China Should Send Troops to Fight ISIS

[TaiShang]

You reap what you sow
A resounding NO on China's involvement
Reasons:
1. Like some of the above posters said when the Uyghurs have attacked our countrymen multiple times, the west / US are almost too gleeful to see that happen in China. And they are still harbouring some of the notorious anti-China figureheads in their own territories. They have kept in Guantenamo Bay Uyghur Terrorists and refused to turn them over to Chinese custody. That already speaks volumes
Our terrorists are labelled as "Freedom Fighters". Their "Freedom Fighters" are terrorists!
2. Tibet - they are still cooking hard the notions of separating Tibet from the Mainland
3. "umbrella" movement in HK - which camp that countries like Japan, USA and other nations in the west have sided. It doesnt need a professor to understand their motives when the anti-social movement was fully supported by their governments, media, financially personally or through social institutions. The OP is well known about this together with some of our vietcongs / anti-China members here on PDF
4. Alongside US, Japan has declared military support in hardware and more so than the US, in sending troops for Taiwan should military conflicts happen across the strait. On top of this, their recent diplomatic debacle of trying to voice out their support of India's claim in South Tibet
5. Japan and the US are supporting the Philippines, Vietnam militarily against China in SCS disputes

Peace

Excellent analysis.

These points should be repeated here.

 

[gambit]

What ISIS doing is what we called a fourth generation warfare, (yeah, not only fighter have generation lol) Anyway, its a combination of conventional combine warfare combined with Guerilla Warfare, this is what the NVA did to ARVN in reverse...

To fight ISIS now, we need to first defeat ISIS in afew set piece battle, then when we dislodge their stronghold, they will dissolve into Iran or Syria , and supporting insurgency in Iraq.

What we need to do was , take over control of the IQA and then use them to hammer the ISIS, when we hammer them hard enough, then release IQA to do what they do best for the past 9 years while we station our troop in Iraq.

To do that, we will need both US and Iraq government on the same boat but honestly, i dont see us going back unless ISIS start touching our asset in Iraq or ME...

I remember reading about 4th gen warfare. But...I will have to dust that info off and renew my interests about it.

 

[BoQ77]

No money for barbarians.

 

[Shotgunner51]

Because in order to fight IS the way we fought the Iraqi Army and Al-Qaeda, the US must have absolute control of the country. We must be able to send our forces, either ground troops or just air power, at the time we wish and at the level we need. Right now, no one have the political stomach to cede that level of control to the US.

That's is an non-issue. If US invite any other forces to participate in a US-led coalition force, then US would have already paved the roads with whatever political stomach needed, which US has plenty of it if actions are going to be initiated from Iraqi soil.

The question remains for others to think whether to participate in this US-led action: Who Is behind ISIS?

As more and more citizens of US allies get beheaded, with so much political stomach on Iraq, what takes US so long to send boots and exterminate ISIS?

 

[RescueRanger]

i have heard of the paper (Think its call Citizens Daily) dont think i have heard of the man lol...sorry

No need to apologize. The military analyst circle is close knit so thought you may have come across his work, that is all.

 

[jhungary]

I remember reading about 4th gen warfare. But...I will have to dust that info off and renew my interests about it.

i think they back dated the concept to include the vietnam war, so i think you actually live through it lol

That do beg the question on how much Chinese member here know about this term?lol

No need to apologize. The military analyst circle is close knit so thought you may have come across his work, that is all.

most military analyst i know are western...Although i do speak and write Chinese, the military strategic and tactical term are very different in Chinese than in English, i would have no idea what a chinese military analyst said (term wise) unless he or she speak english....

 

[gambit]

That's is an non-issue. If US invite any other forces to participate in a US-led coalition force, then US would have already paved the roads with whatever political stomach needed, which US has plenty of it if actions are going to be initiated from Iraqi soil.

The question remains for others to think whether to participate in this US-led action: Who Is behind ISIS?

As more and more citizens of US allies get beheaded, with so much political stomach on Iraq, what takes US so long to send boots and exterminate ISIS?

What is an 'invasion' ? It is an uninvited entry into another country. Not all invasions are bad, such as the D-Day invasion of WW II, or when ECOWAS intervened in the Liberian civil war that threatened the stability of neighbors. But generally speaking, an invasion have a negative context attached to the action and the invader usually have much difficulty justifying his action.

What you are asking is for an invasion by an alliance led by the US. In order for that to happen, there must be consensus among members who must feel equal urgency about IS and that an invasion is the only solution. If there are any objections by the victim country, the alliance must publicly justify as to why an invasion is the only solution. In the case of ECOWAS and Liberia, the country was so fractured that the alliance could find no one to appeal for peace as an alternate for the planned invasion.

Right now, there are no consensus in the UN as to how to deal with IS.

 

[jhungary]

That's is an non-issue. If US invite any other forces to participate in a US-led coalition force, then US would have already paved the roads with whatever political stomach needed, which US has plenty of it if actions are going to be initiated from Iraqi soil.

The question remains for others to think whether to participate in this US-led action: Who Is behind ISIS?

As more and more citizens of US allies get beheaded, with so much political stomach on Iraq, what takes US so long to send boots and exterminate ISIS?

its not as easy as you said, believe it or not as I said before the ISIS is fighting a weird way of 4th Generation Warfare...

I dont usually go deep on a normal post, but to sum up, they are the insurgent with their own land...

Its not quite like fighting a combine convention war, but it is also not quite like fighting a full scale guerilla war too. When ISIS is facing peer like Iraq or Syria military, they will use the conventional warfare to fight them and grab their land, if and when a superior entity, for example US, appear, then they will revert to Insurgence.

To fight this kind of war, you will need not only total control of the host country, Iraq, but also their armed force, as they are the one living in that land and people supporting ISIS was their people, but first they will need a few set piece engagement to dislodge the ISIS strong hold, then kove on to pacifist the area.

To do that, Iraq not only need to surrender control of their government, land but also their military, and US have to act as an immediate and fight on behalf of the Iraqi and as i said before both are quite hard to stomach another total war style war in the region.

Anotherway is to boost Iraqi conventional fightint capability, and that could take years.

 

[Keel]

Excellent analysis.
These points should be repeated here.

Not at all buddy.

Some posters said we are lacking the ability to confront ISIS
Those are stupid comments

We are strong enough to defend ourselves but why we should invite troubles when we are sending millions of our compatriots overseas for vacations and for studies?

And as I said you better wipe your own asses after shitting. Dont expect China to do the paper works for you!

Also "drones" and "troops" carry completely different meaning

In respect of the trouble makers in Taiwan and HK, these people are facing their own troubles

In TW, Wang Dan is sacked
Wang Dan’s contract not renewed - Taipei Times
A student leader who organised the sun flower movement Chen Weitin 陈为廷 was found to have 2 counts of sexual harrassment charges
http://news.sina.com.cn/c/2014-12-24/010431319479.shtml

In HK all the principal organisers of the occupy central fiasco were arrested and the HK governemt is reviewing for pressing criminal charges like organizing illicit activities, obstructing court orders ...

 

[Steakhouse]

The endless war in the Middle East better for China to stay far away, the best China can offer a peaceful statement which all party can find a peaceful solution through direct negotiation. One less reason for China take Advil for their headache.

 

[Shotgunner51]

What is an 'invasion' ? It is an uninvited entry into another country. Not all invasions are bad, such as the D-Day invasion of WW II, or when ECOWAS intervened in the Liberian civil war that threatened the stability of neighbors. But generally speaking, an invasion have a negative context attached to the action and the invader usually have much difficulty justifying his action.

What you are asking is for an invasion by an alliance led by the US. In order for that to happen, there must be consensus among members who must feel equal urgency about IS and that an invasion is the only solution. If there are any objections by the victim country, the alliance must publicly justify as to why an invasion is the only solution. In the case of ECOWAS and Liberia, the country was so fractured that the alliance could find no one to appeal for peace as an alternate for the planned invasion.

Right now, there are no consensus in the UN as to how to deal with IS.

Sure invasions happened over past few millenia, we know. From invader's point of view it's good, and opposite on the other side, be it 1986 Grenada or 1978 Vietnam. Invaders may talk about whatever reasons for the cause or not, they just do it. D-day however was not a stand-alone invasion, France didn't exist at the time, it was allies' surprised attack on Nazis, not an invasion, remarkable game changer of WWII though but not an invasion.

As more and more citizens of US and its allies beheaded, the urgency is obvious, not to mention it's threatening the sovereignty of Iraq, a country on which US has plenty of political stomach, a country that US rebuilds from ashes left by US boots. US is not bound by UN concensus to take military actions vs anyone, we all know, so the question remains: Why US hasn't send boots to help the victim country Iraq to counter ISIS? And while not doing so, yet invite China? Last but not least, who is behind ISIS?

 

[TaiShang]

To cut the long story short:

US and its allies have so far done everything in their power to indirectly overthrow Assad and bring democracy to Syria. For over three years, these allies have provided every sort of support (political, military and media) to the warring anti-Assad factions.
More critically, radical extremists from all corners of the world have been sent to Syria, a large portion of them using Turkey as a gateway.
With various groups entering Syria, soon, over 1500 terrorist groups have mushroomed across Syria.
The strongest of these groups had been al-Nusra, that is, the Syrian branch of AQ under Zawahiri.
The Iraqi arm of AQ was al-Baghdadi's (then) Islamic State of Iraq.
In the beginning, ISIS and Nusra joined forces in their fight against Assad, taking control of most of the border areas with Turkey.
They even planned, under Turkey's (read US) guidance, to capture Raqqa (today ISIS capital) together.
Then, again together, AQ of Iraq (Baghdadi) and AQ of Syria (Zawahiri) started to fight the PYD and the Kurds.
But the resistance of the Syrian Army and the overthrow of Islamic Brotherhood in Egypt created a serious rift between the terrorist allies and their supporters (Turkey-Qatar vs. Saudi Arabia).
Then ISIS launched offensive against its former partners, capturing quickly most of the areas under Nusra, FSA and other terrorist groups. Most of these areas had been located across the Turkish border. With ISIS getting stronger and gaining prestige, most of the groups that were formerly loyal to Nusra and FSA began to join the ISIS.
In this process, ISIS captured all of the equipment that had been provided by the US and its allies to these terrorist groups (Nusra, FSA etc).
At this point, the fact that the US, EU, KSA and lastly Turkey listed ISIS as a terror organization did not make any difference.
In fact, because the assistance to the smaller (moderate) terrorist groups continued, the indirect provision of the ISIS continued as well.
These countries have essentially one particular person in their hit list: Assad and the two government that stood by Syria: Iraq and Iran.
In the hope of pushing the (then under Maliki) Iraqi government to corner, US and its allies offered great military and financial support to the Iraqi Sunni insurgent groups.
The Iraqi Sunni groups soon discovered the ISIS and soon joined forces. On the back of this inherent cooperation with Sunni tribes, ISIS stormed inside Iraq, capturing half of the country in a sort of Blitzkrieg.
Hence the source of the mess we see today.
The rest of the story is well-known.

The moral of the story is even more poignant: It is a particular US and its allies problem. None of China's business. They are to solve it if they wish so. If not, learn to live with it.

 

[Nike]

I am not saying that he is close to Islam, but compared to Sukarno, Suharto is far friendlier though he is suspicious of them. Or you want deny Islam groups involvement in 1965 massacre against the socialist. And then, there is an alliance of army and Islam against commie.

Women, Sexual Violence and the Indonesian Killings of 1965-66 - Annie Pohlman - Google Books

Islam in Liberalism - Joseph A. Massad - Google Books

I am sick of you putting words in my mouth.

You thing you had been an smartass by reading one or two books without knowing what happened on the ground? Asshole

Soeharto using NU (an Nationalist Muslim) movement to keep PKI in check and eliminate them in 1965 massacre, until then he keeps away from Islam leader and alienating them from Indonesian top power by consolidating his power around Army (ABRI) and using state power to keep them in check. Indonesian Ulama feel betrayed by Soeharto and some radical trying to gather their strength but Soeharto with his extensive spying organizations can eliminate them before their influence spread and doing much troubles for the government. In much way, Soeharto using Islam as his cards to keep the mass believing Soeharto is part of them as Islam is Indonesian major religion entity, but in other way Soeharto is doing much harm to Islam itself by his systematic efforts to keep them in check.

If you can speak and read in Bahasa and been visiting Indonesia you should know if Soeharto is anti Islam, and doing much massacre against Islam movement like happened in Tanjung Priok, Medan and he keep doing it until his demise in 1998 by pressuring Himpunan Mahasiswa Islam Indonesia.

Soeharto itself doesn't acknowledge Islam can be part of Indonesian Nationalism and Pancasila, this way he established Kementrian Agama and put them in charge about Indonesian Religious Affair, several Islam leader worry Departement Agama is Soeharto greater plan to put Islam as religion under auspices of Nation and State territory and keep them in line with National value.

Islam Priangan: Pergulatan Identitas dan Politik Kekuasaan | Amin Mudzakkir - Academia.edu

Hefner: Islam dan Demokrasi

Usulan Pembubaran Departemen Agama | Memuat berita yang memihak kepada ISLAM

BBCIndonesia.com | Laporan Mendalam | Kebijakan Suharto atas kelompok Islam

http://digilib.uin-suka.ac.id/1720/1/BAB I, BAB V, DAFTAR PUSTAKA.pdf

 

[Shotgunner51]

its not as easy as you said, believe it or not as I said before the ISIS is fighting a weird way of 4th Generation Warfare...

I dont usually go deep on a normal post, but to sum up, they are the insurgent with their own land...

Its not quite like fighting a combine convention war, but it is also not quite like fighting a full scale guerilla war too. When ISIS is facing peer like Iraq or Syria military, they will use the conventional warfare to fight them and grab their land, if and when a superior entity, for example US, appear, then they will revert to Insurgence.

To fight this kind of war, you will need not only total control of the host country, Iraq, but also their armed force, as they are the one living in that land and people supporting ISIS was their people, but first they will need a few set piece engagement to dislodge the ISIS strong hold, then kove on to pacifist the area.

To do that, Iraq not only need to surrender control of their government, land but also their military, and US have to act as an immediate and fight on behalf of the Iraqi and as i said before both are quite hard to stomach another total war style war in the region.

Anotherway is to boost Iraqi conventional fightint capability, and that could take years.

I agree with you, impressed by your professionalism in military affairs. Sure we can't undermine the difficulty in fighting asymmetrical warfare like this, or 4th gen warfare as you describe it. They should be smart enough to find ways, no matter how weird it seems, to fight using AK47 & RPG's vs Nimitz CBG & B-2 bombers, asymmetrical.

The question however not just remain on the "how"'s to fight ISIS, though tough but we should have confidence on professionals like yourself and others forming a US-led coalition to deal with that, but the "why"'s.

Why US is not sending boots while asking China to do so?
Why China should accept invitation without knowing who these ISIS guys are?

 

[xyxmt]

So now every country should send forces to fight ISIS, is this the third world war and what happens if all the countries cannot defeat ISIS...Will ISIS be the next super power