ISIL and Clausewitz

[Peter1469]

ISIL and Clausewitz

An interesting article by RealClear Defense. It is a Clausewitz style analysis on the rise of the Islamic State. It does show that they had real professional military leadership and this was not some ragtag band of terrorists.

Ever since the Chinese military philosopher Sun Tzu outlined principles required for the conduct of war in the fifth century B.C., military strategists have opined on what those principles are, and whether currently accepted principles need revision. A strong case exists for the principles laid by the 19th century Prussian military theorist Karl von Clausewitz: mass, objective, offensive, surprise, economy of force, maneuver, unity of command, security and simplicity. Although there is a realization that Clausewitz’s principles do not cover every situation a modern military must face such as humanitarian crisis or counterinsurgency – the actions of ISIS to date – demonstrate Clausewitz was right.

[Ransom]

ISIL and Clausewitz

An interesting article by RealClear Defense. It is a Clausewitz style analysis on the rise of the Islamic State. It does show that they had real professional military leadership and this was not some ragtag band of terrorists.

Used to be a sideshow. Best we start listening to Neocons, they were correct about ISIS. Departing Iraq too early. They seem to have their finger on the pulse and aware of what's actually happening as opposed to the isolationist or non-interentionist trying to plug their static and wrong philosophies into these endeavors. Live and learn from Neocons not a comfortable reality for many. But, it is a reality.

[Archer0915]

Used to be a sideshow. Best we start listening to Neocons, they were correct about ISIS. Departing Iraq too early. They seem to have their finger on the pulse and aware of what's actually happening as opposed to the isolationist or non-interentionist trying to plug their static and wrong philosophies into these endeavors. Live and learn from Neocons not a comfortable reality for many. But, it is a reality.

Well following some of the isolationist philosophy this would never have happened, but that is reality. Because we did not listen to the isolationists, as you call them, we ended up over there destabilizing a region.

[Ransom]

Well following some of the isolationist philosophy this would never have happened, but that is reality.

Some? Following some of the neocon philosophy, this doesn't happen either, and that is also reality.

Because we did not listen to the isolationists, as you call them, we ended up over there destabilizing a region.

Yeah. The region stabilized afore we got there, huh.....Archer?

Wow.

[Archer0915]

Some? Following some of the neocon philosophy, this doesn't happen either, and that is also reality.



Yeah. The region stabilized afore we got there, huh.....Archer?

Wow.

Stability is a balancing act and Saddam was a key figure in the balancing act. He was removed and a power vacuum formed and that is a fact. Hey we went in and after that point we really needed to clean up the mess. So that being said I agree with the Hawks! We should not have pulled out after destabilizing the region. There again, we should not have gone in in the first place.

I am somewhat on an isolationist/nationalist as it pertains to taking care of ourselves first and looking inward for our needs before selling out our nation.

[Peter1469]

It is certainly an interesting fact pattern. With ex- Baathists in charge behind the scenes, the Islamic State will have more staying power: both in terms of the ability to effectively use combat power, and in governance.

However, their extreme religious dogma at the rank and file level is not going to play well with the citizens of the region. So my original position stands. The Islamic State is going to have to moderate its views.

[Archer0915]

It is certainly an interesting fact pattern. With ex- Baathists in charge behind the scenes, the Islamic State will have more staying power: both in terms of the ability to effectively use combat power, and in governance.

However, their extreme religious dogma at the rank and file level is not going to play well with the citizens of the region. So my original position stands. The Islamic State is going to have to moderate its views.

Religion has little to do with this. It has about as much to do with it as the Baltimore riots have to do with a man that dies in police custody. It is about power and control. Like many who went to crusade in the middle ages. It was about power not God.

[Ransom]

Stability is a balancing act and Saddam was a key figure in the balancing act.

How so? By attacking Iran? Invading Kuwait? Torching off wars? Harboring the most heinous of terrorists? Supporting global terror especially against Israel?

He was removed and a power vacuum formed and that is a fact.

A power vacuum filled by an elected Iraqi government. correct?

Hey we went in and after that point we really needed to clean up the mess. So that being said I agree with the Hawks! We should not have pulled out after destabilizing the region. There again, we should not have gone in in the first place.

Cleaned up what mess The 'stabilizing force' of Saddam Hussein?

I am somewhat on an isolationist/nationalist as it pertains to taking care of ourselves first and looking inward for our needs before selling out our nation.

I can tell by your wrong opinions and media influenced policy positions what you are, but thanks for confirming my initial call.

[Ransom]

It is certainly an interesting fact pattern. With ex- Baathists in charge behind the scenes, the Islamic State will have more staying power: both in terms of the ability to effectively use combat power, and in governance.

However, their extreme religious dogma at the rank and file level is not going to play well with the citizens of the region. So my original position stands. The Islamic State is going to have to moderate its views.

Will have to moderate it's views.....will be forced to give up taken territory....will be opposed by tribal factions including Shia and Kurd...and even moderate Sunnis.......but not without our assistance. Western influence and weaponry needed first. First was to stop ISIL's momentum, take out their leadership....aid Kurd and Shia militias, most importantly, back the Iraqi government and military. Provide intelligence, use a limited amount of ground troops to facilitate logistics and operations.

Had we taken the view that this isn't our business, that nations such as Turkey need to handle this, that ISIL isn't a US national security threat...rather a sideshow amateur team.....we wouldn't be speaking today about "The Islamic State is going to have to moderate its views."

That will be all for now, Pete.

[Archer0915]

How so? By attacking Iran? Invading Kuwait? Torching off wars? Harboring the most heinous of terrorists? Supporting global terror especially against Israel?



A power vacuum filled by an elected Iraqi government. correct?



Cleaned up what mess The 'stabilizing force' of Saddam Hussein?



I can tell by your wrong opinions and media influenced policy positions what you are, but thanks for confirming my initial call.

We emboldened Saddam! We supported him. He felt we would look the other way when he invaded Kuwait. All facts. The elected government? Not a puppet government set up by the US.

I am conservative, Christian and a free thinker. I am educated and continue my education. I listed to people and research things. I am very analytical, being somewhat of an IE.

So break it down, study the history of the region and realize the truth...
Open Your Mind!