What if ISIS' borders were sealed?

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 15 Jan 2016 21:38:01 -0500

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.

Response by LTC Yinon Weiss made Jan 15 at 2016 9:50 PM

LTC Yinon Weiss — Fri, 15 Jan 2016 21:50:39 -0500

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?

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jan 15 at 2016 10:21 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Fri, 15 Jan 2016 22:21:56 -0500

The Kurds are an important piece in the endeavor. I assume we are going to do an envelopment of Mosul.

Response by SFC Joseph Weber made Jan 15 at 2016 10:22 PM

SFC Joseph Weber — Fri, 15 Jan 2016 22:22:21 -0500

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.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Jan 15 at 2016 10:38 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Fri, 15 Jan 2016 22:38:39 -0500

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.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 15 at 2016 10:42 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 15 Jan 2016 22:42:12 -0500

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.

Response by SGM David W. Carr LOM, DMSM MP SGT made Jan 15 at 2016 10:48 PM

SGM David W. Carr LOM, DMSM MP SGT — Fri, 15 Jan 2016 22:48:17 -0500

CPT Private RallyPoint Member 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.

Response by MCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 16 at 2016 1:57 AM

MCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 16 Jan 2016 01:57:29 -0500

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.

Response by CPT Aaron Kletzing made Jan 16 at 2016 5:20 AM

CPT Aaron Kletzing — Sat, 16 Jan 2016 05:20:00 -0500

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. :-)

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Jan 16 at 2016 10:42 AM

SSG Warren Swan — Sat, 16 Jan 2016 10:42:38 -0500

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.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 16 at 2016 11:06 AM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 16 Jan 2016 11:06:04 -0500

CPT Private RallyPoint Member 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.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 16 at 2016 12:26 PM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 16 Jan 2016 12:26:27 -0500

Because decades of sanctions against Cuba and Iran worked so well? Granted those never effectively sealed off much, but neither would this idea be likely to.
Additionally, we'd be doing much of ISIS' work for them. Numerous articles point out that they don't exactly control all that area, rather key cities and the roads. Handing them legitimate borders and giving everyone in that area an external enemy seems like a really bad idea to me.

Response by SPC Andrew Griffin made Jan 16 at 2016 12:32 PM

SPC Andrew Griffin — Sat, 16 Jan 2016 12:32:33 -0500

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."