Should we help the kurds take Raqqa from ISIS

ISIS is currently hiding behind civilians in the stronghold of Raqqa. should the USA help the kurds even if it means some collateral damage or should we leave the kurds and ISIS to fight it out.

 

We're already helping the Kurds with arms and airstrikes. AND there is an increasing number of Americans (mostly ex-GIs) on the ground fighting alongside the Kurds. I'd call for more volunteers but leave command and control to the Kurds. We'd just f it up.

 

Obama would just (*)(*)(*)(*) it up.

 

If he got involved beyond what I suggested, probably. So far he has not.

 

As long as Obama does nothing he won't (*)(*)(*)(*) up. If he does anything in the middle east he will (*)(*)(*)(*) up.

 

We need to support the Kurds. The Kurds are fighting ISIS and are being oppressed by the Turkish Terrorists who help ISIS.

Turkey is also anti-Israel, which is why we should support the Kurds.

 

Why should we support the Kurds when Israel has already supported ISIS?

 

If the Kurds don't encourage homosexuality, and gay marriage we shouldn't help them. Let Isis cut their heads off

 

(*)(*)(*)(*) it up even more, you mean.

 

Yeah, I guess.

 

That's a little far fetched

- - - Updated - - -

We should help them because we are both working towards a common goal.

 

I voted - "yes, lets starve them out."

My first thought was to vote "yes, lets bomb the crap out of them"
but then I thought about all the civilians there and thought better of it, that we should give civilians a chance to get out first, by starving the city and after civilians have had every encouragement to leave then call in the B52s to bomb it to rubble.

Also I'm sympathetic to "yes, but lets send a task force in to minimize collateral damage"
if there are any volunteers to go in, like maybe the Syrian Free Army, who wanted a chance to see if they could clear the city, to avoid the need to level the place.

There's no reason to expect the Kurds to go fighting street-by-street through an Arab city to clear out ISIS in a city in which no or very few Kurds stay, whether that is Raqqa in Syria or Mosul and Ramadi in Iraq. The best we can hope for there is for the Kurds to seal off one side of say Mosul, while Iraqi Sunni tribal or Iraqi army seal off the other side.

But on the subject of arming the Kurds, we do need to do more.

Arming the Kurds

The President visited the Pentagon to encourage his military leadership team, to order them as Commander-in-Chief to accelerate delivery of the President's objectives and I'm supporting the President's lead with practical suggestions.

The President didn't visit the Pentagon to claim "job done" because he knows that as far as defeating ISIS is concerned, the job is far from done.

Video: President Barack Obama's Statement to Press



but ...
SPIN: Trainers and advisors sent to Kurdistan
REALITY: Fox News reports American special forces required to transit to Kurdistan via Baghdad when they are not allowed to take their heavy weapons and must leave them in Baghdad.

SPIN: ($350 million in equipment to be provided as part of training)
REALITY: New American reports ISIS Seized $1 Billion of U.S. Military Aid. Christian Post reports
ISIS Budget Exceeds $2 Billion in 2015

SPIN: Anti-ISIS coalition airstrikes coordinated with Kurdish forces
REALITY: Fox News reports DELTA and other U.S. special forces currently on the ground are not allowed to participate in the war against ISIS and fight with the Kurds, preventing the most effective coordination of air-strikes with Forward Air Controllers (FAC) / Joint Terminal Attack Controllers (JTAC) on the ground.

SPIN: 1,000 anti-tank missiles & 40 mine-resistant vehicles sent to Kurdish forces
REALITY: Fox News reports the Kurds dispute those numbers, insisting a lot of those weapons were never transferred to them after being given to Baghdad.

SPIN: $15 million in airlift support, transporting supplies from the U.S. and other coalition partners
REALITY: Huff Post reports Kurds cannot receive US arms directly though Kurds want weapons delivered directly

AT-4 anti-tank weapons


US troops using AT-4 anti-tank weapon

Range - 300 metres.
Cost - $1,500
Design Purpose - It is intended to give infantry units a means to destroy or disable armoured vehicles and fortifications although it is not generally sufficient to defeat a modern main battle tank (MBT).
Why the Kurdish army, the Peshmerga need them - useful against ISIS seized HUMVEEs looted from the Iraqi army which have been packed with high explosive and are been driven at high-speed by an ISIS suicide bomber towards the Peshmerga's front lines
How many the Kurds need - Stocks of about 20 per mile of defended front line. 2,000 per 100 miles of front line. Kurds front line with ISIS estimated at 600 miles, so they require to hold stocks of about 12,000 total cost $18 million
How many promised - 1,000
How many received - unknown because the Kurds complain of difficulties in receiving deliveries sent via Baghdad


BGM-71 TOW anti-tank weapons

[video=youtube;-tuifgYa-Io]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tuifgYa-Io[/video]

Range - 4,500 metres.
Cost - $60,000
Design Purpose - The Raytheon BGM-71 TOW is a heavy anti-armor/assault missile used by the U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps.
Why the Kurdish army, the Peshmerga need them - useful against as many as 40 ISIS seized Abrams M1A1 Main Battle Tanks looted from the Iraqi army plus other main battle tanks.
How many the Kurds need - 1 per mile of defended front lines. 600 miles of front line requires stocks of about 600, total cost $36 million
How many promised - None.
How many received - None.

M2 Heavy Machine Gun

[video=youtube;U_md7brawJY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=50&v=U_md7brawJY[/video]

Range - 6,800 metres.
Cost - $14,000
Design Purpose - The Browning M2 .50 caliber (12.7mm) Machine Gun, is a World War II era automatic, belt-fed, recoil operated, air-cooled, crew-operated machine gun.
Why the Kurdish army, the Peshmerga need them - useful against attacking ISIS fighters in anything but armoured vehicles.
How many the Kurds need - about 8 per mile of defended front line. 600 miles of front line requires about 4,800, total cost $67 million
How many promised - None.
How many received - None.

Total cost of this request
$18 million (AT-4s) + $38 million (BGM-71 TOWs) + $67 million (M2s)
= $123 million
GOOD VALUE TO STOP ISIS in their tracks at Kurdish front lines!

 

I don't think America should get involved.

 

I posted this battleplan here on August 9 but I forgot to post about it in this thread, so here it is now.

TAKE RAQQA BATTLEPLAN



This is my political and military plan to put the squeeze on the so-called "Islamic State" / ISIS / ISIL / Daesh operational capital at Raqqa, Syria.

1) The Turkish army invades Syria with an armoured column west and south of the Euphrates and attacks Raqqa from the south, also blocking the east and west routes to Raqqa.

2) The Euphrates Volcano - a joint operations room for the Royava Kurds YPG / YPJ and the Free Syrian Army - cut off Raqqa to the north, bottling ISIS fighters up in Raqqa or in other bolt holes to the east and north of the Euphrates.

Euphrates Volcano - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​

This October, the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) have been founded, which includes the Euphrates Volcano. So an updated version of my battleplan should mention the SDF.

3) The Turks and / or the Euphrates Volcano YPG / YPJ / FSA take Raqqa, clearing it street to street, mopping up ISIS forces.

I appreciate that the Turks have not yet committed to invading Syria with their army and neither have the Euphrates Volcano, YPG / FSA asked for such Turkish intervention.

So I think it is really going to take NATO to suggest such a collaboration, because neither side would wish to admit needing the other to defeat ISIS, I expect.

Diplomacy is not my strong suit but if these forces can be persuaded diplomatically to work together then liberating Raqqa from ISIS should be straight-forward enough, militarily speaking.

Now a word or two about the politics.

A solution for SYRIA too

We should support the rights of Sunni-majority areas to establish a Sunni-majority state, partitioned from Iraq and / or Syria but modelled not after Saudi Arabia's oppressive religious police Sunni state but rather as a secular, democratic state (approximated imperfectly by Turkey with its majority Sunni population), which could be part of a stable solution, acceptable to world powers.

However, to get there, we must first defeat ISIS and al-Qaeda and put irresistible pressure on Arab states to support a peace solution for Iraq and Syria, perhaps with Arab state regular armies invading Syria and Iraq to enforce a peace settlement along partition lines agreed at the United Nations with NATO acting as a military police force, directing Arab armies here and there.

Such a peace would be workable and stable, rather than as now with the Arab states' proxy terrorists failing to enforce a non-agreed imposed terrorist state.

NATO

The NATO military alliance met recently at NATO Headquarters in Brussels, to consider a plea from Turkey for support.

TURKS

Well if I was leading NATO, Turkey would be getting some very forceful advice behind the scenes to quit treating the PKK the same as ISIS and encouragement to seek a cease-fire with the PKK and I'd be making that distinction clear publicly as I have already done.

Since NATO statements are only agreed unanimously then it is not surprising that Turkey would not agree to the following quoted statement for publication as "the view of NATO" but there is nothing to stop the NATO Secretary General making this statement in a personal leadership capacity, except for the fact that the Secretary General is not me, but someone else.

"Turkey has been quite wrong to try to paint ISIS and the PKK with the same brush, equally as "terrorists", when the PKK have legitimate concerns about protecting Kurds from ISIS, although the PKK's attack on Turkish police officers which broke the cease-fire was ill-advised and it is unsurprising that Turkey would label such attacks as "terrorists" and a unilateral ending of the cease-fire by the PKK. Ending the cease-fire was a bad move by the PKK because cease-fires are much easier to end than they are to resume.

So Turkey had a cease-fire with the PKK and rightly so but Turkey should never have had a cease-fire with ISIS, if indeed that's what it had, it was quite wrong to have such a cease fire with ISIS.

Also, Turkey should be open minded about resuming a cease-fire with the PKK. Admittedly it takes two sides to make a cease-fire stick but at least a cease-fire should be possible with the PKK in the way it should not be possible with ISIS.

Otherwise, the suspicion will be that the Turkish state is being manipulated by those fascists who are not sincere about fighting ISIS but instead are using ISIS attacks as a pretext, conflating ISIS with anyone Kurdish or Turkish leftist, as a smokescreen for a far wider and undemocratic crackdown."​

KURDS

We are not doing the Kurds any favours by turning a blind eye to the PKK blunder providing Erdogan and the Turkish secret security fascists with the pretext for a crackdown they were likely trying to provoke - the July 22 killing by the PKK of 2 Turkish police officers.

Whatever the Kurds' or PKK's suspicions or personal convictions about Erdogan etc secretly sponsoring ISIS, it is not astute for the PKK to lash out at Turkish officers indiscriminately, because the case "Erdogan-backs-ISIS" has not been proven to NATO, to the US and allies or to the people of Turkey.

Least of all is that case made when Turkey provides the US with the use of airbases with which to attack ISIS.

Erdogan has played much too clever a game and has outwitted the PKK. They have fallen into his trap.

In future, Kurds should impress on the PKK the international political need to act with more political wisdom as prosecutors, proving their case of nefarious machinations of the secret security state of Turkey and its sponsorship of ISIS, while treating with respect those Turks, Americans, Europeans and others whom Erdogan's secret plots have deceived.​

RUSSIA

Although my battleplan shows a "Turkish army" invasion of northern Syria, I am proposing that this would be a NATO-authorized, sponsored and supported invasion mission, perhaps could even include US and other NATO armoured elements going in on the ground with the Turkish army, if that would help to bolster Turkish army courage.

So NATO would need to set out some very clear red-lines, such as no-fly and no-missile zones, banning Russian and Al-Assad air-forces and missiles from any interference with NATO's "Take Raqqa" mission.

The issue for the Turks would be that whereas the Turkish army would make mincemeat of ISIS no problem and could probably hold off Al Assad's air-force, the Turkish concern would be keeping Russia off their backs and that's what NATO must guarantee for a confident Turkish-led, NATO-sponsored armoured ground invasion of northern Syria.

I have already posted here recommending the leadership of Condoleezza Rice when dealing with the Russians.
How America can counter Putin’s moves in Syria

 

Internecine fighting within ISIS ...

Civilians rise up against ISIS rule in Raqqa City: government
6/03/2016 - On Saturday, Syrian government officials reported that local civilians rose up against the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham’s (ISIS) rule inside the provincial capital of the Al-Raqqa Governorate, resulting in the capture of 5 neighborhoods from the terrorist group.

 

No! The Kurds are terrorizing our NATO ally Turkey. We should help Turkey to deal with the Kurds.

 

All forum conservatives who believe in limited government should be the first ones to say that our government has no role in that conflict. That is, if they have any consistency in their principles, they would say such things.

 

Im neither for or against.

But how can an force invade a country and "ban" syrian forces from participating in it to eliminate what is everyone enemy?
What give the Turks and NATO right to invade Syria? I thought NATO was a defence alliance?

 

Southfront analysis and intelligence reported on March 3rd

"Meanwhile, the Syrian troops reportedly deployed in Southeastern and Northeastern areas of Aleppo and Hama provinces respectively are preparing to launch a joint anti-terrorism operation to free more lands in the province of Raqqa."
https://southfront.org/international-military-review-syria-mar-3-2016/​

Well it doesn't seem like the Turkish military have acted in good time on my TAKE RAQQA BATTLEPLAN first published in August 2015,
http://supremealliedcondista.newsvine.com/_news/2015/08/13/33784359-take-raqqa-battleplan

where I proposed a NATO-led, mostly Turkish ground force would make the sort of ground thrust from the south and west which Southfront are now predicting the Syrian Arab Army are preparing.

Unfortunately, Turkey has right now a bad president, Erdogan, who seems more interested in closing down the Turkish free press than fighting ISIS. Attacks on the free press are violations of Turkey's obligations to NATO and Erdogan should be held to account for such outrages against freedom and democracy.

NATO should be helping the Turkish free press by providing them with alternative satellite TV broadcasting facilities to rally opposition to the Erdogan dictatorship. Additionally, NATO could consider jamming Erdogan's propaganda broadcasts.

If NATO could get Turkish opposition support for the Turkish military being tasked in some fashion, even if my battleplan is too late for them, to help with the fight against ISIS instead of pursuing Erdogan's vendetta with the Kurds, then I would welcome that.

Otherwise, the road to Raqqa is open to the SAA and allied forces and NATO should facilitate this thrust, de-conflicting control of the airspace so that Russian air-force can provide all such close air support as is required for the SAA's advance upon Raqqa.

Sorry NATO didn't get there sooner but hopefully we can still play a positive role in future, perhaps supporting ground advances by Kurdish and Syrian Democratic Forces against Raqqa from the north, as was also envisaged in my battleplan?

Let's roll.

 

Christians Under Siege in Raqqa...

Islamic State Keeps Christians Under Siege in Raqqa
April 05, 2016 - Islamic State militants are cracking down on the few remaining Christians and preventing them from leaving Raqqa, Syria, local activists tell VOA.

 

Have we not learned by now that "Helping" any side in the Middle East is simply making enemies of everyone else? There is no way to actually help those who cannot be helped....all we could do is temporarily change something before it turned on us and started biting.

Stay as far away from we can over there...this is truly a no win scenario.

 

The Kurds are fighting ISIS. This is good. But the Kurds are also terrorizing our Turkey NATO allies. This is bad.

The way to deal with the Kurds is as follows:
1) support em to kill ISIS
2) once this is all over, support Turkey to kill off Kurdish terrorists

The key folks we should be bombing are:
1) the ISIS terrorists
2) the Iranian terrorists supporting Assad
3) Assad's guys

We should support the moderate rebels against ISIS, so that we can focus ALL of our efforts on killing Iranian terrorists in particular.

 

We should have arming and supporting the Kurds since 1922. yes that's right I said 1922.

 

ISIS re-enforcing Defenses of Raqqa...

ISIS Moving to Shore Up Defenses of Raqqa, Pentagon Says
May 14, 2016 | U.S. intelligence has picked up signs of ISIS repositioning troops and equipment in and around Raqqa in northeastern Syria in apparent preparation for what they believe could be an imminent attack on their self-proclaimed capital, an American military spokesman said Friday.

 

What we SHOULD do is get completely out of the Middle East militarily, make our embassies a pillbox with automated pushbutton defenses of incredible firepower, Give our ambassadors the power to push said button, and inform whatever country that if they do not like it we can certainly just leave....taking everything American with us.

Likely within a year their country will be a very different place with significantly smaller population.