The Shia Militia Question

Current news and it's political impact.

Re: The Shia Militia Question

Postby Kane » Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:14 pm

Saz wrote:
Kane wrote:
Tragic KingdomII wrote:This idea that ISIS is on the verge of getting out of Tikrit is based on a fantasy. That's just not the case. The shia militias and Iraqi government don't know what they're doing, and the notion that they will somehow be able to clear an urban area such as Tikrit in a couple of weeks is very optimistic, if not incredibly naive. Very little reliable news is making its way from the front lines. It's been mostly government boasting about villages surrounding city that they've cleared. They claimed about a week ago that the city was 72 hours from being the operation is on hold. ... story.html

NAJAF, Iraq — Iraqi forces’ operation to retake the city of Tikrit has stalled as troops suffer heavy casualties at the hands of Islamic State militants, raising concerns about whether the pro-government fighters are ready for major offensives.

After two days of little activity on the battlefield, Iraq’s interior minister, Mohammed al-Ghabban, confirmed Monday that the offensive has “temporarily stopped.” The steady flow of coffins arriving in Iraq’s Shiite holy city of Najaf suggests a reason for the pause; cemetery workers say as many as 60 war dead have been arriving each day.

Tikrit is a city of 200k people, most of whom have already fled, and force 30,000 strong is having a hard time clearing 1,000 ISIS fighters. How on earth are they going to liberate Mosul, which is 10 times as populated as Tikrit?? And now that Iran is playing a larger role in Iraq, Sunnis are having to choose between the lesser of two evils. I doubt many will welcome a force backed by Iran.

ISIS has troops that live to fight.

These militias as well as the Iraqi army are fighting to live...and honestly, any notion of secularism or nationalism isn't heavily imbued within the shiite military groups. It's just going to be harder to find fighters willing to die for an area predominantly populated with Sunni. It doesn't make any sense along sectarian lines. Suppose they win back Tikrit? Then what, the Shiite occupy a city full of people that detest them? Not in an irrational manner either, as the Shiite militias and the Iraqi military were and continue to be heavily criticized for ostracizing Sunni from governance in general and power altogether under Maliki. When the Iraqi military occupied Mosul and Tikrit the theme was constant - rampant graft and corruption. No sense of any law and order derived from a secular body.

You have a very frothy situation where sectarian lines apparently matter more than whomever you vow your national allegiance to. This is why ISIS is such a threat - they're the only group willing to give the Sunni an outlet. And it's a loud one.

Let's be honest, the Shiite militias would wipe ISIS out relatively quickly if we let them conduct their operations as they want to (IE, ethnically cleanse the land they take). The long term viability of the US position here makes about as much sense as Japan's long term alliance with a white supremacist nation in WW2. It may be born out of current practical realities but the long term vision is obviously doomed to failure.

If the Shiite stared to do that they'd catalyze the largest response yet from the Sunni side. It would serve as a rallying cry. All that fragmentation among Sunni groups would disappear and the ramifications for the region would be extraordinary.
Stephen Jay Gould wrote:When people learn no tools of judgment and merely follow their hopes, the seeds of political manipulation are sown.
User avatar
Posts: 7611
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 1:09 pm
Location: The Yay
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 316 times
Been thanked: 508 times
Political Leaning: Rockefeller Republican

Re: The Shia Militia Question

Postby eynon81 » Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:19 pm

Kane wrote:If the Shiite stared to do that they'd catalyze the largest response yet from the Sunni side. It would serve as a rallying cry. All that fragmentation among Sunni groups would disappear and the ramifications for the region would be extraordinary.

ISIS would start deploying armored regiments.
User avatar
Posts: 19475
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 10:38 am
Location: Golden, Colorado
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 3875 times
Been thanked: 1821 times
Political Leaning: Very Conservative

Re: The Shia Militia Question

Postby Dylan » Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:24 pm

The Dharma Bum wrote:
Dylan wrote:
The Dharma Bum wrote:
Dylan wrote:
The Dharma Bum wrote:air strikes only take you so far. You have to flood the area with a shit ton of infantry while the enemy is in shock or you are wasting ordinance.

Wildly inaccurate.

no, that's not wildly inaccurate at all.

Indiscriminate aerial bombardment is equivalent to an artillery bombardment, it has to be followed up with troop movement to be effective.
Sure but the "shock" idea is beyond dumb. Are you in WWI? :))

Airstrikes, and the threat thereof, are key for disrupting mobility. It's not a waste of ordinance to prevent your enemy from resupplying or reinforcing a position.

such delicious irony,
What is?

Apparently you are not familiar with combined arms doctrine.
I am.

perhaps you can list the engagements that have won by air power alone? Or by interrupting supply lines alone?

You didn't say that wars can't be won by air power alone though. You said airstrikes followed by ground strikes while the targets are in shock is the only way to use airstrikes, otherwise you're "wasting ordinance".

This is blatantly, laughably wrong. You can just admit it dude. Being wrong isn't the end of the world. I'm wrong sometimes.
User avatar
Vice President
Posts: 10741
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 1:34 pm
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 1038 times
Been thanked: 916 times
Political Leaning: Middle of the Road


Post a reply

Quote Selected

Return to Front Page News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest