"They are the most brutal and most dangerous enemy I have ever seen in my life."

[Ideologue]

What's our stable? Canada? They can go to Canada.

[The Minsky Moment]

...look, lots of things have changed since 1880.

Yes, keep going. . .

[Ideologue]

...So we need dieback. If people keep coming, we're not going to get it.

[mongers]

The good news is the Americans and their few allies have been conducting a remarkable air campaign against IS in terms of accuracy; saw a news report quoting one of the Syrian human rights groups which said the campaign in Syria had killed about 1150 fighter and just 52 civilians. 

That's quite astonishing, hopefully it's denting IS's confidence, but obviously they'll adapt to lessen their vulnerability to air strikes, as mentioned in the article by the German author. 

I guess the question is has that rate of loss been outpaced by the replacement rate of foreign jahadis arriving in country, and is the air campaign killing disproportionate numbers of commanders and more experience fighters.

[Monoriu]

Is there any reason why we can't just ignore them?  Sure, get your citizens out, and bomb them a bit for murdering people.  But not sure if more needs to be done. 

[Jacob]

Is there any reason why we can't just ignore them?  Sure, get your citizens out, and bomb them a bit for murdering people.  But not sure if more needs to be done.

What do you care? It's not your tax dollars being spent in any case.

[CountDeMoney]

The good news is the Americans and their few allies have been conducting a remarkable air campaign against IS in terms of accuracy; saw a news report quoting one of the Syrian human rights groups which said the campaign in Syria had killed about 1150 fighter and just 52 civilians. 

That's quite astonishing, hopefully it's denting IS's confidence, but obviously they'll adapt to lessen their vulnerability to air strikes, as mentioned in the article by the German author. 

I guess the question is has that rate of loss been outpaced by the replacement rate of foreign jahadis arriving in country, and is the air campaign killing disproportionate numbers of commanders and more experience fighters.

Good piece from the NY Times a week or so ago on the USS Carl Vinson and its air operations against ISIS.  Their rules of engagement are so strict, in order to prevent possible civilian casualties, that the majority of sorties are returning with all their ordnance.

A Desert War on ISIS, Fought From a Floating City

ABOARD THE U.S.S. CARL VINSON, in the Persian Gulf — More than a dozen Navy F/A-18 warplanes roar off this aircraft carrier every day to attack Islamic State targets in support of Iraqi troops battling to regain ground lost to the militants in June.

These Navy pilots face an array of lethal risks during their six-hour round-trip missions. Surface-to-air missiles and other enemy fire lurk below, as the downing of an Iraqi military helicopter late Friday underscored. About 60 percent of the aircrews are still learning the ropes on their first combat tours.

The United States-led coalition improvises how the Iraqis call in airstrikes: Iraqi troops talk by radio to American controllers at Iraqi command centers, who in turn talk to the Navy pilots to help pinpoint what to hit. Senior commanders have said that placing American spotters with the Iraqi troops would be more effective, but they have yet to recommend that step knowing that President Obama opposes it.

In the initial weeks of an air campaign that started in August, Iraq's troops were tentative. Fighters from the Islamic State, also called ISIS or ISIL, quickly learned not to move in large numbers to avoid being struck. Three out of every four missions still return with their bombs for lack of approved targets.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/16/world/middleeast/attacking-isis-from-an-american-aircraft-carrier.html?_r=0

[Jacob]

That sounds like a good set of rules of engagement to be honest. Avoiding costly and counterproductive mistakes doesn't seem to have a big cost at this point.

[mongers]

The good news is the Americans and their few allies have been conducting a remarkable air campaign against IS in terms of accuracy; saw a news report quoting one of the Syrian human rights groups which said the campaign in Syria had killed about 1150 fighter and just 52 civilians. 

That's quite astonishing, hopefully it's denting IS's confidence, but obviously they'll adapt to lessen their vulnerability to air strikes, as mentioned in the article by the German author. 

I guess the question is has that rate of loss been outpaced by the replacement rate of foreign jahadis arriving in country, and is the air campaign killing disproportionate numbers of commanders and more experience fighters.

Good piece from the NY Times a week or so ago on the USS Carl Vinson and its air operations against ISIS.  Their rules of engagement are so strict, in order to prevent possible civilian casualties, that the majority of sorties are returning with all their ordnance.

A Desert War on ISIS, Fought From a Floating City

ABOARD THE U.S.S. CARL VINSON, in the Persian Gulf — More than a dozen Navy F/A-18 warplanes roar off this aircraft carrier every day to attack Islamic State targets in support of Iraqi troops battling to regain ground lost to the militants in June.

These Navy pilots face an array of lethal risks during their six-hour round-trip missions. Surface-to-air missiles and other enemy fire lurk below, as the downing of an Iraqi military helicopter late Friday underscored. About 60 percent of the aircrews are still learning the ropes on their first combat tours.

The United States-led coalition improvises how the Iraqis call in airstrikes: Iraqi troops talk by radio to American controllers at Iraqi command centers, who in turn talk to the Navy pilots to help pinpoint what to hit. Senior commanders have said that placing American spotters with the Iraqi troops would be more effective, but they have yet to recommend that step knowing that President Obama opposes it.

In the initial weeks of an air campaign that started in August, Iraq's troops were tentative. Fighters from the Islamic State, also called ISIS or ISIL, quickly learned not to move in large numbers to avoid being struck. Three out of every four missions still return with their bombs for lack of approved targets.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/16/world/middleeast/attacking-isis-from-an-american-aircraft-carrier.html?_r=0

Interesting article @cheers


The fly in the ointment is just how poorly the Iraqi 'authorities' are doing, viewed a news report from the former US base in Anbar province, it was tentatively going to be the forward base for the Iraqi recapture of main Sunni cities and towns there.
The reporter and Iraqis said the gains they'd cautiously made over weeks were lost to ISIL in a day or so, who were now barely 10 miles away and all but surrounding the huge base.

The Iraqis seemed to think the handful of US forces there acting as trainers were all that was stopping the base from falling, they reasoned the US would never allow them to fall into IS hands; almost 'hostages' to fortune in a way. 

This evening I saw an AJ item about Iraqi police units training to retake Mosul, due to corruption, they'd not been paid, had just a few dozen AK47s to go around the several hundred of them and both the interviewer and the provincial governor, knew they stood no chance in any attack on IS in Mosul.

[Tonitrus]

The best way to have dodged the local corruption would have been to run the place post-WW2-Japan style and build up the institutions ourselves.  But alas, we had lost our own way since then, and instead threw our own, Halliburton-style corruption at it, and mixed it in with good 'ol home-grown Iraqi corruption.

But really, as Seedy has suggested we would have been better lopping off the northern part for Kurdistan after Gulf War I, and let Saddam run the rest (with some good threats to keep him in line against repressing the Shiites in the south too much).

[CountDeMoney]

The fly in the ointment is just how poorly the Iraqi 'authorities' are doing, viewed a news report from the former US base in Anbar province, it was tentatively going to be the forward base for the Iraqi recapture of main Sunni cities and towns there.
The reporter and Iraqis said the gains they'd cautiously made over weeks were lost to ISIL in a day or so, who were now barely 10 miles away and all but surrounding the huge base.

The Iraqis seemed to think the handful of US forces there acting as trainers were all that was stopping the base from falling, they reasoned the US would never allow them to fall into IS hands; almost 'hostages' to fortune in a way. 

This evening I saw an AJ item about Iraqi police units training to retake Mosul, due to corruption, they'd not been paid, had just a few dozen AK47s to go around the several hundred of them and both the interviewer and the provincial governor, knew they stood no chance in any attack on IS in Mosul.

Which is why, before the end of Obama's term as president, I predict we will have the equivalent of three Combat Brigade Teams back on the ground in Iraq.

[Tonitrus]

Hell, we got 1000 dudes from the 82nd Airborne on the way already.

[Monoriu]

Is there any reason why we can't just ignore them?  Sure, get your citizens out, and bomb them a bit for murdering people.  But not sure if more needs to be done.

What do you care? It's not your tax dollars being spent in any case.

Because posting in languish is free

[Jacob]

Is there any reason why we can't just ignore them?  Sure, get your citizens out, and bomb them a bit for murdering people.  But not sure if more needs to be done.

What do you care? It's not your tax dollars being spent in any case.

Because posting in languish is free

That doesn't explain why you care, though. Aren't you all about apathy?

[Tonitrus]

Is there any reason why we can't just ignore them?  Sure, get your citizens out, and bomb them a bit for murdering people.  But not sure if more needs to be done.

What do you care? It's not your tax dollars being spent in any case.

Because posting in languish is free

But they're blocking roads.