Am i the only one that wants a Dieppe style raid of an isis controled crossroads? Just put a few battalions down Raise the US Flag then leave after their bodies litter the ground?
I mean Veitnam style airmobile tactics were dumb. But they wouls seem to be perfect for this situation given the lack of jungle and our massive airpower advantage that would allow extraction rather easily.
I mean just sit on a road that is a major line of supply and when they are force by their own propiganda to attack just MURDER them highway of hell style. Or better yet let them close and just land a few companies on that one road of retreat.
You probably are the only one. That sounds like a pointless waste of time and resources.
ISIS does not give a fuck its own body count, and would happily sacrifice 500 of their inept cannon fodder for 1 western casualty.
Bring back arc light instead.
>of an isis controled crossroads?
Why the fuck do you think ISIS hang out en-masse on crossroads?
How about we just find the kingpins of isis and kill them and their families via drone strikes?
Or what was it alpha group use to do? capture family members of known terrorists and send the terrorist their body parts? Lets do that.
>>30303688
>and would happily sacrifice 500 of their inept cannon fodder for 1 western casualty.
Yeah but i would make me fell better.
Hey can we make a whole airborne company of just the Geys? and Fly a rainbow under an american.
I just want vengeance. I know what pearl harbor felt like.
I mean san bernadeno was mostly just a workplace gone postal thing. This guy just targeted a place of decadent western culture.
>>30303748
>Why the fuck do you think ISIS hang out en-masse on crossroads?
A cross roads between 2 of their towns you dipshit. you dont land airmobile forces into an opposed LZ.
But ISIS's own propaganda would require them to attack
LINES OF SUPPLY.
>>30303549
I can foresee absolutely no way for that to go horribly wrong, no sir.
And what the fuck is an ISIS controlled crossroad?
>>30303549
>I mean Veitnam style airmobile tactics were dumb.
No, no they weren't in the slightest. They lay the foundation for how airmobile western forces move around in modern warfare.
>>30303822
>A cross roads between 2 of their towns you dipshit
I don't think you know what a crossroads is.
>But ISIS's own propaganda would require them to attack
Why the fuck do you think this?
>>30303822
>A cross roads between 2 of their towns you dipshit
You do know what asymmetric/guerrilla warfare is, right?
I mean Jesus Christ, I'm off /k/ for a year and when I come back it's just as retarded.
>>30303842
This, its the search and destroy/ muh kd ratio that was retarded.
>>30303822
A crossroad is a four way junction you underage tard.
It has nothing to do with being a road between cities.
>>30303822
What in God's name do you expect the US forces to do? Drop at a 'crossroads', sit in a circle and wait for ISIS to show up?
>>30303549
>I mean just sit on a road that is a major line of supply
You may have not noticed this, but ISIS is a non-conventional force. They don't have huge trucks labeled "ISIS Supplies".
Christ, there's a lot of fuckitude going on with that OP. First you think Dieppe was a good thing, it was a disaster. Second you think crossroads are roads between cities, which shows you don't drive and a probably a child, you think Vietnam tactics were dumb when you know nothing about them and you think ISIS would be compelled to attack when there's nothing stopping them either ignoring or raining artillery down.
>>30303951
Actually they do have supply convoys. They fight conventionally in most places, they have a fixed front line, they have bunkers, they have artillery batteries, they have drones, etc.
>airmobile drop
>in the middle of ISIS territory
>with presumably no firebases nearby or armored elements
>mfw
People really should think before they post.
>>30303951
>You may have not noticed this, but ISIS is a non-conventional force. They don't have huge trucks labeled "ISIS Supplies".
You see, about that....
>>30303995
>>30304106
Huh, whaddya know? OP's plan is still stupid though.
I'm amazed that so many people think that ISIS does not have supply convoys or needs to move along roads.
The Iraqi and Syrian countryside is just empty desert. They don't have a lot of options for moving supplies around, and when you have hundreds or thousands of fighters in one area, you need a lot of supplies every day.
They are human beings just like us, they have to eat, drink, reload, shit, receive medical attention, and all the rest of it if they want to be an effective fighting force. They don't just collect powerups from their fallen enemies to fuel their high score.
>>30303928
Holy shit we need to create an airborne road dropping system. War has changed.
I've been waiting for Obama to just lose his shit and order the 82nd Airborne to drop on Raqqa.
It's not like they'd be able to do much.
>>30303964
>you think ISIS would be compelled to attack when there's nothing stopping them either ignoring or raining artillery down.
So what's to stop someone from attacking their artillery positions?
>>30304230
The soldiers protecting them? The fact that they like to conceal them before and after firing? The fact that they make them as mobile as possible to avoid counter-attacks?
>>30304248
Why are you responding to that idiot?
He answered your question with a question, he has the mental capacity of a 6 year old.
>>30304248
Okay, so you split your airmobile infantry into two groups. The first deploys near some location of interest, and when ISIS starts firing artillery at them you drop off the other group near the artillery positions (obviously this only works if you have enough troops in the second group to take on the soldiers guarding the artillery). But this way they're forced to fight, unless they want to lose their artillery. And no artillery is ever going to be as mobile as air cavalry.
>>30304281
>Just drop soldiers on an active artillery battery
>Just hope they only have one
>Just hope they don't have any cannons like the tens of thousands they have that would shred a helicopter
Just stop, your bullshit isn't going to work.
>>30303757
>Lets do that.
Wouldn't work. You're dealing with an enemy that happily sacrifices their own fighters for nothing. Kill off all the saudi sheiks supplying them with mercs, money, gear and drugs but that would ruin too many business relationships. Now if only the west was friends with ivan and the chinks...
>>30304230
I'm not an expert on the situation in the Middle East, but getting a location of the guns in question may be a bit hard. And if they are found, they'd be protected by a large amount of well armed (MANPADS, small-arms, 81mm mortars et al) and prepared hostiles.
>>30303778
>I know what Pearl Harbor felt like
What, were you alive when it happened?
>>30304281
>JUST ISOLATE EVEN MORE GUYS
Fuck me, you don't even have the capacity to realize how stupid what you're saying is.
>>30304281
Anon, have you stopped to think that putting your men into an artillery barrage might not be a good idea?
>>30304308
Not ON the battery, but nearby. If they have heavy AA, just have them parachute down from a high-flying plane instead. ISIS doesn't want to fight a conventional war with a first-rate military, so forcing them into battle puts them at a disadvantage.
>>30304314
They sacrifice their own fighters, but likely aren't willing to do the same with their top leaders.
>>30304330
What do you mean "isolate"? Obviously if you're going to split your force into groups like that, you want it to be big enough that you can afford to do so in the first place.
>>30304346
That's why we drop them off near the artillery. That way they won't be subjected to fire during a long approach. And hopefully by the time they realize what's happening and try to switch targets, they'll be too close to fire at without hitting their own men.
>>30304436
>If they have heavy AA, just have them parachute down from a high-flying plane instead
>Fuck me, you don't even have the capacity to realize how stupid what you're saying is.
>>30304281
this isn't vidya, or Russia circa 1942, you don't risk losing all your men for a meaningless objective like what you're proposing.
>>30304436
I don't have the time to tell you exactly why everything you're saying is fucking retarded so I'm just going to summarize and call you a fucking retard.
>>30304436
>They sacrifice their own fighters, but likely aren't willing to do the same with their top leaders.
Are they still operating in independent cells? If yes, killing off the whole upper management(the guys with the supply contacts) in one big operation would create a nice power vacuum for a month or so but since they all follow the same overarching goal(giving their live in the war against the infidels) they'd have staffed those positions fairly quickly.
ISIS need to have their supply chains cut for good, without those they're dead and gone in no time.
>>30304451
How is that stupid? Unless they have proper SAMs, they can't hit a high flying plane, at least not reliably.
>>30304541
>ISIS need to have their supply chains cut for good, without those they're dead and gone in no time.
Fair enough. But even if they operate in independent cells, they still rely on leadership to make decisions. If we can't cut their supply lines easily, if an opportunity presents itself to take out a bunch of their leaders in one go, we should take it. Especially if it's combined with an offensive to take their territory, the loss of leadership would make it harder for them to make a properly coordinated defense. Not to mention, good leaders aren't exactly a dime a dozen, so while new leaders will be found quickly, they likely won't be quite as good as those they replace. And, if the power vacuum leads to internal conflict as different groups compete for leadership, that obviously works against them as well.
>>30304610
>How is that stupid?
I don't even know where to start.
You don't throw paratroopers straight into combat because they'll be killed when they land. There's nothing to stop ISIS shooting them when they're coming down. They'd be killed landing in built-up areas. They'd be cut-off, surrounded and slaughtered on the ground.
Utter fucking retard.
OP being a nincompoop aside, how would you fight ISIS?
>>30304648
So you drop them out of range. Who said anything about "built-up areas"?
>>30304695
>So you drop them out of range.
So they're not going to get to the artillery, are they? Fucktard.
>Who said anything about "built-up areas"?
Because it's where they put their artillery. Try landing paras on roads, car parks and apartment blocks.
>>30304685
Pretty much exactly like Russia is to be honest. Have the local dune coons do the meat grinding and support them with airforce, SF etc.
Why not just leave the dirty work to AC-130s and predator drones? I could see reinforcing vital infrastructure on the ground in Iraq but why so much as bother putting people on the ground in Syria?
>>30304714
>So they're not going to get to the artillery, are they? Fucktard.
They're going to approach after being dropped, obviously.
>>30304685
Kill their supporters. Every single one. Every country leader tolerating their presence, every billionaire directly or indirectly financing them, every arms dealer supplying them, etc. you get the idea. But we're living in the real world so even going after the saudis would have severe consequences which could ruin many western countries.
I don't really see a realistic way to win that war that doesn't involve another a decade or two in the sand but even then we'd be dealing with the third or fourth generation hadji so even more people that would gladly give their life for their holy war. This is worse than nam and it's been, effectively, going since '79.
Let's take a vote.
Is OP retarded or trolling?
>>30304782
Because OP was deprived of oxygen at birth
>>30304833
>>30304835
>reading the op past "Just put a few battalions down Raise the US Flag then leave after their bodies litter the ground?"
>>30304812
Killing everybody didn't work in Vietnam, what makes you think it would work in the Middle East?
>>30304873
It would work in the sense that nobody would be left that could finance them but it would require all-out-war. I'm talking whole divisions storming oil fields and refineries but it would result in the whole world vs. the arab world, that is if, and that's a big fucking if, NATO actually signs off on it.
>>30304873
>Killing everybody didn't work in Vietnam
Killing everybody was not done in Vietnam
Killing everybody was done in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
>>30304685
>nuke T*rkey
>nuke Saudi Arabia
>run airstrikes on San Francisco and NYC infrastructure
>repeal the 19th amendment
>>30304216
I second this motion.
Where's ou r congresspersons?
>>30304873
That's because you didn't do it hard enough.
Chinabro here, let me tell you about killing enough people to enforce your will.
In 1644, the Manchu crossed the Great Wall and took over China, defeating the remnants of the Chinese forces and establishing the Qing Dynasty. Naturally, the Chinese people weren't too happy about this, and rebels, rebels everywhere. In response, the Manchu started a policy to solidify their rule: every subject of the Qing must shave their heads save for a single long pigtail, worn in the Manchu style. See, per Confucian thought, hair is a gift from your parents, and we all know what Confucius thought about the proper way to treat mommy and daddy. So the thinking was that if we could get those Chinese people to go against Confucius, we can get them to submit to our rule too.
But wait, they already don't like you enough to rebel against you, what makes you think they'll follow this new rule?
Easy, you either keep your hair or keep your head.
Behead those who insult House Aisin-Gioro, I suppose.
Fast forward a couple hundred years. Qing is on its last legs, having been BTFO by every single Western nation that went through the Industrial Revolution plus Japan. Young Chinese are going overseas to acquire foreign educations in an attempt to catch up. Sometimes they would cut their pigtails to fit in. Other times, local racists would do it for them.
When they came home, their relatives criticized them for being unfilial, for giving up such a quintessential part of the Chinese identity.
You kill a people hard enough, you can literally make them prize something that was meant to be a symbol of their subjugation and internalize it as a symbol of who they are.
You pussies just aren't trying hard enough.
>>30305197
The big issue is just that we, and by we i mean every western nation, have stopped being imperialistic. Our economies may be built on that very same spirit but our governments and especially our foreign politics are shaped in a way that would result in terrible consequences if we ever started taking over foreign territories not to mention subjugate a whole people. Russia and China could still do it simply because they just don't give a shit but western nations actually care about respecting foreign nations borders, at least publicly.
>>30305425
Russia tried it with Ukraine and it's been destroying their economy ever since
>>30305197
Times have changed Anon, people won't stand for a policy of just killing them harder. If the U.S. tried that then they would have mass protests and unrest on a scale that dwarfs even what happened during Vietnam. Anti-war politicians would win elections, and the war would be over again.
>>30305425
>The big issue is just that we, and by we i mean every western nation, have stopped being imperialistic.
We really haven't, we're just more careful about it.
>>30304436
People like this are why Dien Bien Phu happened.
>>30303549
>Dieppe Raid
>Leave 2000+ dead and more captured is the standard for some.
>>30304436
>ISIS doesn't want to fight a conventional war with a first-rate military, so forcing them into battle puts them at a disadvantage.
That's literally EXACTLY what they want. They want to provoke some kind of apocalyptic holy war between the West and Islam.
>>30305907
Implying that would be a problem.
I thought it was only a tiny minority of Muslims who would support ISIS, anon. Are you saying "moderate Muslims" plus everyone else vs ISIS wouldn't be a hilarious roflstomp in our favor?
>>30305425
>>30305487
>times have changes
>west not interested in subjugation
Yes, well, hence the "pussies" part of "you pussies just aren't trying hard enough".
>>30308898
A lot more people would be willing to support ISIS if there was a Western invasion. Just like a lot more Europeans are driven to the far right whenever there's an Islamic terrorist attack.
>Are you saying "moderate Muslims" plus everyone else vs ISIS wouldn't be a hilarious roflstomp in our favor?
The West would win an overwhelming military victory against ISIS and they would still lose. The Americans won literally every battle in Vietnam, yet still lost the war. If America invaded Iraq and Syria, you'd have a massive quagmire on your hands that in a best case scenario would result in a hellish shithole plagued by bombings and assassinations as America slowly bleeds its manpower and its will to fight. People would begin proclaiming the futility of occupation and condemning the inevitable attrocities against the people there. Pretty soon Americans would have absolutely no interest in fighting and an anti-war politician would gain power and withdraw. After that any shitty corrupt, shaky excuse for a government we left behind would immediately collapse and ISIS would be in complete control of the country. Literally the exact same thing that happened in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Honestly I am amazed people haven't learned from all the times we tried literally the exact same thing and it turned out to be a disaster.
>west not interested in subjugation
Don't get me wrong, we absolutely are interested in subjugation, we're just far more careful about it. Partially because it's more effective (honey vs vinegar and all that) and partially because people won't tolerate blatant tyrannical imperialism.
>>30309106
>Literally the exact same thing that happened in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.
That's what you get for not cleaning up after you're done playing the neighbors kids.
