You know...I wrote that France will not fight, and I speculated that one reason is that the French do not think they could defeat ISIL...Those numbers are pretty daunting, viz: Mr. Joscelyn's logic is compelling-he takes the identical numbers that Wikipedia has on their web site, the CIA estimate of 20,000-30,000, and says no way, given the U.S. military reports of ISIL casualties; it is the same logic employed in that White House Vietnam War anecdote I related.
That 20,000-30,000 is hard as hard can be, trained, disciplined "killers" in President Obama's word, high "quality," if you will. I would argue that 20,000-30,000 ISIL killers are a higher quality than some multiple of a conventional state's military force. The ISIL 20,000-30,000 is not like Iraq's vaunted Republican Guards, who melted into the desert when the U.S. landed at Baghdad International. The ISIL 20,000-30,000 is some multiple of that in quality, some multiple of the same number of French soldiers, and, sorry, of greater fighting man quality than the same number of American soldiers. That is what I would argue, anyway.
Be that as it may, the French armed forces number 215,000 according to Wiks, over a 10-1 ratio. Would seem 10 French soldiers would be more than the fighting man equivalent of 1 Icehead. When Germany invaded France in 1940 the competing forces were almost identical in numerical strength, 3,350,000 for the Krauts, 3,300,000 for the Frogs. France was fighting on the defensive too, fighting on its own land, fighting for France, and yet Paris fell in 34 days with scarcely a shot being fired in its defense. The French would not fight; they would not fight the Germans for France! With that as context, and believing sincerely that the French esprit de corps today is SHIT, as it was shit in 1940, that they would be invading Syria and Iraq to defeat ISIL, I don't think the French could do it. And that is with the lowest estimate, 20,000, of ISIL strength. If we take the highest range of the CIA estimate, the French numerical advantage is less than 8-1.
Mr. Joscelyn only uses the CIA estimate range as a baseline but believes that the CIA has "drastically underestimated," which sounds entirely plausible to moi. Why doesn't Joscelyn use Wikipedia's account of the CIA's estimate of 80,000-100,000 for "Military of ISIL" in Iraq and Syria? Not even counting Wikipedia's estimates of ISIL military outside Iraq and Syria, which would bring the estimates to between 113,000-318,000. If there are 80,000-100,000 in the ISIL military, that reduces France's advance to between just over 2-1 to just over 3-1. There is no fucking way in hell the French infantry could defeat ISIL at "only" a two or three to one advantage. Now, of course, they, any nuclear state, could defeat ISIL, just drop a couple A-bombs and voila!, but no nuclear state, not France, not Britain, not the U.S., not Russia, probably not Israel, is going to drop the Bomb. All the major state actors of course also have sophisticated air power and an overwhelming series of conventional air strikes could do, in a longer time, but could do, what a nuclear attack would do. France, Russia, and the U.S. are bombing. It will take more, multiples and multiples more, of France's "massive bombardment" of twenty bombs to soften up ISIL for a land invasion.
I emphasize a land invasion as necessary to defeat ISIL because the conventional wisdom among all the states, learned in the Vietnam War, is that (conventional) air power is not enough. We bombed the tar out of the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong, pounded them with B52's. Scared 'em! Scared the tar out of them as they hid ALIVE in caves and came out to fight after the planes left. The U.S. put 536,000 troops into Viet Nam also. Total allied military numbers in Vietnam, 1,830,000. Total enemy strength, 461,000. The U.S. lost the Viet Nam war with a 4-1 numerical advantage over the North Vietnamese and V.C. and that was with the heaviest of conventional bombing.
Got another disturbing opinion for ya. The U.S. can't defeat ISIL either. According to Wiks the U.S. has got 1,361,755 "active" soldiers. President Obama threw out a number the other day, he said, "Let's say I sent 50,000 troops to Syria, what happens if ISIL breaks out in Yemen?," but 50,000 was the figure he just threw out, deliberately high to make his point, that would be considered an impossible number, I got the sense. 50,000 U.S. troops, with all the air cover and smart bombs and do-dads we have could not defeat ISIL at 20,000-30,000. If the U.S. pored every single active military member it has into Iraq and Syria (which it CANNOT, the U.S. military is scattered all over the world) and ISIL's military is its highest estimated also, 318,000, that is almost the identical 4-1 advantage that the allied U.S. troops had in Viet Nam AND LOST.
There is so much play in these estimates and you can play with them to come up with a U.S. victory, if e.g. the number we focus on for ISIL is the CIA's 20,000-30,000 and if the U.S. put in say, 500,000. Hell yeah, I think 500,000 U.S. troops with air bombardment could defeat 20,000-30,000 of ISIL. But 500,000 is outlandish--that's Viet Nam!--Obama is not going to do that. Let's use realistic numbers. Let's say Mr. Joscelyn is correct that 20,000-30,000 is a drastic underestimation of ISIL strength. He doesn't say what he thinks it is but using his adjectives as our guide let's say it's 80,000, the CIA's own lowest estimate of ISIL "Military Force." From experience, we have to get something north of a 4-1 numerical advantage. 4-1 wasn't close to being enough in Viet Nam but even if we estimate that 5-1 would be enough with ISIL, we would have to put in 400,000 troops to defeat ISIL. If 5-1 is the ratio and ISIL is at the CIA's high end of strength, 100,000, we would have to put in roughly the same number, 500,000 and change, as we did in Viet Nam.
Hence, I submit, President Obama's seeming stubborn refusal to "change his strategy." He knows these numbers, hell, they're the CIA's, if he is looking to Viet Nam for his lesson, he also knows those numbers and ratios. AND HE T'AIN'T GONNA DO IT FOR FRANCE. He's not putting 400,000-500,000 American troops into a Middle Eastern war when France won't fight. When France can't fight and win according to this "analysis."
What if ISIL does in the U.S. homeland what it has done in the French homeland. In my opinion, that would be a game-changer...a strategy-changer. The American people will have no truck with ISIL, I repeat, America will not tolerate ISIL attacks here. There will be riots if Obama did not war on them then, American Muslims will be massacred for no reason. Obama is worried about this too and that is also why he is very reluctant to increase even the bombing of ISIL. He does not want to make the U.S. a target. Bombing is the rationale for ISIL attacks on Russian and French civilians. Obama knows it would be for the U.S. too.
And with these happy words, good night and sweet dreams.
That 20,000-30,000 is hard as hard can be, trained, disciplined "killers" in President Obama's word, high "quality," if you will. I would argue that 20,000-30,000 ISIL killers are a higher quality than some multiple of a conventional state's military force. The ISIL 20,000-30,000 is not like Iraq's vaunted Republican Guards, who melted into the desert when the U.S. landed at Baghdad International. The ISIL 20,000-30,000 is some multiple of that in quality, some multiple of the same number of French soldiers, and, sorry, of greater fighting man quality than the same number of American soldiers. That is what I would argue, anyway.
Be that as it may, the French armed forces number 215,000 according to Wiks, over a 10-1 ratio. Would seem 10 French soldiers would be more than the fighting man equivalent of 1 Icehead. When Germany invaded France in 1940 the competing forces were almost identical in numerical strength, 3,350,000 for the Krauts, 3,300,000 for the Frogs. France was fighting on the defensive too, fighting on its own land, fighting for France, and yet Paris fell in 34 days with scarcely a shot being fired in its defense. The French would not fight; they would not fight the Germans for France! With that as context, and believing sincerely that the French esprit de corps today is SHIT, as it was shit in 1940, that they would be invading Syria and Iraq to defeat ISIL, I don't think the French could do it. And that is with the lowest estimate, 20,000, of ISIL strength. If we take the highest range of the CIA estimate, the French numerical advantage is less than 8-1.
Mr. Joscelyn only uses the CIA estimate range as a baseline but believes that the CIA has "drastically underestimated," which sounds entirely plausible to moi. Why doesn't Joscelyn use Wikipedia's account of the CIA's estimate of 80,000-100,000 for "Military of ISIL" in Iraq and Syria? Not even counting Wikipedia's estimates of ISIL military outside Iraq and Syria, which would bring the estimates to between 113,000-318,000. If there are 80,000-100,000 in the ISIL military, that reduces France's advance to between just over 2-1 to just over 3-1. There is no fucking way in hell the French infantry could defeat ISIL at "only" a two or three to one advantage. Now, of course, they, any nuclear state, could defeat ISIL, just drop a couple A-bombs and voila!, but no nuclear state, not France, not Britain, not the U.S., not Russia, probably not Israel, is going to drop the Bomb. All the major state actors of course also have sophisticated air power and an overwhelming series of conventional air strikes could do, in a longer time, but could do, what a nuclear attack would do. France, Russia, and the U.S. are bombing. It will take more, multiples and multiples more, of France's "massive bombardment" of twenty bombs to soften up ISIL for a land invasion.
I emphasize a land invasion as necessary to defeat ISIL because the conventional wisdom among all the states, learned in the Vietnam War, is that (conventional) air power is not enough. We bombed the tar out of the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong, pounded them with B52's. Scared 'em! Scared the tar out of them as they hid ALIVE in caves and came out to fight after the planes left. The U.S. put 536,000 troops into Viet Nam also. Total allied military numbers in Vietnam, 1,830,000. Total enemy strength, 461,000. The U.S. lost the Viet Nam war with a 4-1 numerical advantage over the North Vietnamese and V.C. and that was with the heaviest of conventional bombing.
Got another disturbing opinion for ya. The U.S. can't defeat ISIL either. According to Wiks the U.S. has got 1,361,755 "active" soldiers. President Obama threw out a number the other day, he said, "Let's say I sent 50,000 troops to Syria, what happens if ISIL breaks out in Yemen?," but 50,000 was the figure he just threw out, deliberately high to make his point, that would be considered an impossible number, I got the sense. 50,000 U.S. troops, with all the air cover and smart bombs and do-dads we have could not defeat ISIL at 20,000-30,000. If the U.S. pored every single active military member it has into Iraq and Syria (which it CANNOT, the U.S. military is scattered all over the world) and ISIL's military is its highest estimated also, 318,000, that is almost the identical 4-1 advantage that the allied U.S. troops had in Viet Nam AND LOST.
There is so much play in these estimates and you can play with them to come up with a U.S. victory, if e.g. the number we focus on for ISIL is the CIA's 20,000-30,000 and if the U.S. put in say, 500,000. Hell yeah, I think 500,000 U.S. troops with air bombardment could defeat 20,000-30,000 of ISIL. But 500,000 is outlandish--that's Viet Nam!--Obama is not going to do that. Let's use realistic numbers. Let's say Mr. Joscelyn is correct that 20,000-30,000 is a drastic underestimation of ISIL strength. He doesn't say what he thinks it is but using his adjectives as our guide let's say it's 80,000, the CIA's own lowest estimate of ISIL "Military Force." From experience, we have to get something north of a 4-1 numerical advantage. 4-1 wasn't close to being enough in Viet Nam but even if we estimate that 5-1 would be enough with ISIL, we would have to put in 400,000 troops to defeat ISIL. If 5-1 is the ratio and ISIL is at the CIA's high end of strength, 100,000, we would have to put in roughly the same number, 500,000 and change, as we did in Viet Nam.
Hence, I submit, President Obama's seeming stubborn refusal to "change his strategy." He knows these numbers, hell, they're the CIA's, if he is looking to Viet Nam for his lesson, he also knows those numbers and ratios. AND HE T'AIN'T GONNA DO IT FOR FRANCE. He's not putting 400,000-500,000 American troops into a Middle Eastern war when France won't fight. When France can't fight and win according to this "analysis."
What if ISIL does in the U.S. homeland what it has done in the French homeland. In my opinion, that would be a game-changer...a strategy-changer. The American people will have no truck with ISIL, I repeat, America will not tolerate ISIL attacks here. There will be riots if Obama did not war on them then, American Muslims will be massacred for no reason. Obama is worried about this too and that is also why he is very reluctant to increase even the bombing of ISIL. He does not want to make the U.S. a target. Bombing is the rationale for ISIL attacks on Russian and French civilians. Obama knows it would be for the U.S. too.
And with these happy words, good night and sweet dreams.
