What will be our litmus for success against ISIS

SGT Jim Z.
I think our success against ISIS is going to be measured by how many non-radical Muslim countries/people we can count on to stand up and not tolerate the brutal and inhumane tactics of these animals.

We found some success at the tactical level in Iraq with the Sons of Iraq, many of which supported Al-Qaeda until they started executing women and children. Our political leaders need to work a strategic level plan to unite the moderate Muslims against ISIS.

Ultimately it is a fine balance of "hearts and mind" and tactical execution. Overall success I think will be based on the responses of the Iraqi/muslim nations against these forces, and their overall ability to execute operations successfully. Iraqi Army and Iraqi Police forces are finally starting to stand against ISIS, and other Muslim nations are also standing as well. Once the local forces are able to engage and crush local pockets of insurgent activity without American/Coalition involvement, then I think it will be considered a successful operation.

Body counts will mean nothing, because if we go in there with equal brutality, then we stand to offer them more supporters to their cause, with every one death/EKIA bringing 2-10 more to the cause.

Land gained means nothing, because these are insurgents, militarists, and other nontraditional fighters. They can operate inside occupied territory, just the way that the VC did.

As far as a strategy for success, I believe in operational mobilization on a large scale. However, the difference has to be that the politicians step out of the military arena and let the warriors execute their mission. I would be willing to bet that few stateside leaders (even those tentatively engaged in the military arena) would be able to understand and gather the labile environment that comes with the ever shifting power struggles of the various tribes.
v/r,
CPT Butler

Body count was a terrible measure of our mission in Vietnam. The troops resented it. Staff officers inflated it. And, we had no way of knowing what it meant. Think about it. It wasn't like we could put up an illustration with a thermometer like charities use when soliciting donations. Where would we peg the goal? And, even if we could put a number on it, it would change from day-to-day.

With the influx of fanatics reported arriving to join ISIS, it appears that a body count would be equally futile.

Territory "controlled" would also seem impossible to measure.

There might be some value in keeping track of enemy activity. The number of raids, firefights, etc initiated by enemy forces could be tracked. However, all they would have to do is go dark for a couple of weeks and the politicians would proclaim victory and bring the boys home.

Indeed, a war on terror (am I allowed to use that term) is like a game of Whack-A-Mole. Well, sort of. At least Whack-A-Mole ends and only restarts when you deposit another game token.

I think that those who lead the war on ISIS will come to understand the frustration that led a major I knew in Vietnam to comment: "We should take all the good Vietnamese and put them on boats anchored in the Gulf of Tonkin and sterilize the whole country (leave nothing living), then sink the boats and go home."