5
5
0
The Islamic State operates in a land locked region. If the borders were sealed and they were not allowed to transport supplies and personnel across borders, this would be a serious complication for the Islamic State preventing the sale of antiquities, oil, and the influx of new recruits, ammunitions, food, ....
Not saying it is our responsibility to man the borders.
Not saying it is our responsibility to man the borders.
Edited 10 y ago
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 10
If their borders were sealed then they would just focus more on oppressing people within those borders. However, sealing the borders of a non-state entity is not practical or close to realistic. We would need to man a border of over 1000 miles. It would probably take hundreds of thousands of troops, please many more troops to support the troops securing the border. We can't even guard our own border in the US, how would somebody do it there?
(7)
(0)
LTC Yinon Weiss
CPT (Join to see) - Why didn't the US "seal" the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan? Or Iraq and Iran when so many IEDs killing our Soldiers were coming from Iran? Or between Viernam and Laos? It's just not a feasible military option. As I said, we can't even seal our own border. Sealing borders is not a viable military strategy to defeat an enemy. It's not their center of gravity.
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
LTC Yinon Weiss - Sir, It's interesting you say that because POTUS asked Turkey to seal the border between itself and Syria http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-urges-turkey-to-seal-syria-border [login to see]
U.S. Urges Turkey to Seal Border
The Obama administration is pressing Turkey to deploy thousands of additional troops along its border with Syria to cordon off a 60-mile stretch of frontier that U.S. officials say is used by Islamic State to move foreign fighters.
(1)
(0)
LTC Yinon Weiss
CPT (Join to see) - Well, of course we would ask for that, we have nothing to lose by doing so. To "seal the border" is a misleading article title however. If you even read just the sub-title you see it says it's really a request to "close off key transit routes", which is drastically different than sealing a border. You close off key transit routes and they'll just switch to using others. I'm not saying there's no point to doing anything, but we need to be deliberate in our words. Defeating, disrupting, containing, sealing... those all mean very different things.
(3)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
LTC Yinon Weiss - You are right. In my original question though I wasn't inferring that the U.S. should commit troops to sealing the borders but the question of what would happen to the organization if the borders were sealed. Would they be able to withstand isolation with the resources they have?
(1)
(0)
We can't control the border of a nature reserve in Oregon or our own border with Mexico or Canada. How in the world would would we seal anything in that region.
(5)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
SFC Joseph Weber I'm not asking what would happen if we committed troops. I'm asking what would happen to the organization if it were cut off from the resources of gaining money through the sale of antiquities and oil and prevented from increasing their numbers through recruiting.
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see) In theory this work just like the sieges of old. You have to feed the terror machine without the supplies arms and munitions coming from outside agencies they would topple.
(2)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
SGM David W. Carr LOM, DMSM MP SGT Thank you. I was thinking they would self destruct however LTC Yinon Weiss pointed out correctly they would further oppress those within their borders and become more feudal than they already are...definitely additional things to consider in this matter.
(3)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
That assumes a closed system like a castle. When you have an open system like a kingdom, the dynamic changes. The supplies, arms, and munitions are on the land itself. You don't have to worry about outside agencies unless you have trade partners that supply something essential to the war or survival effort. When speaking of the area that ISIS/ISIL currently occupies, we are talking about a large enough landmass that it should not be an issue.
(1)
(0)
SGM David W. Carr LOM, DMSM MP SGT
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS CPT (Join to see) LTC Yinon Weiss TSgt Hunter Logan - I do agree and the bottom line is as long as they continue to get outside help. There will be no easy or simple solution for the victims.
(1)
(0)
I'm not asking what would happen if we committed troops. I'm asking what would happen to the organization if it were cut off from the resources of gaining money through the sale of antiquities and oil and prevented from increasing their numbers through recruiting.
(2)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
That is not going to happen.
It's like me saying, "If I win the lottery am I going to move next door to Jennifer Lawrence or Peyton Manning?"
Walt
It's like me saying, "If I win the lottery am I going to move next door to Jennifer Lawrence or Peyton Manning?"
Walt
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see) They seem to have no borders when it comes to social media and the social media sites are still allowing them a voice that extends well past the conventional border.
(1)
(0)
If they were their "own" country, this would be VERY feasible until you get the "humanitarian" deliveries and the dual purpose deliveries or some "important" person in the area stops getting his kickbacks. I'd even say until someone here in the States stops getting their kickbacks also. And no one knows what an "ISIS" person looks like. You could use some vague definition, but that would be profiling and against our own laws (heaven forbid we follow our own laws). ISIS isn't stupid either. They know what we'd be looking for and switch it up. Instead of the olive skin, manjams, and sandals with a beard, go get a Chechen who is also Muslim and get them to do whatever. They'd be seen a little different being they don't fit the "profile". White, blond hair blue eyes, well there goes the profiler. So we need to come up with unconventional ways to fight an unconventional foe, who's clearly using our history and laws against us. We were founded off guerrilla warfare against larger standing armies. Note how we're being dealt with...guerrilla warfare against a larger, more powerful standing army. Good idea ma'am, but way too many players in this game and too much money to be lost, some by folks in our own country.
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
SSG Warren Swan I agree there are too many players. Money and self interest run the world.
(0)
(0)
If ISIS's borders were in the pits of hell, I would be supportive of sealing them. Otherwise not sure it's a good idea. :-)
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
CPT Aaron Kletzing I like your response but what I'm really getting at is a discussion about what would happen to the organization if it were isolated and not allowed to continue it's financing operations. Any thoughts?
(0)
(0)
This gets really tricky, but let's look at it logistically.
The CIA estimates their total strength in the 20-40k range, though they self report at double to quintuple that (100-200~k). Their total operation area in so large that it would literally take more people to secure the borders than they have.
That said, even if we could close the borders. Let's say we did that just using US Troops, which I don't think is "practical or close to realistic" (to quote LTC Yinon Weiss) they would still have all the land mass inside those borders to operate with.
But first let's draw a parallel to the US and our own borders. How effective are we at keeping people out? Or in for that matter? And we actively "patrol" our borders from both sides.
So, back to the internal landmass. We would essentially be locking ISIL/ISIS inside the asylum with everything they needed, and the ability to conscript more people, and acquire more equipment and resources. We would completely change the dynamic, and the will of the people from a passive, "we just want to be left alone" attitude, to an active "you are now the cause of all our problems" one.
I see where you are going in regards to the "new recruits" and "funding" issues, however I think this would end up being the exact opposite desired effect. The Populace would end up being new "Recruits" (Draftees) instead, and Funding would be Privatized (Stolen) from the People as they swathed through the nations.
The CIA estimates their total strength in the 20-40k range, though they self report at double to quintuple that (100-200~k). Their total operation area in so large that it would literally take more people to secure the borders than they have.
That said, even if we could close the borders. Let's say we did that just using US Troops, which I don't think is "practical or close to realistic" (to quote LTC Yinon Weiss) they would still have all the land mass inside those borders to operate with.
But first let's draw a parallel to the US and our own borders. How effective are we at keeping people out? Or in for that matter? And we actively "patrol" our borders from both sides.
So, back to the internal landmass. We would essentially be locking ISIL/ISIS inside the asylum with everything they needed, and the ability to conscript more people, and acquire more equipment and resources. We would completely change the dynamic, and the will of the people from a passive, "we just want to be left alone" attitude, to an active "you are now the cause of all our problems" one.
I see where you are going in regards to the "new recruits" and "funding" issues, however I think this would end up being the exact opposite desired effect. The Populace would end up being new "Recruits" (Draftees) instead, and Funding would be Privatized (Stolen) from the People as they swathed through the nations.
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS I'm not asking what would happen if we committed troops. I'm asking what would happen to the organization if it were cut off from the resources of gaining money through the sale of antiquities and oil and prevented from increasing their numbers through recruiting.
(2)
(0)
LTC Yinon Weiss
CPT (Join to see) - Then their territory would devolve into even more of a stone age, but their brutal tactics would continue, and we would look even worse since we would be right at their footsteps and allowing this to happen.
(3)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
CPT (Join to see) - Check. My point is that "Sealing the borders" won't do that. It's counter-intuitive.
If you close the borders, we turn ISIS inbound, which will in turn, turn the cause the local populace to be conscripted as recruits (at a much higher rate). Additionally, rather than receiving donations, it will be a "loot & plunder" model (above and beyond current).
It doesn't matter whose troops are used. I just highlighted the feasibility issue because of border size, and cost-benefit based on organization size vs. border length.
I get where you are going, and it is a reasonable question, but we run into a couple specific problems. First is Capability (we can't do it). Second is Functionality (it wouldn't accomplish the desired goal, and would actually exacerbate the issue).
If you close the borders, we turn ISIS inbound, which will in turn, turn the cause the local populace to be conscripted as recruits (at a much higher rate). Additionally, rather than receiving donations, it will be a "loot & plunder" model (above and beyond current).
It doesn't matter whose troops are used. I just highlighted the feasibility issue because of border size, and cost-benefit based on organization size vs. border length.
I get where you are going, and it is a reasonable question, but we run into a couple specific problems. First is Capability (we can't do it). Second is Functionality (it wouldn't accomplish the desired goal, and would actually exacerbate the issue).
(1)
(0)
There would be a growing Frustration among the Leadership! They will be infighting! Internal Strife! They would Eventually kill each other! Mark 3:26(KJV)
"And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end."
"And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end."
(0)
(0)
Seal the borders? You mean along the SEA PORT areas in Iraq? The MEDITERRANEAN PORTS in Syria and Lebanon? The PORT areas in Pakistan? The PORTS in Saudi?
Yeah, let's blockade the entire Persian Gulf, Black Sea, Med, and Indian Oceans!!
Really, Captain, you should try to look at maps once in a while. You'd be amazed at what you can see.
Yeah, let's blockade the entire Persian Gulf, Black Sea, Med, and Indian Oceans!!
Really, Captain, you should try to look at maps once in a while. You'd be amazed at what you can see.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next


ISIS
War on Terror
Homeland Security

