Kurdish Mad Max

[August]

Well if by hard targets you mean their armor and artillery then it will have gone a long way to reducing their combat effectiveness.

[Stealhead]

Those things would get blown away by tank or AFV anyway. Its mainly light infantry which is not so easy to wipe via the current methods.

[Armistead]

I really hope IS doesn't take Kobani {thinks that's how it's spelled} in northern Syria. The Kurdish women are doing a lot of the fighting. Seems we're not giving any or much air support due to so called close combat and no eyes on the ground. This could turn into a slaughter if the Kurds can't hold them off. Turkey needs to be kicked out of NATO.

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by Armistead

I really hope IS doesn't Kobani {thinks that's how it's spelled} in northern Syria. The Kurdish women are doing a lot of the fighting. Seems we're not giving any or much air support due to so called close combat and no eyes on the ground.

This is what I didn't understand from the beginning. If there was this urgency to support the Kurds in their fight then why not flying much more relief attacks on IS troops getting close to Kurdish territory? I mean a week ago they were still some miles away from that city. Instead they bomb oil facilities which will definitely help in the long run (in more than one way, I bet all oil producing nations were cheering that these facilities got taken out as they can now raise prices again because of the "shortage") but won't do much to help the Kurds who are already fighting for their bare lives RIGHT NOW. I think we need some A10s down there.

[Jimbuna]

The Kurds are in the forefront of fighting IS and as such should be given maximum support....bloody disgraceful the way the west are treating them but I suspect the Iraqi government have a majority say in where the military assistance goes

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

The Kurds are in the forefront of fighting IS and as such should be given maximum support....bloody disgraceful the way the west are treating them but I suspect the Iraqi government have a majority say in where the military assistance goes

That is correct, and since years they make sure that the Kurds do not get weapons that would indeed turn them into a stronger force. Corruption by individuals not even counted.

[Catfish]

Just refusing to sell IS Honda spare parts will probably stop them, finally

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

The problem there is which Kurds?
They are not simply all Kurds, you have good Kurds and bad Kurds, you have friendly Kurds and nasty Kurds. So in reality the arm the Kurds protect the Kurds policies of the past have come full circle and you are now fighting against people you helped set up in the first place.

Indeed! a lesson not lost on Richard the LionHeart...Saladin was a Kurd, born in Tikrit, same as our old buddy Saddam Hussein...nothing changes. Did note the flair and design of the improvised vehicles though- morale seems to be unflagging, considering ISIS doesn't treat prisoners very well...

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by Aktungbby

...nothing changes.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Well...my thoughts on the picture August posted were... high, unstable, slow, noisy and vulnerable.

PRECISELY!

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

The problem there is which Kurds?
:

A bad Kurd compared to IS is like a bad day fishing.....

[August]

Every human society has it's bad element and the Kurds are no different but they compare pretty favorably to the Sunnis and Shiites.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

So you missed the whole heritage thing?
You can trace IS back to the Kurds
You really are missing the whole thing, rather like August is with this line.....
Kurds are mainly Sunni with some Shiites thrown in for regional balance.
The Kurdish Salafists who became Ansar in Iraq after their return from Afghanistan then became ISIL which became ISIS which became IS.

Don't care what you trace them back to, but what and where they stand now. I could trace you back to......how far in the evolution process should we go.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by August

Well if by hard targets you mean their armor and artillery then it will have gone a long way to reducing their combat effectiveness.

This, but also troops amassed on the ground, allowing anti-personnel cluster bombing of any kind. IS already has adapted to the thread from air by the typicla means of asymmetraicla warfare tactis: melting into the civilian infrastructure and population, avoiding exposure to the open blue sky where possible, avoiding huge gatherings of fighters on the ground, no vehicle columns.

Its the same problem for the Air Force as what the Israelis faced in their past two wars in Gaza and Lebanon: they ran out of targets. And that reduced the importance of their superior air force as well. And then you have to make a decision: either to go in with boots on the ground, or not.

The alternative would be what Assad is doing: dropping barrel bombs on civilian city districts without discriminating between civilian residents and fighters. That is brutal, but this shows one thing about Assad: that he intends to win, no compromise accepted. The American/Western approach now, on the other hand, may be showing a civilised attitude, a temper moderated by reason and morals. But it is so in different and indetermined that I cannot see it achieving what Obama claims he wants to achieve.

Wait - has there even been clear despriptions of war objectives given so far, have they even described the criteria by which the war's objectives will be seen as achieved and the whole thing seen as a victory so that one will disengage again fro further military engagement? Or was it just blind activism that made them headjump into the pool once again without checking first whether there is water in it or not?