funding after his break with Al Qaeda but his real goal was to create his own nation state.  As such he created alternate sources of funding and no longer really needs it from his original backers.  One of the complications in this whole mess is that while other groups of fighters are truly proxies for other nations ISIS is not.

Bombing should continue.  

You probably mean the US lead bombing of ISIS.  The refugee crisis is exacerbated by the bombing that Assad has been conducting - it would be good if that were to stop. 

[Battlefront.com]

Now you are talking!  But alas as you said it would die before it started because that border redrawing exercise would need to include a few more countries to make it work - Turkey and Iran to name two for sure.  Not to mention that any border redrawing would have to be based on what was good for the local populations not some other agenda.  Last time any borders were redrawn in that area the locals were totally ignored and the other agendas ruled.  I personally think that border rearrangement is the only way things might settle down long term.  Border rearranging has historically not been very pleasant.

The existing boundaries are the primary problem.  Until that goes away, there's no possible solution that has any chance of lasting.  Sadly, it's not going to happen.

Well I agree that ISIS's method of rule is not sustainable I am not so sure it would collapse in the near term.  I look at the radical actions taken by the Republican Guard in Iran after its revolution and how its activities have been moderated in the years that followed. What I am getting at is once you institutionalize your violence against citizens it does not need to be as brutal, frequent or chaotic.  I think ISIS would do the same - if it succeeds which has yet to be determined.

As for Gulf states having influence over ISIS via funding - I think that ship has sailed.  The leader of ISIS was pretty crafty and took their funding after his break with Al Qaeda but his real goal was to create his own nation state.  As such he created alternate sources of funding and no longer really needs it from his original backers.  One of the complications in this whole mess is that while other groups of fighters are truly proxies for other nations ISIS is not.

The challenge facing ISIS is the same as the Roman Empire.  Both  based their income on extraction extraction rather then wealth generation (i.e. theft instead of an economy).  Getting a little light in the wallet?  Go take some territory, plunder it, and be liquid for a little while.  Out of money again?  Go grab some more territory and plunder it.  This is not sustainable and ISIS is already finding itself in a bind because it is not able to increase its territory in any significant way.  It has already skimmed the cream off of the territory it already has, which is why they are now looting banks and historical sites to sell off anything they can find for cash.  They have also increased the rates of tribute (i.e. extortion) from local businesses.  Again, none of this is sustainable.  Which means if outside funding is cut off then they will wither on the vine. It doesn't mean they will go away over night, but they will cease to be a credible expansionist threat.

You probably mean the US lead bombing of ISIS.  The refugee crisis is exacerbated by the bombing that Assad has been conducting - it would be good if that were to stop. 

I agree that a no-fly zone should have been set up years ago.  This is one of the biggest bungles of the whole crisis.  Of course Russia and probably China would have vetoed a UN mandate for such a no-fly zone, however NATO could have established one without UN authority.  There would be large political ramifications for doing that, however I think they would have been worth it.

Steve

Edited October 26, 2015 by Battlefront.com