Miscellaneous desk
< May 25	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 27 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 26

Comparing conflicts.

With ISIS in the news again, my question is how they are able to make such rapid and swift progress against two formally powerful countries. CNN or Fox just don't go into context.

My main reference being the siege of Stalingrad. I mean, hundreds of thousands if not over a million perished during this conflict. The size and scale of the Eastern Front makes the ISIS skirmishes and battles look like something straight out of kindergarten.

Yet, ISIS are probably only slightly better equipped than the Soviets were, excluded the thousands of tanks. Slightly better than rag tag. And they survive a sustained, comprehensive aerial bombardment by the most powerful air force ever known. How!?

Then they take Palymra against an army that has powerful T72 tanks.

Is there something we dont know in this co flict? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.140.226 (talk) 20:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The main difference is that this bombing is not carpet bombing, it's very limited targeting drone strikes. The goal is to kill only ISIS fighters without killing civilians. In carpet bombing, you just kill everyone in the area. That's far more effective militarily, although you still need massive land forces to use in combination. Most of the land forces just aren't up to the task. You have a weak central government in Iraq, which has purged all the Sunnis from it's officer ranks, leaving it weakened and demoralized. You have Shiite militias, which really only care to fight when in Shia areas. And in Syria you have the much weakened government, due to years of civil war. The Kurds have done an effective job, but again only in Kurdish areas. It's going to take competent troops, which probably means Western troops, to get the job done. And since ISIS will probably behead or burn alive any prisoners, it would require overwhelming numbers to ensure that they never have the local superiority in numbers which might allow them to take prisoners. StuRat (talk) 20:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may have noticed that little is said about them until they take an oil producing site. There is only one viable resource in the region: oil. They can take 100 cities that do not produce oil and the concern is low. If they take a city that produces or refines oil, concern is high. From an American perspective (I assume you are American because you mention CNN/Fox), we are not overly concerned as long as the oil keeps flowing at a good price. We don't really have a need to one religious sect to rule over another. It reminds me of a quote from the Iraq-Iran war: The only problem is that we cannot have both sides lose. 199.15.144.250 (talk) 12:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here in the US I hear about them when they commit a massacre or destroy antiquities. StuRat (talk) 12:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When they commit a massacre or destroy antiquities, look at where they are. For example, radical Islam in Nigeria was not notable until they kidnapped a bunch of girls from a major oil producing area. Suddenly, they are in the news. Similarly, we didn't hear much about Ethiopian pirates until they captured a oil tanker. Suddenly, they are a major threat. 199.15.144.250 (talk) 13:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody outside of Erbil has ever given a shit about Erbil. At least not for Erbil's sake. Poor abundant Erbil. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that access to oil is an important concern, but not because the US wants that oil. It's difficult to imagine American refineries being set up in that area anytime soon due to all the violence there, especially with home US oil and gas production way up due to fracking, keeping the prices low. And if ISIS sells it on the world market, that still has the effect of increasing the world oil supply and keeping prices down. The concern is that ISIS then makes lots of money off selling the oil, which they'll use to expand.

Also note that US troops in Afghanistan continue to make the news whenever there are deaths or a battle, even though there's no oil there. StuRat (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The oil and its machinery are in the general area. America doesn't want all the oil itself, but control (or at least influence) over the business end. If ISIS takes some oil and oil makes ISIS expand, ISIS reaches more oil. If ISIS fully expands within its claimed zone, and still doesn't agree with American policies by then, it's game over. So yeah, they'll fight them on any front, even the bone dry ones and in the spirit world. We hear about a lot of those fights, but hard to say "whenever" without considering the ones we don't hear about.

It's not all about the oil, though, because gas is interesting, too. And there's the tiny fact that, regardless of goals or even who's fighting who, virtually all of the military budget of the United States goes back into American corporations. If the economy stops expanding, that's also game over (or something ominous, anyway.) InedibleHulk (talk) 07:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The main difference between ISIS and the government forces that are their main adversaries (outside Kurdish areas) is one of motivation. Fighters for ISIS believe that their cause is holy, and that if they die, they will go straight to paradise as heroes meriting reward. Their commitment is strong. As a result, ISIS is able to use tactics like sending armored vehicles to force their way to positions, then exploding the vehicles once they reach their positions, killing the ISIS fighters in the vehicle as well as their opponents, and allowing other ISIS fighters to then advance and take the positions. [1][2] Government forces in the region are fighting for corrupt governments lacking in legitimacy and simply lack the fervor to stand against ISIS fighters willing to risk everything. Given the choice between dying in defense of their corrupt government or fleeing to safety, they tend to flee to safety. By contrast, ISIS fighters willingly sacrifice their lives. As for bombing, another factor is that most of ISIS's opponents (including US forces) are concerned about minimizing civilian casualties, whereas for ISIS, their cause is more important than individual lives. [3] That allows ISIS to act more ruthlessly and with little restraint, whereas humanitarian concerns constrain U.S. and allied forces. Marco polo (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between minimizing civilian casualties and minimizing acknowledgment of civilian casualties. The numbers in Civilian casualties in the war in Afghanistan (2001–present), Casualties of the Iraq War and Drone strikes in Pakistan aren't exactly consistent, but even the lowball counts smoke ISIS' death toll (excluding those killed when the US bombs a suspected ISIS target, then gives ISIS credit for apparently being there).

And let's not forget, aside from murder, intolerance and all that, a huge part of ISIS' mission is getting rid of those guys the West used to be mad at for killing even more civilians than America does. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're comparing multiple wars over a decade and a half with a single, recent conflict, in the case of ISIS. Also, I suspect that many ISIS massacres aren't reported, as there are no surviving witnesses or anyone allowed to investigate. StuRat (talk) 04:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm comparing a bunch of conflicts, all under the same terror roof. Which one were you thinking of? ISIS is a latecomer, at least under that name, so they'll naturally have some catching up to do, but their formation itself was largely based on (and is sustained by) all sorts of people killing all sorts of civilians. Same general area. Many drone (and "normal air") strikes aren't reported for the same reason. That's why sites like Naming the Dead have to exist. Dead men tell no tales, no matter who kills them. Women and children, neither. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing surprising here. The US got nowhere in Vietnam against a guerilla army so they left. The USSR fought a war of attrition in Afghanistan and quit. Funny how when the military get it wrong abroad the government often collapses (USSR, Argentina, Portugal). In Iraq the US are pulling their punches. They didn't assist in the liberation of Tikrit bacause Iranian - backed militia were involved. They weren't very active in Syria recently when Daesh were advancing in regime - held areas. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 08:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does the OP understand the difference between "formally" and "formerly?" Edison (talk) 05:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think so, given the context. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]