Just to state the obvious; my expectation that the strategic idiots of daesh will defeated themselves by turning just about everyone into an enemy has come true. They're in control of a road and a mere two towns in Syria as of today.
It didn't work out for Napoleon, it didn't work out for Hitler. Only the Asian steppe people from Huns to Mongols were able to afford having that many enemies because their strategic mobility was far superior, and they could (usually) deal with them one after the other.* "AQ" had such strategic mobility, but being a mere movement fashion they had their up and down, and have become irrelevant.
I never understood why everyone got so agitated about daesh. They were guaranteed to lose and frankly, they were and are the problem of the Syrians and Iraqis. The supposedly daesh-aligned criminals in Europe merely picked the asswipe fashion du jour, and would have most likely have picked some asswipe fashion regardless of daesh's existence anyway. There was never a real link between bombing daesh and criminals in Europe, nor between bombing daesh and daesh ultimately losing. The bombing may have hastened daesh's downfall while also helping daesh to recruit more idiots, though.
related:
S O
*: The Huns were finally stopped when they had so many footmen allies, captured cattle and booty with them that the West Romans and Visigoths were able to fight them unitedly.
.
Syria and Iraq would not have defeated them without the west. But, I also don't think it was our problem. Sure, they made plenty of enemies but I think air power was a deciding factor. What I can't believe is the Iraqis spending the time to fight these clowns house-house. I'd would have obliterated towns before I would have sent in troops. Obviously get as many of the civilians out first. They want cut off each other's heads go for it but keep it there and out of the west.
ReplyDeleteWhy are you writing about Iraq, Syria and the West as if they were the only enemies of daesh?
DeleteAs I mentioned in the blog post, they made MANY enemies. Russia, Iran, Hezbollah, the Kurds, some Syrian warlords and several Arab countries including Saudi-Arabia and Jordan were among the violently active enemies of daesh, too.
You seem to have missed the military history lesson that destroyed cities become fortresses, much easier to defend than intact cities - even with much-reduced forces.
Furthermore, I rate the ethics of your comment as 0/5.
You said they were the problem of the Syrians and Iraqis. Ethics of my comment - what does that even mean? I didn't miss the point I just don't agree. Grow up Sven.
ReplyDeleteThere's a huge different between wishing to stay neutral in a distant conflict and writing
Delete"They want cut off each other's heads go for it but keep it there and out of the west."
I once separated two Turkish-looking men in a railcar who were arguing aggressively. Afterwards a 70+ years old German asked me why I did it - he was fine with foreigners starting a fight and hurting each other.
That kind of antisocial attitude risks a good punch to the face in my proximity, regardless of age and chromosomes.