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. Read more