U.S. intelligence assessments conclude that the Islamic State has not been weakened by U.S.-led bombing campaign. Time for a new approach?

GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad — Fri, 31 Jul 2015 07:41:36 -0400

After billions of dollars spent and more than 10,000 extremist fighters killed, the Islamic State group is fundamentally no weaker than it was when the U.S.-led bombing campaign began a year ago, American intelligence agencies have concluded.

The military campaign has prevented Iraq's collapse and put the Islamic State under increasing pressure in northern Syria, particularly squeezing its self-proclaimed capital in Raqqa. But intelligence analysts see the overall situation as a strategic stalemate: The Islamic State remains a well-funded extremist army able to replenish its ranks with foreign jihadis as quickly as the U.S. can eliminate them. Meanwhile, the group has expanded to other countries, including Libya, Egypt's Sinai Peninsula and Afghanistan.

The assessments by the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency and others appear to contradict the optimistic line taken by the Obama administration's special envoy, retired Gen. John Allen, who told a forum in Aspen, Colorado, last week that "ISIS is losing" in Iraq and Syria. The intelligence was described by officials who would not be named because they were not authorized to discuss it publicly.

"We've seen no meaningful degradation in their numbers," a defense official said, citing intelligence estimates that put the group's total strength at between 20,000 and 30,000, the same estimate as last August when the airstrikes began.

The Islamic State's staying power also raises questions about the administration's approach to the threat that the group poses to the U.S. and its allies. Although officials do not believe it is planning complex attacks on the West from its territory, the group's call to Western Muslims to kill at home has become a serious problem, FBI Director James Comey and other officials say.

Yet under the Obama administration's campaign of bombing and training, which prohibits American troops from accompanying fighters into combat or directing air strikes from the ground, it could take a decade to drive the Islamic State from its safe havens, analysts say. The administration is adamant that it will commit no U.S. ground troops to the fight despite calls from some in Congress to do so.

The U.S.-led coalition and its Syrian and Kurdish allies on the ground have made some inroads. The Islamic State has lost 9.4 percent of its territory in the first six months of 2015, according to an analysis by the conflict monitoring group IHS. And the military campaign has arrested the sense of momentum and inevitability created by the group's stunning advances last year, leaving the combination of Sunni religious extremists and former Saddam Hussein loyalists unable to grow its forces or continue its surge.

"In Raqqa, they are being slowly strangled," said an activist who fled Raqqa earlier this year and spoke on condition of anonymity to protect relatives and friends who remain there. "There is no longer a feeling that Raqqa is a safe haven for the group."

A Delta Force raid in Syria that killed Islamic State financier Abu Sayyaf in May also has resulted in a well of intelligence about the group's structure and finances, U.S. officials say. His wife, held in Iraq, has been cooperating with interrogators.

Syrian Kurdish fighters and their allies have wrested most of the northern Syria border from the Islamic State group. In June, the U.S.-backed alliance captured the border town of Tal Abyad, which for more than a year had been the militants' most vital direct supply route from Turkey. The Kurds also took the town of Ein Issa, a hub for IS movements and supply lines only 35 miles north of Raqqa.

As a result, the militants have had to take a more circuitous smuggling path through a stretch of about 60 miles they still control along the Turkish border. A plan announced this week for a U.S.-Turkish "safe zone" envisages driving the Islamic State group out of those areas as well, using Syrian rebels backed by airstrikes.

In Raqqa, U.S. coalition bombs pound the group's positions and target its leaders with increasing regularity. The militants' movements have been hampered by strikes against bridges, and some fighters are sending their families away to safer ground.

In early July, a wave of strikes in 24 hours destroyed 18 overpasses and a number of roads used by the group in and around Raqqa.

Reflecting IS unease, the group has taken exceptional measures against residents of Raqqa the past two weeks, activists say. It has moved to shut down private Internet access for residents, arrested suspected spies and set up security cameras in the streets. Patrols by its "morals police" have decreased because fighters are needed on the front lines, the activists say.

But American intelligence officials and other experts say that in the big picture, the Islamic State is hanging tough.

"The pressure on Raqqa is significant, and it's an important thing to watch, but looking at the overall picture, ISIS is mostly in the same place," said Harleen Gambhir, a counterterrorism analyst at Institute for the Study of War, a Washington think tank. "Overall ISIS still retains the ability to plan and execute phased conventional military campaigns and terrorist attacks."

In Iraq, the Islamic State's seizure of the strategically important provincial capital of Ramadi has so far stood. Although U.S. officials have said it is crucial that the government in Baghdad win back disaffected Sunnis, there is little sign of that happening. American-led efforts to train Syrian rebels to fight the Islamic State have produced a grand total of 60 vetted fighters.

The group has adjusted its tactics to thwart a U.S. bombing campaign that tries to avoid civilian casualties, officials say. Fighters no longer move around in easily targeted armored columns; they embed themselves among women and children, and they communicate through couriers to thwart eavesdropping and geolocation, the defense official said.

Oil continues to be a major revenue source. By one estimate, the Islamic State is clearing $500 million per year from oil sales, said Daniel Glaser, assistant secretary for terrorist financing at the Treasury Department. That's on top of as much as $1 billion in cash the group seized from banks in its territory.

Although the U.S. has been bombing oil infrastructure, the militants have been adept at rebuilding oil refining, drilling and trading capacity, the defense official said.

"ISIL has plenty of money," Glaser said last week, more than enough to meet a payroll he estimated at a high of $360 million a year.

Glaser said the U.S. was gradually squeezing the group's finances through sanctions, military strikes and other means, but he acknowledged it would take time.

Ahmad al-Ahmad, a Syrian journalist in Hama province who heads an opposition media outfit called Syrian Press Center, said he did not expect recent setbacks to seriously alter the group's fortunes.

"IS moves with a very intelligent strategy which its fighters call the lizard strategy," he said. "They emerge in one place, then they disappear and pop up in another place."

http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2015/07/31/despite-bombing-no-weaker-than-year-ago/30924535/

Despite bombing, IS is no weaker than a year ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — After billions of dollars spent and more than 10,000 extremist fighters killed, the Islamic State group is fundamentally no weaker than it was when the U.S.

Response by TSgt David L. made Jul 31 at 2015 8:34 AM

TSgt David L. — Fri, 31 Jul 2015 08:34:33 -0400

We have to fully engage on this or not at all. I hate to say we need boots on the ground, but, we need to commit 100% or shut the whole operation down.

Response by SrA Daniel Hunter made Jul 31 at 2015 8:59 AM

SrA Daniel Hunter — Fri, 31 Jul 2015 08:59:11 -0400

Give it time, the Turks just got in the game.

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Jul 31 at 2015 9:09 AM

SSgt Alex Robinson — Fri, 31 Jul 2015 09:09:14 -0400

There is no substitute for an all out effort to destroy them.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 31 at 2015 9:32 AM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 31 Jul 2015 09:32:51 -0400

The longer we leave this situation to fester the more opportunities the group will have to accomplish something disastrous. A large scale attack on US becomes more likely as time passes with a group this wealthy operating. They may see their success on the ground diminish and turn to other means.

I think they're trying to bait us in with their propaganda.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 31 at 2015 10:21 AM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 31 Jul 2015 10:21:25 -0400

Perhaps another question is would they have been stronger without the bombings?

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Jul 31 at 2015 12:29 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Fri, 31 Jul 2015 12:29:56 -0400

Bombing ISIS will fail just as it failed in Vietnam because the leaders there knew that the American public lacked the will to follow through and complete the mission. They (including General Giap) openly admitted the truth of this in many interviews. Indeed, it's even worse today because the American President shares (eagerly demonstrates) that lack of will.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jul 31 at 2015 4:28 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Fri, 31 Jul 2015 16:28:52 -0400

I could have written that report in my living room.

Response by MSgt Mike Brown; MBTI-CP; MA, Ph.D. made Aug 1 at 2015 3:39 PM

MSgt Mike Brown; MBTI-CP; MA, Ph.D. — Sat, 01 Aug 2015 15:39:09 -0400

I believe there is only one approach -- fully re-engage and occupy Iraq, so as to ensure that it is not just a concept of degraded ability via aerial assault -- but does the nation have the willingness? Is the POTUS committed...

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 2 at 2015 10:48 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 02 Aug 2015 22:48:08 -0400

GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad Should I say it again? Cut off the money/oil sales. http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/01/economist-explains

Where Islamic State gets its money

IT WILL not be easy to defeat the brutal jihadists of Islamic State (IS), as the American-led coalition against the group aims to do. IS is one of the best-financed...

Response by Maj William Gambrell made Aug 2 at 2015 10:58 PM

Maj William Gambrell — Sun, 02 Aug 2015 22:58:44 -0400

My opinion is to completely back out and modify Title 10 authority to allow active duty to protect the US from inside our borders. Let the rich middle east countries fix their problem. We can strategically bomb Iran's nuclear facilities at will. We don't need help to do that...

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Aug 2 at 2015 11:51 PM

SFC Mark Merino — Sun, 02 Aug 2015 23:51:53 -0400

Release the Kraken!

Response by SPC(P) Jay Heenan made Aug 3 at 2015 1:00 AM

SPC(P) Jay Heenan — Mon, 03 Aug 2015 01:00:27 -0400

New approach? Why yes, it is called foot to ass!

Response by COL Ted Mc made Aug 3 at 2015 3:04 AM

COL Ted Mc — Mon, 03 Aug 2015 03:04:51 -0400

GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad - Gunny; We are fighting the war ISIS wants us to fight and not the war we would like it to fight or that we might fight some time in the future.

If that sounds a bit like deja vu all over again, it should.

As is attributed to Napoleon, "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.".

Spending $1,410,000 to blow up a Toyota Pickup truck and some obsolescent military hardware with a total price of around $10,000 is NOT what is considered to be a "good trade" - especially when the Toyota and weaponry can be replaced approximately ten times faster than the missile you used to destroy them can be replaced.

The MAIN advantage of this type of "High Tech War" is the incredibly small casualty list for "your side". (The casualty list for "their side" isn't actually that much higher.)

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Aug 3 at 2015 9:29 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Mon, 03 Aug 2015 21:29:30 -0400

In WWII we often bombarded islands with ships and air planes, but it was the infantry that had to kill the enemy ground troops to gain a victory.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 3 at 2015 9:58 PM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 03 Aug 2015 21:58:40 -0400

I would say that as long as ISIS has something that looks like a country they are accomplishing their goal. They call themselves the Islamic State...

Response by MAJ Javier Rivera made Aug 4 at 2015 1:04 AM

MAJ Javier Rivera — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 01:04:07 -0400

Surprised?

Response by SGM Steve Wettstein made Aug 4 at 2015 5:47 AM

SGM Steve Wettstein — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 05:47:41 -0400

GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad Gunny the only change we could do, besides leaving, is to put a lot of BOG. The only people that have the chops to do the fighting and keep at it when it is tough are the Kurds and there aren't enough of them to finish the fight.

Response by SCPO Lee Pradia made Aug 4 at 2015 7:19 AM

SCPO Lee Pradia — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 07:19:32 -0400

Blame congress, what would happen if the President sent in ground troops? He'd be lynched thats what. All we see and hear is complaining and gripping, no solutions.
The bottom line is, when will the Middle East take responsibility for their sovereignty?
Makes me wonder, if Sadam was alive and well, would ISIS would have set foot in Iraq?

Response by SMSgt Thor Merich made Aug 4 at 2015 12:24 PM

SMSgt Thor Merich — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 12:24:22 -0400

Even though I may be burned alive at the stake by the AF for saying this, but air power alone has never defeated an enemy. You need boots on the ground. Taking and holding land is the only way to beat an enemy. If we want to win we need to put the U.S. Marines or Army on the ground. The real question is whether the U.S. is willing to fight. Or more importantly, whether we should even be in that fight.

Response by SGT Joe Sabedra made Aug 4 at 2015 12:31 PM

SGT Joe Sabedra — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 12:31:09 -0400

If we quit meddling in other counties affairs and trying to make the like us (a different type of governmental corruption) they would not hate is as much.

We are not the world police force.

Every time we hit a place they say that we hit a hospital. It's lies we know that but they don't.

Leave the region except for Israel.
Use our own oil and stop giving terrorist countries money. Never figured that one out.

Response by A1C Charles D Wilson made Aug 7 at 2015 7:25 AM

A1C Charles D Wilson — Fri, 07 Aug 2015 07:25:02 -0400

To heck with it. let me go native (American Indian) and do my thing. One at a time eating rattlesnakes along the way. We need to stop fighting the war being civilized. Go barbaric and unleash the dogs of war. They do not care for the civilized people that within the borders so treat them as they treat others. Do it slow and painful and make a statement. To me the people have no loyalty to their country or they would stand and fight. I know my neighbors up and down the block where I live. yet they probably could not tell you who lives next door to them. So they can not trust each other and do not know who the enemy is then it is to late. I may be ex Air Force but I would ground pound with anyone who needed it...disabled or not. Just let me retrain on a weapon before I go...been to many years.

Just saying with a little rant.
God Bless and have a good day!!

Response by PO2 Ron Burling made Aug 7 at 2015 9:00 AM

PO2 Ron Burling — Fri, 07 Aug 2015 09:00:54 -0400

As in the past, it is going to require far more force than the current administration is willing to commit, boots on the ground unhampered by politically correct rules of engagement and a real "will to win" on our part.

Response by MSG Bob James made Aug 8 at 2015 10:22 PM

MSG Bob James — Sat, 08 Aug 2015 22:22:10 -0400

Need boots on the ground!

Response by SSgt GG-15 RET Jim Lint made Dec 9 at 2016 8:44 PM

SSgt GG-15 RET Jim Lint — Fri, 09 Dec 2016 20:44:50 -0500

The ROE must be modified to to allow us to win.

Response by SSgt GG-15 RET Jim Lint made Dec 9 at 2016 8:53 PM

SSgt GG-15 RET Jim Lint — Fri, 09 Dec 2016 20:53:47 -0500

Think about the way we fought WWII....and WON. The rules were different. The goal was to kill the enemy. We killed the enemy, and their logistics and supply lines. We bombed their ball bearing factories. Those were not run by military, those were run by enemy civilians. It was clearly a target, and they also hit it with the inaccurate steel bombs. Yes, they got the factory, and they got the neighborhood around it. Look at the city of Dresden, Germany that got firebombed. The greatest generation...maybe we need to get the same focus. Looks like we like their focus, but most US civilians do not understand what it took to win.

Response by PO1 Kerry French made Mar 4 at 2017 11:39 PM

PO1 Kerry French — Sat, 04 Mar 2017 23:39:54 -0500

pigs and women... make them afraid to die