Posted on Jun 3, 2015
The Pentagon claims that the air campaign has killed 10,000 ISIS fighters. Your thoughts?
3.32K
17
29
0
0
0
From Long War Journal:
US Deputy Secretary of State Antony Blinken claimed that “more than 10,000″ Islamic State fighters and commanders have been killed since the air campaign in Iraq began in August 2014 and subsequently in Syria in September 2014. If true, US intelligence estimates on the strength of the Islamic State are grossly underestimated. From Reuters:
Speaking after the coalition met in Paris, he said there had been a great deal of progress in the fight against Islamic State but that the group remained resilient and capable of taking the initiative.
“We have seen a lot of losses within Daesh since the start of this campaign, more than 10,000,” Blinken said on France Inter radio, using a mildly derogatory term for Islamic State. “It will end up having an impact.”
In September 2014, the CIA estimated that the Islamic State had somewhere between 20,000 to 31,500 fighters within its ranks. If Blinken’s estimate of the number of Islamic State fighters killed in the last nine months is accurate, then the Islamic State’s ranks, based on the number of fighters estimated by the CIA in September 2014, has been degraded by between one-third and one-half.
And yet, since September 2014, the Islamic State has gained ground in Syria and lost ground in some areas in Iraq while gaining in others. Overall, the Islamic State’s footprint in Iraq and Syria has increased since September 2014.
It has been obvious for some time that the CIA’s September 2014 analysis of the Islamic State’s numbers was a gross underestimate (In June 2014, when the Islamic State was storming throughout northern and central Iraq, the CIA put the Islamic State’s numbers at merely 10,000).
Last September, I noted that the Islamic State had to have more than 50,000 fighters in its ranks, and I was being conservative. This is the reason why:
Keep in mind that the Islamic State is actively fighting against two governments, as well as Hezbollah, the Peshmerga, the PKK/YPG, Iraqi militias, the Awakening, Syrian tribes, the Free Syrian Army, the Al Nusrah Front, the Islamic Front, and other groups, and now the US military, in an area the size of a large American state, with millions of people living there. There is no way the Islamic State could simultaneously fight on multiple fronts against numerous enemies with just several thousand fighters.
The exact number of Islamic State fighters in Iraq and Syria is not known, as the group doesn’t advertise it. But what is clear is that it is able to recruit and/or conscript from the local populations that it controls, and it is integrating large numbers of foreign fighters from all over the world. At the moment, given its recent successes, the Islamic State appears to be able to replace its battlefield losses.
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2015/06/us-claims-10000-islamic-state-fighters-killed-since-start-of-air-campaign.php
US Deputy Secretary of State Antony Blinken claimed that “more than 10,000″ Islamic State fighters and commanders have been killed since the air campaign in Iraq began in August 2014 and subsequently in Syria in September 2014. If true, US intelligence estimates on the strength of the Islamic State are grossly underestimated. From Reuters:
Speaking after the coalition met in Paris, he said there had been a great deal of progress in the fight against Islamic State but that the group remained resilient and capable of taking the initiative.
“We have seen a lot of losses within Daesh since the start of this campaign, more than 10,000,” Blinken said on France Inter radio, using a mildly derogatory term for Islamic State. “It will end up having an impact.”
In September 2014, the CIA estimated that the Islamic State had somewhere between 20,000 to 31,500 fighters within its ranks. If Blinken’s estimate of the number of Islamic State fighters killed in the last nine months is accurate, then the Islamic State’s ranks, based on the number of fighters estimated by the CIA in September 2014, has been degraded by between one-third and one-half.
And yet, since September 2014, the Islamic State has gained ground in Syria and lost ground in some areas in Iraq while gaining in others. Overall, the Islamic State’s footprint in Iraq and Syria has increased since September 2014.
It has been obvious for some time that the CIA’s September 2014 analysis of the Islamic State’s numbers was a gross underestimate (In June 2014, when the Islamic State was storming throughout northern and central Iraq, the CIA put the Islamic State’s numbers at merely 10,000).
Last September, I noted that the Islamic State had to have more than 50,000 fighters in its ranks, and I was being conservative. This is the reason why:
Keep in mind that the Islamic State is actively fighting against two governments, as well as Hezbollah, the Peshmerga, the PKK/YPG, Iraqi militias, the Awakening, Syrian tribes, the Free Syrian Army, the Al Nusrah Front, the Islamic Front, and other groups, and now the US military, in an area the size of a large American state, with millions of people living there. There is no way the Islamic State could simultaneously fight on multiple fronts against numerous enemies with just several thousand fighters.
The exact number of Islamic State fighters in Iraq and Syria is not known, as the group doesn’t advertise it. But what is clear is that it is able to recruit and/or conscript from the local populations that it controls, and it is integrating large numbers of foreign fighters from all over the world. At the moment, given its recent successes, the Islamic State appears to be able to replace its battlefield losses.
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2015/06/us-claims-10000-islamic-state-fighters-killed-since-start-of-air-campaign.php
Posted in these groups: 
ISIS
ISIS
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 14
4
4
0
It used to be that the calculations went along the lines of
[1] "Is it dead?
[2] If so, can anyone prove that its a water buffalo?
[3] If no, then its a VC.".
Now it appears that the calculations go along the lines of
[1] "Is it dead?
[2] If so, can anyone prove that its a camel?
[3] If no, then its an ISIS member.".
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
[1] "Is it dead?
[2] If so, can anyone prove that its a water buffalo?
[3] If no, then its a VC.".
Now it appears that the calculations go along the lines of
[1] "Is it dead?
[2] If so, can anyone prove that its a camel?
[3] If no, then its an ISIS member.".
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
(4)
(0)
CW3 (Join to see)
Does it matter that the Pentagon killed 10,000 fighters if ISIS recruited enough fighters to show a net gain over the same time period? Does it matter that 10,000 fighters were killed, and lets say ISIS actually experienced a net decrease, but they still managed to expand territory and increase resources with less fighters? I don't know the answer to either question but I feel like tossing out a number of killed fighters without linking that number to an effect on the battlefield doesn't mean much.
It would be like Apple stating they sold 20 million iPhones. At first you hear that and say wow thats a lot of iPhones. Then you find out that Samsung actually sold 30 million phones and stole 10% of the global cell phone market from Apple....
It would be like Apple stating they sold 20 million iPhones. At first you hear that and say wow thats a lot of iPhones. Then you find out that Samsung actually sold 30 million phones and stole 10% of the global cell phone market from Apple....
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
CW3 (Join to see) Mr. Brown; The Germans killed millions of Russian soldiers. The Russians replaced their losses faster than the Germans replaced their losses. The Russians were able to replace their losses faster than the Germans replaced their losses for a sufficiently long period of time that the Germans lost.
If ISIS is suffering casualties at a lower rate than it is recruiting then the only way that its strength is declining is if you use "political budget math" (where "a decrease in the rate of increase" = "a cut"). So as long as attrition < recruiting then it doesn't matter how many of them are killed - except that it will take them longer to get to where they want to be.
Equally, if ISIS' "military effectiveness" isn't suffering while their "military efficiency" is improving the it also doesn't matter how many of them you kill as long as they can continue to increase their "military efficiency" at a sufficient rate to maintain their "military effectiveness".
However you are wrong is saying that "tossing out a number of killed fighters without linking that number to an effect on the battlefield doesn't mean much" because it gets a lot of publicity and publicity means getting bigger shares of the budget pie (and also bigger shares of the votes).
If ISIS is suffering casualties at a lower rate than it is recruiting then the only way that its strength is declining is if you use "political budget math" (where "a decrease in the rate of increase" = "a cut"). So as long as attrition < recruiting then it doesn't matter how many of them are killed - except that it will take them longer to get to where they want to be.
Equally, if ISIS' "military effectiveness" isn't suffering while their "military efficiency" is improving the it also doesn't matter how many of them you kill as long as they can continue to increase their "military efficiency" at a sufficient rate to maintain their "military effectiveness".
However you are wrong is saying that "tossing out a number of killed fighters without linking that number to an effect on the battlefield doesn't mean much" because it gets a lot of publicity and publicity means getting bigger shares of the budget pie (and also bigger shares of the votes).
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
1
1
0
My thought is that we aren't likely to get very far killing ISIL's fielded forces a piece at a time, while refusing to target ISIL stronghold and C2 nodes like Al Raqqah.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google