Op IMPACT: CAF in the Iraq & Syria crisis

[vonGarvin]

Did someone mention Cylons?

 

[Tuan]

I don't know crap about Sri Lanka.  No comments there.  But for thought, what worked for the Nazi's on one front might not have worked so well on a different front.  Not all nails need the same size hammer.  Follow me?

I don't think you get how this deal is going down in the big dirt farm either.  I won't talk about TTPs and that stuff but let me suggest that your open source stuff isn't quite up to snuff.  You do understand the GOI is the driver of the big happy bus, right?  I say that because I don't think very many people understand the power structure in that region very well.  And the issues that arise from it that help/hinder the fight. 

:2c:

How Sri Lanka won the war
http://thediplomat.com/2015/04/how-sri-lanka-won-the-war/

 

[McG]

Sounds like the Conservatives may push this mission into an election topic.

Harper to discuss next steps on militants
Stephanie Levitz, The Canadian Press
Toronto Star
01 Sep 2015

Canadian pilots fighting in the skies over Iraq and Syria may soon find out how much longer the federal Conservatives think they'll need to be there, the party's leader said Monday.

At an election rally, Stephen Harper said he intends in the coming days to discuss Canada's contribution to the international coalition fighting Islamic militants in those countries, but suggested the fight is far from over.

"The intervention has had the effect of largely stopping the advance of ISIS (Islamic State), particularly in the north of Iraq and to some degree in other parts of Iraq and Syria - not maybe as much we'd like," he said.

It's been a year since the plight of thousands of Yazidis trapped on a mountaintop by Islamic State of Iraq and Levant fighters moved the U.S. to pull together countries for an air war designed to stop Islamic State from taking over more land in Iraq.

Canada joined the fight in October 2014 for an initial six-month mission, which was expanded in March for up to a year. Canadian fighters are now also bombing Islamic State positions in Syria. Things have improved, Harper told the rally.

"A year ago, they were literally on the verge of sweeping over the entire region, so at least that has been halted."

 

[Tuan]

...All you got to do is "winning the hearts and minds" of the general populace.

Cool.  That would make an excellent slide in a PowerPoint briefing.

Lol... it sounds like the intro slide to every briefing in Kandahar

I know that you guys are being sarcastic but I am appalled by the fact that  you fail to grasp the significance of “soft power” in conflict resolution. I think it would help to define “soft power” and how it emerges from a society. It is, at a basic level "mind control without active coercion”.  Soft power does work and that’s why terrorist or fascist organizations block soft power avenues from influencing people so that they can sustain their propaganda.

It doesn’t mean we can win the war on terror with soft power only. I believe the international community could utilize and balance its soft power and hard power when combating terrorism. Each and every nation has a unique popular culture that is so rich and deep that it can be greatly utilized against hardcore individuals and enemy organizations. Some leading western scholars suggest that success in world politics could be best achieved through the use of “smart power” – a combination of both hard power and soft power.

An American Congresswoman, Jane Harman, had pointed out in her blog that "while the 'hard power' represented by drone strikes and aircraft carriers is essential to our security, living and portraying our values is as - if not more - important in the long run". She went on to say that "we have a responsibility to craft a winning narrative. When we fail to step up and define ourselves, the extremists will be happy to do it for us..."

Fighting terrorism softly
By Jane Harman
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/10/fighting-terrorism-softly-opinion/

 

[Sub_Guy]

I understand your point.  There is a time and place for soft power.  This is not one of them.

Could you imagine if we applied that theory to past conflicts?  We would still be waiting for Europe to fall.

These guys are barbarians, they are brutal, too brutal for western society to comprehend.  This is where I have a problem, because people like yourself come up with these great ideas, and they gain traction.  Not because it’s a great idea, but because the general population can’t fathom how another human being could be so violent.

ISIS/ISIL/Da’ish or whatever you want to call them, is a very brutal organization, they fear nothing.  The longer they stick around, the stronger they get, the longer the international community quibbles on how to deal with them, the stronger they get.

What we need is the world to come together and put this to bed, we all agree that they need to be stopped.  Russia, China, Iran, Turkey, U.S., and many others all agree this needs to stop, heck even the Taliban think they are too extreme.  If for a moment it would be nice if we could all work together to end this non-sense with ISIL, then we can focus on other issues (Turks vs Kurds, Syria, Ukraine).  We can’t solve all the problems at once, but if ISIL were to be relegated to a 4th line terrorist organization, it would make things easier over there.

To sit back and try to win this particular battle with soft power is a bad idea, of course this is my simple opinion.

 

[Tuan]

I understand your point.  There is a time and place for soft power.  This is not one of them.

Could you imagine if we applied that theory to past conflicts?  We would still be waiting for Europe to fall.

These guys are barbarians, they are brutal, too brutal for western society to comprehend.  This is where I have a problem, because people like yourself come up with these great ideas, and they gain traction.  Not because it’s a great idea, but because the general population can’t fathom how another human being could be so violent.

ISIS/ISIL/Da’ish or whatever you want to call them, is a very brutal organization, they fear nothing.  The longer they stick around, the stronger they get, the longer the international community quibbles on how to deal with them, the stronger they get.

What we need is the world to come together and put this to bed, we all agree that they need to be stopped.  Russia, China, Iran, Turkey, U.S., and many others all agree this needs to stop, heck even the Taliban think they are too extreme.  If for a moment it would be nice if we could all work together to end this non-sense with ISIL, then we can focus on other issues (Turks vs Kurds, Syria, Ukraine).  We can’t solve all the problems at once, but if ISIL were to be relegated to a 4th line terrorist organization, it would make things easier over there.

To sit back and try to win this particular battle with soft power is a bad idea, of course this is my simple opinion.

I do agree with you that they are barbarians, but how many of them are voluntary ideologues and how many of them are coercively conscripted children? Do you think these kids have any idea what ISIS really wants? Or what even barbarian means? Did they have a choice? What did they do wrong when the option is do or die?

OTOH, according to a recent study on radicalization, Muslims in western countries struggle with identity issues and the majority white culture is hostile to the Islamic culture in those countries so they try to search for their belonging and join the extremists like ISIS

Contrary to the Muslims in western countries joining the ISIS, the non Muslim westerners themselves join ISIS, particularly because of broken home background who tend to be detached from the society, and make matters worse the report claims, the western popular culture such as youngsters who listen to rap music are increasingly becoming violent and join extremists.

Experts also warn that governments' anti-terror legislation could even play into hands of jihadists.

Therefore, we have to first and foremost fix our careless society from bottom up!

The Children of ISIS                                                 
http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/teenage-jihad-inside-the-world-of-american-kids-seduced-by-isis-20150325?page=5

 

[Tuan]

Let the refugees come out and settle them in other countries thereby showcasing the soft power of Canada/NATO rather than PM Harper’s hard power strategy which is bombing Iraq and Syria.

You're assuming the 'other countries' want these people, and you're assuming all of these people want 'out' as opposed to wanting a long-term solution that doesn't have them abandoning theirs homes and lives.

"you have to understand,
that no one puts their children in a boat
unless the water is safer than the land"

From a beautiful poem by Warsan Shire
http://zeyeon.tumblr.com/post/58052223804/home-warsan-shire

 

[Sig_Des]

I know that you guys are being sarcastic but I am appalled by the fact that  you fail to grasp the significance of “soft power” in conflict resolution.

I'm a little surprised by your "appalment". And I would hold off on assuming that we fail to grasp the significance.

Soft power, if you want to call it that, has it's place. But it comes from a place of diplomacy, culture and history. Which is valid in certain circumstances, or as a part of an overall approach to conflict.

WE, however, are by the very nature of our mentality, training and employment PART of Hard power. We are not choosing which power to use, it has been chosen by the political masters.

The fact is the immediate threat requires the application of force. Soft Power wouldn't even be a speed bump to the aggressive and violent spread of "The Caliphate". you can use it to try to isolate the power base and the source of people and support, but that is very much a long-term, future problem.

 

[Tuan]

Soft power, if you want to call it that, has it's place. But it comes from a place of diplomacy, culture and history. Which is valid in certain circumstances, or as a part of an overall approach to conflict.

WE, however, are by the very nature of our mentality, training and employment PART of Hard power. We are not choosing which power to use, it has been chosen by the political masters.

If your political masters could successfully use the soft power to undermine the idea of communism, rather than hard power, why can’t they use the same soft power to undermine the idea of terrorism? I wonder if terrorists are more brutal than communists?

 

[Edward Campbell]

"you have to understand,
that no one puts their children in a boat
unless the water is safer than the land"

From a beautiful poem by Warsan Shire
http://zeyeon.tumblr.com/post/58052223804/home-warsan-shire

Refugees are, by definition, people who are:

    1. Fleeing their home in fear of life or limb; and

    2. Want, and fully intend to return to their homes as soon as the danger is removed.

People who are fleeing their homes, for whatever reason, and who want to settle somewhere new are migrants, not refugees.

It is wrong to settle refugees in far off, foreign lands, where they have little ability or, often, inclination to adapt. Refugees should be:

    First: Made safe ~ provided with shelter, food, medical care, schools and security, as close to their homes as is practical. This will put a HUGE strain on a few countries which are unfortunate enough to border conflict zones.

    Second: Able to see the international community deal with the threats/dangers which have made them into refugees. This is the real nature of R2P: the civilized, able, mature countries must ACT to change governments which abuse their
    own people: invade; overthrow the cruel, repressive, unrepresentative government; hang the leaders and their henchmen (and women); and, briefly, support new, better leaders.

    Third: Assisted in returning to their homes.

Bringing e.g. Syrian refugees to Canada or Denmark or Germany is unproductive, possibly even counter-productive. Some people in refugee camps will decide that home is no longer attractive; they will want to change their own status from refugee to migrant. Those who want to immigrate to Australia or Britain or Canada should fill out the forms just like all other potential immigrants and hope that they have the "points" they need, based on skill and knowledge and so on.

 

[George Wallace]

Refugees are, by definition, people who are:

    1. Fleeing their home in fear of life or limb; and

    2. Want, and fully intend to return to their homes as soon as the danger is removed.

People who are fleeing their homes, for whatever reason, and who want to settle somewhere new are migrants, not refugees.

It is wrong to settle refugees in far off, foreign lands, where they have little ability or, often, inclination to adapt. Refugees should be:

    First: Made safe ~ provided with shelter, food, medical care, schools and security, as close to their homes as is practical. This will put a HUGE strain on a few countries which are unfortunate enough to border conflict zones.

    Second: Able to see the international community deal with the threats/dangers which have made them into refugees. This is the real nature of R2P: the civilized, able, mature countries must ACT to change governments which abuse their
    own people: invade; overthrow the cruel, repressive, unrepresentative government; hang the leaders and their henchmen (and women); and, briefly, support new, better leaders.

    Third: Assisted in returning to their homes.

Bringing e.g. Syrian refugees to Canada or Denmark or Germany is unproductive, possibly even counter-productive. Some people in refugee camps will decide that home is no longer attractive; they will want to change their own status from refugee to migrant. Those who want to immigrate to Australia or Britain or Canada should fill out the forms just like all other potential immigrants and hope that they have the "points" they need, based on skill and knowledge and so on.

:goodpost:

Very good points that seem to have been overlooked by the MSM.

 

[George Wallace]

If you could successfully use the soft power to undermine the idea of communism, rather than hard power, why can’t you use the same soft power to undermine the idea of terrorism? I wonder if terrorists are more brutal than communists?

I am now beginning to really question your thought processes. 

 

[dapaterson]

Except it's never that simple.  If there's a lack of international will you end up with refugee camps serving as long-term means of housing people who wish to return but are unable to.  Is it practical to keep people in camps for generations, in the hope that someday they may be able to return?

Even post-war, the facts on the ground may prevent restoration of the status quo ante bellum; Israel was settled by many who legally could return to their pre-war homes, but who risked injury or death to assert those rights.

 

[Tuan]

I am now beginning to really question your thought processes.

Did I say something wrong, Sir?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

If your political masters could successfully use the soft power to undermine the idea of communism, rather than hard power, why can’t they use the same soft power to undermine the idea of terrorism? I wonder if terrorists are more brutal than communists?

soft power? No we used proxy wars, physical confrontations, occasional killings and the outright threat of nuclear war and we had significant forces on land, sea and air on standby to fight their significant forces. It was a stare down with a very real possibility of a no-win gunfight at any time. The big factor on the other side is that the USSR had suffered heavily in people losses in WWII and there was a rational desire not to commit suicide, just as we had no desire to commit suicide. For the hardcore centre of ISIS, death is liberation to a better life. 

 

[Edward Campbell]

Except it's never that simple.  If there's a lack of international will you end up with refugee camps serving as long-term means of housing people who wish to return but are unable to.  Is it practical to keep people in camps for generations, in the hope that someday they may be able to return?

Even post-war, the facts on the ground may prevent restoration of the status quo ante bellum; Israel was settled by many who legally could return to their pre-war homes, but who risked injury or death to assert those rights.

The Arab/Israeli conflict and the plight of the Palestinian regugees is a classic example of that lack of will.

The Arabs, considering, as they do, that Israel illegally expelled the Palestinian-Arabs,* should have attacked Israel, again and again ~ which they did, to their credit, and they should have won ... failing that, as they have done, again and again and again, they should have done something, almost anything for the Palestinian refugees: almost anything other than use them as pawns in a propaganda war.

    (An old mentor of mine, a Brit with looooooong service in the Middle East told me, over a few points, that "the Palestinians are the Jews of Arabia." he was complementing the Palestinians because, as he explained,
      they are the best educated, most entrepreneurial, most family oriented, most sophisticated of ALL the Arabs. They are also, he explained, despised by the Saudis and Syrians, Iraqis and Gulf Arabs, and so on as "town Arabs" by people who worship
      a nomadic lifestyle that none of them live anymore. The Palestinians are the doctors and engineers and accountants and small business owners and plant managers and lawyers, bankers and teachers throughout the region and across North Africa
      ~ needed and hated in equal measure.)

The Palestinians deserve better, but they put their faith in the wrong people: their brother Arabs. The Palestinians need to rise up and overthrow one or two governments ~ Syria might be ripe for the taking ~ and start a new Palestinian state. They, themselves, cannot bring Israel down and the Arabs are too frightened, too disorganized, too corrupt and too divided amongst themselves to help.

_____
* There is no doubt that some Arabs were expelled, improperly, at least, if not downright illegally. How many is open for debate. Equally there is no doubt that the Absentee Property Laws effectively expropriated Arab property without payment.

 

[Edward Campbell]

soft power? No we used proxy wars, physical confrontations, occasional killings and the outright threat of nuclear war and we had significant forces on land, sea and air on standby to fight their significant forces. It was a stare down with a very real possibility of a no-win gunfight at any time. The big factor on the other side is that the USSR had suffered heavily in people losses in WWII and there was a rational desire not to commit suicide, just as we had no desire to commit suicide. For the hardcore centre of ISIS, death is liberation to a better life.

Actually, there was a significant, organized, conscious soft power campaign against the USSR and China, specifically, and against communism in general, that was started, in the late 1940s, by US President Truman and which continued, strongly, under President Eisenhower and, less strongly, certainly far less coherently, under Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter and Reagan. It involved not only government agencies like VOA and AID but, far more significantly (and requiring delicate management) American business and the arts, e.g: GE, GM and Coca Cola; Pan Am, Diners Club and Holiday Inn; and, esecially Disney, MGM, Ella Fitzgerald and Louis Armstrong. It was damned effective, too ~ arguably worth more than NATO.

 

[Tuan]

Actually, there was a significant, organized, conscious soft power campaign against the USSR and China, specifically, and against communism in general, that was started, in the late 1940s, by US President Truman and which continued, strongly, under President Eisenhower and, less strongly, certainly far less coherently, under Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter and Reagan. It involved not only government agencies like VOA and AID but, far more significantly (and requiring delicate management) American business and the arts, e.g: GE, GM and Coca Cola; Pan Am, Diners Club and Holiday Inn; and, esecially Disney, MGM, Ella Fitzgerald and Louis Armstrong. It was damned effective, too ~ arguably worth more than NATO.

Thank you for the corroboration! How about rock and roll?

For young Soviets, the Beatles were a first, mutinous rip in the iron curtain
http://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/apr/20/beatles-soviet-union-first-rip-iron-curtain

 

[Good2Golf]

Thanks for the lecture, Tuan. 

My sarcasm is based on nearly a third of a century of service including a year-long tour embedded in a developing country's government exercising 'soft power' to help build their government's capacity.  I'm pretty sure that they appreciated my and my Canadian comrades' 'soft power', but thanks, I'll consider your advice the next time I'm deployed in a manner that supports Canada's use of soft power.

Regards
G2G

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Tuan,

The MESF is not an occupying force, they are assisting the GOI in their efforts against ISIS (to the best of my knowledge, unless I really missed something important...) and therefore, IMO, the 'winning the hearts and minds' part is a battle between the GOI and ISIS.

The MESF has to ensure they, because they are linked to the GOI, do not do anything to make that battle harder for the GOI.

My quick summary from the oar-puller perspective.


WRT the application of soft power.  What makes you think that this is not happening??