6
6
0
Thoughts on president Barack Obama saying we under estimated ISIS and over estimated the will and power of our allies. Syrian and Iraqi forces?
Why is it that we fight and want good things for other countries more than they want for themselves?
Why is it that we fight and want good things for other countries more than they want for themselves?
Posted in these groups: 
ISIS
ISIS
Edited 11 y ago
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 24
2
2
0
I'm gonna throw the BULLSHIT flag on POTUS claim.....I'm hearing a totally different story from folks I respect and trust.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
I don't think there was an accurate estimation done on ISIS/ISIL at the outset of the emergence of this force. We were dealing with Benghazi, Libya, Syria, and Aghanistan at the same time. ISIL/ISIS was a far and is still a distant priority. Our intelligence community probably has a better read on capabilities and threat now, but, I don't see us being in there in full force for another couple of years. When Baghdad and Basra are close to defeat, then the ish will get serious.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Vatican backs using force against IS
The Vatican says force may be necessary to stop attacks on Christians and other Middle East minorities by Islamic State (IS) if no political solution is found.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I don't think that the intelligence community and military analysts didn't underestimate ISIS, it appears that the WH and other civilian leaders did.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
To say we 'underestimated' them, is just a convenient trope thrown around by officials to throw people off the trail. The reality is, they probably knew about the potential instability surrounding ISIS for a while. When there was so much political pressure to leave Iraq, despite soldiers of all ranks saying it was too soon, implies that there had to be a game behind the 2011 pull out. The truth is, too many officials, both military and non-military, have utterly failed to invest any real time in understanding the Islamic world in general and the Middle east in particular. This is why these 'surprises' are always 'surprises', when you have too many chiefs of decision making power with utterly no ability to comprehend or understand the differences that Islamic countries operate under, misguided policies are surely going to be the order of the day.
1. Substate/non-state actors. The officials that make policy decisions that soldiers ultimately follow simply do not understand, or if they do, they feel a need to act within the old US/Western game plan of action. Islamic countries generally do not view their governments as a 'sovereign' power that you have to respect or obey...as shocking as they may seem considering how brutal most Islamic governments are. We in the US, while distrustful of government to an extent, also have a long track record of obedience. The police are seen as the sovereign authority by which to enforce laws. We may not like it, but this is rarely questioned in principle. Case in point, even in the worst of the Ferguson uproar, if you read carefully, you'll see the dialogue for 'change' and 'reform' is ALWAYS within the framework of acknowledging the police as a legitimate authority first, the reform comes from political pressure to change policies within the police force, but to not undo them entirely. Occasionally a militia or two might gain negative spotlight for questionable antics, but ok. In the Middle East, the police aren't always acknowledged as the sovereign authority enforcers, and thats why it never takes long, maybe a year or two at the most, before some tribe, death squad, militia, or terrorist group turns its guns on its own people out of some demand for justice. We in the US act within a framework to settle these disputes, and the police are seen a vital part of that. In the Middle East and many Islamic countries in general (Afghanistan is FAR worse in this regard when compared to Iraq) the police are merely seen as one more competing strong arm. You make think this is too counterinituitive to be true...because why would so many despots like Saddam and Assad have so much autocratic rule, if not for strict obedience to a strong government? The fact though, is that when you look into the histories of these countries, the strong man holds power only from outgunning his opponents, this is deference to the guy with the most firepower, its not the sort of genuine obedience you see out of American citizens.
Thus- this is why substate actors are always seizing the day in the Middle East. The moment the most powerful faction is weakened in any way, the challenge to authority is imminent. The ultimate bottom line logic in this is at the bottom of the pyramid, where the vast majority of people are, their stronger loyalties are always going to be to their families, clans, tribes, or the transnational Islamic community. Loyalty along strict state lines is a new concept to them and a foreign one too, at that. When they don't see their 'state government' as being any more legitimate than the next tribe over with thousands of men packing guns, its inevitable that the sort of loons that make up ISIS will predominate.
2. Everything mentioned in point 1 has been glossed over, or ignored, in the power point briefings that must go on at the higher command levels, when actions are required in upheavals in the Middle East. If you look into your own deployment history, talk to other soldiers, read the volumes of memoirs of recent veterans, and most of all, get to know who the Islamic nations are, the pattern in point 1 comes out. This also, is not original news. Muslims themselves have been trying to explain this to us on their own media outlets for decades, long before 9/11. But, this sort of refusal to acknowledge that the Middle East plays by different rules has been a bridge too many with high authority in the US have refused to cross. Which then leads to frustration when solid, crystal clear policy objectives backfire wildly, and then leads to the common tropes heard among lower enlisted: just leave the Middle East and turn it into a parking lot. The frustration boils over when you are always approaching the situation by your own lens, and not seeing what the other sees.
Case in point:
-Why is it that we can take recruits off the suburbs in the US, put them through boot camp, and after 6 months of additional training, have a raw new soldier that simply outperforms the sort of fanatical misfits you see in the Middle Eastern armies? Here's why: this style of conventional warfare is just not an organic outgrowth in the Middle East. It works in the US, because on average, by the time a recruit is 18 and goes to boot camp, he or she has already been educated and socialized into the subconscious obedience to lawful authority through a roughly standardized education system. So, on average, the mind of the recruit is going to absorb military training the way we dispense it because its within a frame of reference they already acknowledge as legitimate.
Conversely, the fanatical undisciplined guerrillas you routinely see in Middle Eastern flare ups have a different sort of mindset. Their deference is not to a chain of command the way we have it, but to tribal strong arms and warlords. Automatically there's not going to be a standard doctrine among them, so naturally, their more creative 'trial and error' approaches to fighting US forces is going to routinely get more of them killed. And they are fine with taking higher causalities, since to do so is to die for a higher noble cause. Seen from a conventional big Army perspective, those misfits could never outperform even an average US Infantryman. But what CAN they do that the US Infantryman can't? They don't have an ROE, they couldn't care less about civilian deaths, they are always free to take the initiative with new ideas however deadly the results are to themselves, they don't have to obey the common rules of warfare that the US infantryman does. There's no shock in the UN when a particularly savage member of their cohort lops off a head, or sends children to fight an armored brigade. By implication, they are free to basically do whatever they want.
When all that is said and done, it should be no surprise that the 'train them up' mentality of Iraq and Afghanistan has continually gone nowhere. We've been 'training' them for years, and it hasn't worked and never will. No amount of tweaking things on the seams will change that.
3. Why are we always more willing to die for their country than they are? Answer: most Americans in fact are not gung-ho to die for anothers country. But, there's a sort of old 'civilized/gentlemen' culture of diplomatic bureaucracy that largely goes unquestioned in the US, the shortcomings of which are meted out on enlisted soldiers, unfortunately. We tend to get mired in obligations to act, because the unspoken aura of responsibility to fix things has been taken up by US officials. This is doubly true if some sort of economic interest the US has is at stake. Then, its not surprising, the oil companies and contracts are going to fund and lobby for continual US military action in the Middle East, too many rich noblemen in the US have profits at stake in the Middle East, oil not withstanding. When you factor that into the sort of benign obligation to act that the US always takes, then, don't be surprised we are going to 'liberate' Kuwait, Iraq, or Afghanistan, on the grounds of freedom and democracy. People who are far removed from the results of their decisions won't have to pay up for any mistakes they have made. What they are interested in is always being viewed as the good guy at all times, while really fighting for their own profits underneath the table. Think about this point long enough, and you'll see why 'policing' actions like Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan always seem to occur within a 20 year time span.
But rest assured, the average American does not see dying for another country as a noble cause, however dressed up it is.
Until there is genuine interest in reexamining all the assumptions we take for granted, expect more of the same for a long time to come.
1. Substate/non-state actors. The officials that make policy decisions that soldiers ultimately follow simply do not understand, or if they do, they feel a need to act within the old US/Western game plan of action. Islamic countries generally do not view their governments as a 'sovereign' power that you have to respect or obey...as shocking as they may seem considering how brutal most Islamic governments are. We in the US, while distrustful of government to an extent, also have a long track record of obedience. The police are seen as the sovereign authority by which to enforce laws. We may not like it, but this is rarely questioned in principle. Case in point, even in the worst of the Ferguson uproar, if you read carefully, you'll see the dialogue for 'change' and 'reform' is ALWAYS within the framework of acknowledging the police as a legitimate authority first, the reform comes from political pressure to change policies within the police force, but to not undo them entirely. Occasionally a militia or two might gain negative spotlight for questionable antics, but ok. In the Middle East, the police aren't always acknowledged as the sovereign authority enforcers, and thats why it never takes long, maybe a year or two at the most, before some tribe, death squad, militia, or terrorist group turns its guns on its own people out of some demand for justice. We in the US act within a framework to settle these disputes, and the police are seen a vital part of that. In the Middle East and many Islamic countries in general (Afghanistan is FAR worse in this regard when compared to Iraq) the police are merely seen as one more competing strong arm. You make think this is too counterinituitive to be true...because why would so many despots like Saddam and Assad have so much autocratic rule, if not for strict obedience to a strong government? The fact though, is that when you look into the histories of these countries, the strong man holds power only from outgunning his opponents, this is deference to the guy with the most firepower, its not the sort of genuine obedience you see out of American citizens.
Thus- this is why substate actors are always seizing the day in the Middle East. The moment the most powerful faction is weakened in any way, the challenge to authority is imminent. The ultimate bottom line logic in this is at the bottom of the pyramid, where the vast majority of people are, their stronger loyalties are always going to be to their families, clans, tribes, or the transnational Islamic community. Loyalty along strict state lines is a new concept to them and a foreign one too, at that. When they don't see their 'state government' as being any more legitimate than the next tribe over with thousands of men packing guns, its inevitable that the sort of loons that make up ISIS will predominate.
2. Everything mentioned in point 1 has been glossed over, or ignored, in the power point briefings that must go on at the higher command levels, when actions are required in upheavals in the Middle East. If you look into your own deployment history, talk to other soldiers, read the volumes of memoirs of recent veterans, and most of all, get to know who the Islamic nations are, the pattern in point 1 comes out. This also, is not original news. Muslims themselves have been trying to explain this to us on their own media outlets for decades, long before 9/11. But, this sort of refusal to acknowledge that the Middle East plays by different rules has been a bridge too many with high authority in the US have refused to cross. Which then leads to frustration when solid, crystal clear policy objectives backfire wildly, and then leads to the common tropes heard among lower enlisted: just leave the Middle East and turn it into a parking lot. The frustration boils over when you are always approaching the situation by your own lens, and not seeing what the other sees.
Case in point:
-Why is it that we can take recruits off the suburbs in the US, put them through boot camp, and after 6 months of additional training, have a raw new soldier that simply outperforms the sort of fanatical misfits you see in the Middle Eastern armies? Here's why: this style of conventional warfare is just not an organic outgrowth in the Middle East. It works in the US, because on average, by the time a recruit is 18 and goes to boot camp, he or she has already been educated and socialized into the subconscious obedience to lawful authority through a roughly standardized education system. So, on average, the mind of the recruit is going to absorb military training the way we dispense it because its within a frame of reference they already acknowledge as legitimate.
Conversely, the fanatical undisciplined guerrillas you routinely see in Middle Eastern flare ups have a different sort of mindset. Their deference is not to a chain of command the way we have it, but to tribal strong arms and warlords. Automatically there's not going to be a standard doctrine among them, so naturally, their more creative 'trial and error' approaches to fighting US forces is going to routinely get more of them killed. And they are fine with taking higher causalities, since to do so is to die for a higher noble cause. Seen from a conventional big Army perspective, those misfits could never outperform even an average US Infantryman. But what CAN they do that the US Infantryman can't? They don't have an ROE, they couldn't care less about civilian deaths, they are always free to take the initiative with new ideas however deadly the results are to themselves, they don't have to obey the common rules of warfare that the US infantryman does. There's no shock in the UN when a particularly savage member of their cohort lops off a head, or sends children to fight an armored brigade. By implication, they are free to basically do whatever they want.
When all that is said and done, it should be no surprise that the 'train them up' mentality of Iraq and Afghanistan has continually gone nowhere. We've been 'training' them for years, and it hasn't worked and never will. No amount of tweaking things on the seams will change that.
3. Why are we always more willing to die for their country than they are? Answer: most Americans in fact are not gung-ho to die for anothers country. But, there's a sort of old 'civilized/gentlemen' culture of diplomatic bureaucracy that largely goes unquestioned in the US, the shortcomings of which are meted out on enlisted soldiers, unfortunately. We tend to get mired in obligations to act, because the unspoken aura of responsibility to fix things has been taken up by US officials. This is doubly true if some sort of economic interest the US has is at stake. Then, its not surprising, the oil companies and contracts are going to fund and lobby for continual US military action in the Middle East, too many rich noblemen in the US have profits at stake in the Middle East, oil not withstanding. When you factor that into the sort of benign obligation to act that the US always takes, then, don't be surprised we are going to 'liberate' Kuwait, Iraq, or Afghanistan, on the grounds of freedom and democracy. People who are far removed from the results of their decisions won't have to pay up for any mistakes they have made. What they are interested in is always being viewed as the good guy at all times, while really fighting for their own profits underneath the table. Think about this point long enough, and you'll see why 'policing' actions like Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan always seem to occur within a 20 year time span.
But rest assured, the average American does not see dying for another country as a noble cause, however dressed up it is.
Until there is genuine interest in reexamining all the assumptions we take for granted, expect more of the same for a long time to come.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
The answer is actually really simple, one word in fact , "Bounty". Put a bounty on the heads of all Isis personel. 50g per head.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Ok... how can the POTUS get this wrong? I thought that is why we have a CIA, JSOC, etc. Do they not have meetings every week/month/quarter? And in other news... what is up the secret service? Every time I turn the TV own I am seeing something else, go wrong on there end. As someone mentioned above, anyone with boots on ground experience knows how things go in the Arab World. I think the year 2015 & 2016 are going to be very interesting years with the world situation and our Army getting New uniforms, and females going to Ranger School. Time will tell all!
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Good question about the other countries. Personally, I don't care what they want as long as it is not a threat to the US. If its a threat, GAME ON. When the GAME starts, I just pray we always have a CinC with the courage to engage the enemy.
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Sir seems like we are on the same page. Hope to one day meet any of this excellent leadership on rp one day. Kind of new here but amazing individuals thousands of point of views and that's always good. Keep rocking sir! (Salutes)
(0)
(0)
When he said we I hope there was a mouse in the pocket. The American did not decide what happened. I doubt he had any clue what was going on as he is a weak military leader. It is not his strong point. It is still an issue now. We have generals that are giving their honest opinion but he still disagrees and makes plans without any listening to his generals. His national security staff/advisers made the mistakes but he is the one that put them there. So it comes back to him. So there is no we in this.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I'm pretty sure Obama and his lackeys were the only ones who underestimated ISIS.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google