What will be our litmus for success against ISIS

SGT Jim Z. — Fri, 13 Feb 2015 20:00:59 -0500

I am watching Vietnam in HD on Netflix and they mentioned that in 1965 the US strategy in Vietnam changed from land taken to a body count success rate. With that what do you believe will be the litmus against ISIS?

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Feb 13 at 2015 8:15 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Fri, 13 Feb 2015 20:15:34 -0500

Body count was a terrible measure of our mission in Vietnam. The troops resented it. Staff officers inflated it. And, we had no way of knowing what it meant. Think about it. It wasn't like we could put up an illustration with a thermometer like charities use when soliciting donations. Where would we peg the goal? And, even if we could put a number on it, it would change from day-to-day.

With the influx of fanatics reported arriving to join ISIS, it appears that a body count would be equally futile.

Territory "controlled" would also seem impossible to measure.

There might be some value in keeping track of enemy activity. The number of raids, firefights, etc initiated by enemy forces could be tracked. However, all they would have to do is go dark for a couple of weeks and the politicians would proclaim victory and bring the boys home.

Indeed, a war on terror (am I allowed to use that term) is like a game of Whack-A-Mole. Well, sort of. At least Whack-A-Mole ends and only restarts when you deposit another game token.

I think that those who lead the war on ISIS will come to understand the frustration that led a major I knew in Vietnam to comment: "We should take all the good Vietnamese and put them on boats anchored in the Gulf of Tonkin and sterilize the whole country (leave nothing living), then sink the boats and go home."

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 14 at 2015 2:24 AM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 14 Feb 2015 02:24:55 -0500

I think our success against ISIS is going to be measured by how many non-radical Muslim countries/people we can count on to stand up and not tolerate the brutal and inhumane tactics of these animals.

We found some success at the tactical level in Iraq with the Sons of Iraq, many of which supported Al-Qaeda until they started executing women and children. Our political leaders need to work a strategic level plan to unite the moderate Muslims against ISIS.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 14 at 2015 3:10 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 14 Feb 2015 15:10:37 -0500

Ultimately it is a fine balance of "hearts and mind" and tactical execution. Overall success I think will be based on the responses of the Iraqi/muslim nations against these forces, and their overall ability to execute operations successfully. Iraqi Army and Iraqi Police forces are finally starting to stand against ISIS, and other Muslim nations are also standing as well. Once the local forces are able to engage and crush local pockets of insurgent activity without American/Coalition involvement, then I think it will be considered a successful operation.

Body counts will mean nothing, because if we go in there with equal brutality, then we stand to offer them more supporters to their cause, with every one death/EKIA bringing 2-10 more to the cause.

Land gained means nothing, because these are insurgents, militarists, and other nontraditional fighters. They can operate inside occupied territory, just the way that the VC did.

As far as a strategy for success, I believe in operational mobilization on a large scale. However, the difference has to be that the politicians step out of the military arena and let the warriors execute their mission. I would be willing to bet that few stateside leaders (even those tentatively engaged in the military arena) would be able to understand and gather the labile environment that comes with the ever shifting power struggles of the various tribes.
v/r,
CPT Butler

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 16 at 2015 3:37 AM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 16 Feb 2015 03:37:39 -0500

Along with CSM Private RallyPoint Member's idea of raising more non-radicals against them, starve them. Cut-off all their supply and communication lines. Frustrate them and make them feel desperate and helpless. Seize up as much of their phones, cameras, and other A/V equipment as possible.

They just cannot continue to exist with increasing resentment from the outside world. Yes, hundreds, maybe thousands of civilians may suffer as a result, but wouldn't they suffer far worse fate in the hands of ISIS captivity? Shouldn't they try to flee for their lives anyway?

Just my .02

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jun 14 at 2015 2:03 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Sun, 14 Jun 2015 14:03:17 -0400

Kill most of ISIS so they are not the size of a conventional army.