It comes as no surprise to my readers that not only is ISIL still alive and well as a terrorist state, but arguably has grown in power since the United States began military operations “against” it. I have routinely published on the fact that the US has no strategy and its leaders are an amateurish joke. Further, I have been documenting for years that ISIL was born and bred by the CIA as a proxy to serve elitist interests and therefore won’t be “destroyed” anytime soon. Since then, not only have senior US leaders such as the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, General Flynn confirmed this fact, but Russia has called our bluff and has shown in just a matter of weeks how quickly ISIL could be smashed if the US actually had a policy to defeat the terrorist nation. Now that the truth that the US created ISIL is out in the open source and ISIL has predictably grown out of control, should the US actually decide that wiping out the terrorist army they created would be wise, today I discuss what that strategy would entail. Ironically, even a very general strategy is far more detailed than anything the US has so far put together. To illustrate just how incompetent our senior leadership is in this regard, Hillary Clinton recently announced that her strategy to defeat ISIL was to “defeat ISIL.” Really? It is a wonder ISIL doesn’t control more territory with such moronic imbeciles at the helm. In order to help these moronic policy makers and senior military officers, let me lay out a basic strategic plan against ISIL.
To begin, let me dispense with your failed Irregular Warfare (IW) approaches, which policy makers love because they think they can win a war on the cheap. The historical record is quite clear; IW does not decisively win wars, it creates them. This distinction in military manuals and training unfortunately is all but absent. Only through determined deliberate action can a war be decisively won. Other than in a few niche applications, arming, training, and equipping proxy armies has never been successful. Cyber-attacks, psychological warfare, economic development, and public relations campaigns are equally ineffective against a violent enemy willing to kill to achieve its goals. “Winning the hearts and minds” is complete bullshit and always has been. This fiction only existed in political circles too scared to acknowledge reality and the brutality that must accompany warfare. Anything short of brutality and violence is not warfare and should never be conflated with war. In fact, if lesser means are suitable, then they should be exhausted. Understanding this would be far healthier for any nation and would lead to a far less liberal use of pseudo-warfare, which is every bit as violent, but just dressed up for political spin. Now that we have dispensed this modern “pseudo-warfare” and IW, which are completely fictitious shams respective of actual military strategies, let’s discuss what a real war against ISIL looks like. I warn you…anything short of the below will only delay a far more brutal and bloody war that ultimately will be fought indiscriminately anyhow or lead to a decisive defeat for the Christian West.
Defeating ISIL like any other enemy requires a full spectrum approach. On the political front, Saudi Arabia and Qatar must be prevented from providing any type of material support to ISIL. In particular, until firm compliance was established, all military sales and forms of foreign aid to the said countries must be immediately ceased. Turkey must also be immediately reigned in and all economic support via the purchase of black market oil must be halted. If Turkey continued to purchase ISIL produced black market oil, pressure should be ratcheted up against Erdogan’s administration to include exclusion from NATO and the EU as well as economic sanction. Turkey must also be forced to accept Kurdish military action against ISIL in Syria by reaffirming their right to defend Turkish sovereign territory against Kurdish terrorist factions such as the PKK. Israel also needs to stay out of it and stop bombing Syrian positions, which by default help ISIL. Respective of Russia, the US needs to work jointly with Russia to share intelligence and coordinate their military offensives to achieve the maximum impact against ISIL. Option B would be for the US to completely stay out of the fight with ISIL, completely cease support to any parties involved, let the primary actors in the Middle East fight it out, and then step back in once the smoke clears. I can entertain either option, which honestly are both viable, but for today’s discussion, I am going to focus on US intervention.
A unified national mindset is also critical to any war effort. I champion free speech, dissent, and the right to criticize our leaders, but to remain viable as a nation, a unity of effort and interests must be achieved. A nation divided cannot stand. A nation must have at least a general commonality in its culture, religion, values, and identity. This is why the “melting pot” theory when extended to non-Europeans unwilling to assimilate becomes so detrimental to our nation. Once a nation becomes divided, it ceases to become a viable entity. Political correctness and tolerance will be our death if people do not wake up and see these cult ideologies of the Left for the poison they are. For example, feminists allied with liberals lobbying for special rights and protections for Muslims will get a rude awakening if they are successful. Women not only will be marginalized and forced back into the kitchen, but the beating, raping, and stoning of women will become legitimized if Islam becomes the dominate religion. Further, other allies of the Left such as homosexuals and atheists will be executed. If Hillary Clinton thinks there is a “war on women” in the US, wait till Muslims dominate a larger percentage of the US population and demand that Sharia law replace our Constitution. Ironically, Islam is a far greater enemy to liberals than the Christian conservatives the liberals loves to so often demonize. The bottom line is if we are going to fight and win this centuries old conflict between civilizations, Islam must be identified as a natural threat to Western Civilization. The two can exist peacefully in their own spheres, but the two cannot simultaneously exist in the same place without conflict. The religions are fundamentally opposed and Islam in particular provides no quarter for non-believers. Further, Islam demands obedience to the Allah’s law as set down in the Koran and does not recognize any government or political institution outside of the Caliphate and its Sharia law. Anything short is considered heresy and the punishment for apostasy is death. This fight is perhaps the most critical and in truth, the most difficult because the forces of political correctness and their brainwashed minions on the Left are progressively moving this nation closer and closer to national suicide by the day.
Western countries cannot allow their historical racial and ethnic demographic ratios to be turned upside down with any hope of not succumbing to Islam. Winning a war in the Middle East is not sufficient if at home you now must live under Sharia Law. This is particularly acute in democracies where Muslim demographics with respect to immigration and birth rates all but assure that Christian Europe will be voted and bred out of existence within a generation. Note that a total elimination of Christianity and its foundations are unnecessary to fundamentally change, if not outright destroy, Western Civilization. A mere reduction in Christianity and or the racial and ethnic demographic of Europe is sufficient. Muslims understand this and are legally exploiting it by mounting an unarmed invasion of the victim countries. Critical to defeating this is an immediate stop to Islamic migration and immigration to both Europe and the US and Canada. Economists will argue against restrictions citing immigration as both necessary and good for business, but that is purest view that fails to take into account issues beyond labor, which in part, are cultural. To illustrate this, I would point out that there is plenty of available labor in the Middle East, but the economies are horrible. It takes more to run a good economy than just able bodies willing to work. If Europe is turned into an unstable cultural warzone, one would be hard pressed to justify how this improved the business climate of any country. I also have to laugh at the ridiculous arguments put forth to justify unchecked migration. In particular, the “everyone is an immigrant” argument heard most often in the US is one of the most ridiculous and should be immediately shut down through even the most basic use of common sense. For starters, Europeans are not immigrants, they are the native population and have a right to defend their homeland and determine who is and is not invited into their homes. Second, most Western nations today have become welfare states for better or worse. Historically, immigrants and migrants were promised nothing and given nothing so one was not financially liable for each new arrival. Today each immigrant or migrant comes with an immense bill that must be paid for by the host nation. Basic logic and mathematics would allow even the dullest of people to realize a nation cannot afford unchecked migration and immigration; especially, when the newcomers are not skilled and will heavily burden the system with respect to costs for services such as education and healthcare. Third, respective to the US, the notion that since “we” were immigrants, we must support any and all immigration is absurd and would force a total surrender of common sense. The historical lesson of immigration to the “New World” is not from the stand-point of Europeans, but from Native Americans. That lesson is immigration can be very bad. If “Native Americans” had been able to enforce tighter controls on migration and stop the immigration of a people culturally, religiously, ethnically, and racially different than them (Europeans), they may not have been wiped out. Using this as a better analogy, Europeans would be wise not to allow themselves to be swamped by an immigration of a people culturally, religiously, ethnically, and racially different. There is no substitute. To win the long war, racial and ethnic demographics must be reestablished and maintained. As important to this, non-Muslims need to start having more kids to offset what as of now is an inevitable demographic tidal wave of Muslims.
On a military front, the first major step will be to bisect and contain ISIL in Syria and Iraq. You must surround the enemy to prevent any escape before you can decisively destroy them. Whether Nazi Germany or the Confederate South, it was necessary to first surround and cut off the enemy before it could be defeated. Once effectively contained, ISIL will begin to starve and cannot resupply. At this point, you can systematically begin destroying ISIL elements piece by piece and time now works for you and against ISIL. To do this, borders must be sealed to prevent anyone or anything, to include communications, going in or out of ISIL controlled territory. In particular, the physical border between Iraq and Syria must be secured in order to effectively split ISIL in half. It is imperative that all movement of material across the borders must be stopped. ISIL derives its financial support from black market oil sales and its resources from illicit border trade. Further, the money and supplies are used to placate and/or intimidate the population. As the population begins to starve and ISIL no longer is able to generate income from black market oil sales or resupply lost fighters, the movement will destabilize and weaken from the inside.
Next, in Syria, the military offensive should continue to press from government controlled strongholds and target the major centers of ISIL control such as Raqqa. Syrian, Russian, and Iranian forces should combine to overwhelm these cities. Barrel bombs and tanks won’t be enough. Russia in particular should unleash major ordnance on these cities to crush them quickly and decisively. Large scale use of massed artillery and their largest conventional bomb, the Aviation Thermobaric Bomb of Increased Power (ATBIP) Russian: Авиационная вакуумная бомба повышенной мощности (АВБПМ), nicknamed the “Father of All Bombs” (FOAB) should be used to reduce these strongholds blocks at a time before ground troops move in and reoccupy the territory. The concentrated destruction should be used to kill in place and/or force ISIL fighters to abandoned their positions and flee into the open where they can be easily engaged and killed. Trying to fight ISIL street by street and house by house is a war that would be too costly to fight. It is a sin to send good men to die when other technological means of destroying the enemy are available. The lives of our fighters are far more valuable than the lives of the savage adherents to ISIL. There is no shame in fighting an unfair fight to decisively achieve a swift victory, which ultimately saves lives. As such, no quarter should be given and residents should be urged to resist and push out ISIL fighters or flee the cities.
Russia should openly publicize that their ranks are open to foreign mercenaries. Already, in Kurdistan, mercenary armies have spontaneously formed due to a host of reasons emanating from a common hatred of ISIL. Working with Russia is far better than trying to work with the Kurds. If the US is unwilling to allow these fighters to operate, certainly Russia stands to benefit from a large pool of able bodied fighters. Most of these fighters are already trained and would require little assistance. However, by supplying basic provisions of arms and food to these fighters and well as some intelligence and leadership for coordination, Russia would be able to quickly build a large force of highly capable fighters. Coupled with close air support, Russia could in effect wipe out ISIL without having to commit more than a few thousand of its own troops if it set this up properly. Russia could incentive this by offering fighters pay and/or a Russia passport or asylum in the event they run into legal obstacles from their home countries. This would cost Russia far less than raising its own army and depleting its already stretched human and financial resources. Further, Russia would likely gain a large number of very valuable citizens that are highly skilled, educated, and willing to defend like cultural and religious values. Why Russia hasn’t embraced this concept perplexes me, but should they seize this opportunity, it would be a numerical game changer in the fight against ISIL.
The US should join with Iraqi and Kurdish forces to reinforce currently held territory and to retake key strategic cities like Abu Kamal, which is a critical border crossing between Iraq and Syria along the Euphrates River. From the Iraqi-Syrian border, the US allied forces should push east and smash ISIL fighters into Iraqi Shia positions. To maximize support, the US should concentrate on initially using precision strikes to destroy all strategic sources of economic support for ISIL as well as their sources of food and water. Oil infrastructure within ISIL controlled areas is a top priority. In particular, sites like the Akkas oil field near Abu Kamal should be obliterated. Further, pumping stations and critical well heads west of Mosul and around Tikrit must be knocked out of operation. Finally, any operating pipelines still supplying oil to Turkey from ISIL controlled territory must be destroyed. We can rebuild them quickly and they are obsolete and outdated anyhow. In addition to oil infrastructure, the power grid and water pumping stations must be cut at critical nodes. Any granaries or other major food storage locations should also be obliterated. Communication links to the outside world must be completely severed too. I have to laugh at how stupid it is to try and “counter” ISIL’s propaganda…or at least the propaganda emanating from Iraq and Syria when we have the ability to completely severe the communication nodes. Territory ISIL controls must not have any information coming in or out. Satellite coverage should be restricted or completely cut, radio communications jammed or cut off, GSM and cellular services destroyed, internet and fiber optic links should be severed, and any phone lines should also be cut.
Of course, the scorched earth campaign will create a massive humanitarian crisis, but it is absolutely necessary to decisively defeat ISIL. You simply can’t beat them if you don’t break them. Any suggestion otherwise is not just stupid, but ignorant of the historical record, which contains no precedent for decisively defeating an enemy by not defeating them. Further, we already have a massive refugee crisis so not much will change other than the land the civilians fled from will no longer be allowed to sustain ISIL. ISIL cannot survive in the middle of the dessert without water, food, or fuel and in a short amount of time will be forced to disband, surrender, or die. The civilian population will also be forced to make a choice between fighting ISIL or suffering ISIL’s fate as accomplices. A population unwilling to resist these barbarians is a population unfit to survive. War does not provide “civilians” the option of remaining neutral. In war, one must pick a side. Like it or not, an enemy dedicated to your death has taken up residence in these cities and must be destroyed. We do not have the manpower, money, or time to systematically try to enter each city, identify who is good and bad, and then capture or kill them. Strategic warfare by nature requires generalizations to achieve decisive ends. Cities are either good or bad and the bad ones must be eliminated.
As pockets of ISIL resistance are reduced, all forces should combine to surround and trap them. Each day the noose should tighten through deprivation and use of heavy ordnance. Just like in Syria, entire cities will need to be reduced. Mosul, Fallujah, and Ramadi are three of the top candidates. These cities have never been effectively pacified and have remained hostile to not just the US, but their fellow Shia Iraqis. My personal opinion is that we have already lost far too many good men in these cities and the time for playing games is over. Like in Syria, we cannot afford a house to house fight in these cities. These cities have been hostile for too long and the civilian population, if it ever was neutral, has proven incapable and/or unwilling to resist Islamic extremists. The cities need to be carpet bombed, burned, and then bombed some more. If the Kurds and Iraqis want to enter and pacific the cities after they are reduced, they are welcome; however, from the US standpoint, we need to simply maintain our siege of these residual hold out cities until the people beg for mercy, murder the ISIL fighters, and surrender unconditionally. Until that happens, anyone trying to escape should be immediately eliminated.
Geopolitically, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Iran will still need to be dealt with, but that is for another time. The near fight is ISIL and if we are going to challenge them, we must fight them with brutal efficiency now. Any delay only strengthens ISIL and ensures greater bloodshed will be required to defeat them in the future. Contrary to what many liberals here may think, this is a fight that will have to be fought and it is better to do it sooner than later. ISIL like bad news does not get better with time. If anyone is really interested in the details of how operationally and then tactically this fight needs to occur, I would be happy to detail, but for now, understand that real strategies do exist. The only question is are you willing to do what needs to be done or are you going to continue to live in your fantasy land until someone offers you the choice to convert or die at gunpoint.
By Guiles Hendrik
November 21, 2015