Mattis: ISIS ‘couldn’t last 2 minutes in fight with our troops’

[rangerrebew]

Mattis: ISIS ‘couldn’t last 2 minutes in fight with our troops’

SecDef nod calls for 'battles of annihilation” with “no survivors” against terror group, while beating drums of all-out war with Iran.
BY Paul Sperry · @paulsperry_ | January 12, 2017

Defense secretary nominee Gen. Jim “Mad Dog” Mattis believes ISIS is “al-Qaida on steroids” and must be defeated in head-to-head “battles of annihilation” that leave “no survivors” on the enemy side, according to a recent discussion he participated in with a conservative think tank.


http://counterjihad.com/mattis-isis-couldnt-last-2-minutes-fight-troops

Editor-in-Chief. Contact him at sperry@sperryfiles.com
@paulsperry_

The career Marine, who faces Senate questioning at a confirmation today, also asserts that the US military “can handle Iran” in a shooting war, but cautioned that the Navy needs more warships to challenge “China’s bullying in the South China Sea.”

Mattis made the eye-opening remarks in a little-noticed interview with Stanford University’s Hoover Institution in Palo Alto, Calif., where he is a visiting fellow.

[mystery-ak]

True if the politicians stayed out of it and let the military fight.

[goatprairie]

I agree with Mattis. It is imperative that if we do fight ISIS, we kill each and every last one of those pieces of human sludge. Not only because they deserve it but also as a deterrent to future jihadis who seek glory through slaughtering innocents.

[Free Vulcan]

I agree with Mattis. It is imperative that if we do fight ISIS, we kill each and every last one of those pieces of human sludge. Not only because they deserve it but also as a deterrent to future jihadis who seek glory through slaughtering innocents.

Yep. Nations are one thing. Terrorist groups are lock and load, kill 'em all. This is what they understand, and this is what they need to experience as a warning to others.

[EC]

Yep. Nations are one thing. Terrorist groups are lock and load, kill 'em all. This is what they understand, and this is what they need to experience as a warning to others.

Not quite. You always leave one or two alive to act as witnesses. Stories grow in the telling, and hence so does fear.

[Bigun]

True if the politicians stayed out of it and let the military fight.

Which has been a REAL problem for the last 60 years or so in this country!

[Free Vulcan]

Not quite. You always leave one or two alive to act as witnesses. Stories grow in the telling, and hence so does fear.

Fair enough, but they still got to lose an eye or a hand.

[r9etb]

True if the politicians stayed out of it and let the military fight.

The Founding Fathers wanted the politicians involved, for good reasons.  The fact that idiot politicians (particularly including the current CiC) interfere in bad ways, in no way negates the underlying principle.

It's up to us to elect a better brand of politicians; not to give powers to the military that they should not be allowed to have.

[rangerrebew]

The Founding Fathers wanted the politicians involved, for good reasons.  The fact that idiot politicians (particularly including the current CiC) interfere in bad ways, in no way negates the underlying principle.

It's up to us to elect a better brand of politicians; not to give powers to the military that they should not be allowed to have.

Don't forget, back in the day politicians weren't paid so the only ones who ran were those who wanted to what was best for the Country.  Now, if you don't have a wad of money, getting elected is nearly impossible - no matter how much you love the country.

[Bigun]

The Founding Fathers wanted the politicians involved, for good reasons.  The fact that idiot politicians (particularly including the current CiC) interfere in bad ways, in no way negates the underlying principle.

It's up to us to elect a better brand of politicians; not to give powers to the military that they should not be allowed to have.

The founding fathers wanted civilian control of the government and so do I.

[r9etb]

Don't forget, back in the day politicians weren't paid so the only ones who ran were those who wanted to what was best for the Country.  Now, if you don't have a wad of money, getting elected is nearly impossible - no matter how much you love the country.

Yes, indeed.  Modern politics tends to draw a certain brand of sociopath....

[rangerrebew]

Yes, indeed.  Modern politics tends to draw a certain brand of sociopath....

Money grubbing, power hungry sociopaths.

[truth_seeker]

Our current variety of voters, politicians and military are too "politically correct" to kill enough civilian non-combatants, to persuade the other side to quit.

Hamburg, Dresden, Berlin, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were in part intentional bombings of civilians.

Now we wouldn't do that. The enemy knows that, and hides among civilians.

Maybe folks like Obama can give pleasant speeches, and we can sing Kumbaya to 1.5 billion wretched muslims, and they will suddenly decide they don't want to follow their Koran and kill all of us.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I would agree with this, and I have to say that it would be a whole lot easier to wipe them out if we figured out how to cooperate with the Russians at least with respect to that specific goal.  But, it's important that Iran stay out of it so that it doesn't trigger a larger Sunni-Shi'ite conflict.  I'd say that should be a pretty big diplomatic goal for the new Administration.

[r9etb]

Hamburg, Dresden, Berlin, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were in part intentional bombings of civilians.

Now we wouldn't do that. The enemy knows that, and hides among civilians.

So, in your view, what is an acceptable ratio of dead women and children to dead enemy soldiers in such campaigns?

[Axeslinger]

So, in your view, what is an acceptable ratio of dead women and children to dead enemy soldiers in such campaigns?

@r9etb
Oh that's an easy one...

Whatever number it takes to make the enemy decide, "it ain't worth it" and whatever number it takes to make the women and children decide, "you know what, we're tired of dying, we're going to do whatever it takes to help you stop them"

Eventually you'll get there.  The only thing that matters is protecting American lives.   I don't give a fig flying damn about ANY of their miserable lives. 

[driftdiver]

@r9etb
Oh that's an easy one...

Whatever number it takes to make the enemy decide, "it ain't worth it" and whatever number it takes to make the women and children decide, "you know what, we're tired of dying, we're going to do whatever it takes to help you stop them"

Eventually you'll get there.  The only thing that matters is protecting American lives.   I don't give a fig flying damn about ANY of their miserable lives.

@Axeslinger
@r9etb

ISIS doesn't either.  What sets us apart from them is that we do care about the innocent and the weak.

I think the gloves should come off and we need to wage war.  The idea that war is limited to surgical strikes were only the bad guys get hurt makes war more palatable to the masses.  War SHOULD be horrible and something to be avoided.  When its time for war it should be all out, BUT that doesn't mean we need to be evil and sadistic about it.

[r9etb]

@r9etb
Oh that's an easy one...

Whatever number it takes to make the enemy decide, "it ain't worth it" and whatever number it takes to make the women and children decide, "you know what, we're tired of dying, we're going to do whatever it takes to help you stop them"

Eventually you'll get there.  The only thing that matters is protecting American lives.   I don't give a fig flying damn about ANY of their miserable lives.

I see.  And how does that differentiate you from the nice men from ISIS who think the same way?

[Axeslinger]

I see.  And how does that differentiate you from the nice men from ISIS who think the same way?

Here is the only differentiation...we do not intentionally target civilians for the purpose of killing civilians.  If you cannot see that difference you're either dense or deliberately being obtuse.  But I would not lose a moments sleep or shed a single tear for civilians who are caught in the middle.   We're there because they either don't mind ISIS or don't have the stones to fight ISIS themselves.  It's war, people die.   Civilians die.   The military's job is to kill people and break things.   So they should be cut loose to do that until it is 3 generations before the people in that part of the world even think about screwing with the US again.

[r9etb]

Here is the only differentiation...we do not intentionally target civilians for the purpose of killing civilians.

Well, I'm sure the women and children we target for the purpose of killing ISIS terrorists will feel better about that.

The end justifies the means, after all.  Right?

Just to note, the fellow said he didn't care how many women and children get killed, so long as it persuades the enemy to give up.  Isn't that kinda the textbook definition of terrorism?

[truth_seeker]

I see.  And how does that differentiate you from the nice men from ISIS who think the same way?

Here is how. During late WWII after Okinawa, the largest loss of life in battle, Truman faced an important decision:

How to finish this war, with the least loss of lives on both sides, going forward?

He received estimates for BOTH US military personnel, plus Japanese, considering how they behaved on the island battles.

He decided the use of atomic boms to bring about an immediate halt to the war, would result in the FEWEST deaths.

He made an humanitarian decision, and dropped two atomic bombs, killing just 200,000 or less.

That compared very favorably to predictions of how many Japanese would die if it dragged on, and most important US lives to.

You truly owe it to yourself, to learn about this historic episode in history.

If you still fail to understand, then you are probably so naïve, that you will never understand.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

* As an historical point, the US, Britain, Russia, Germany and Japan were ALL trying to develop atomic bombs.

So if you possess some notion that war can be waged with delicacy, wake up.

[mountaineer]

So, in your view, what is an acceptable ratio of dead women and children to dead enemy soldiers in such campaigns?

Should Truman have dropped the bombs in 1945?

[truth_seeker]

Should Truman have dropped the bombs in 1945?

Too much of an adult question, for naïve Social Justice minds these days.

The reality is Truman's decision was an humanitarian act.

Most have witnessed 10 years of Vietnam, 15 years of the War n Terror, without conclusions.

They think of war as "optional," turn it on or off.

Contrast with WWII won in less than 4 years.

[mountaineer]

Just wondered what the parameters were.   

[r9etb]

Should Truman have dropped the bombs in 1945?

His decision was based on a hideous "this will cost less than the alternative (invasion)" calculation, based on what we'd already experienced on Okinawa.  Even so, the cities selected for the bombings were chosen on the rather thin excuse that both Hiroshima and Nagasaki contained legitimate military targets.  ("Thin excuse" in that the military targets would be obliterated as part of the more general obliteration of everything around them.) 

The general idea of "terror bombing" is one of the most morally fraught aspects of our WWII bombing campaigns -- and some of what we did, fell into that category, albeit as something of a last resort.  A general strategy based on targeting civilians, for whatever reason, is recognizably wrong, or at least we should be able to recognize why it's wrong.

In the present context, however, we're not talking about ending the war with Japan.  We're talking about how to deal with a relatively few ISIS fighters, in civilian areas.  For one thing, we have access to weapons that are orders of magnitude more accurate than what was available in 1944-45, which gives us options other than broad-area carpet bombing.

For another thing, we have to consider whether the silly idea of carpet-bombing is the best approach to the problem.

One might consider the lessons of the Iraq Surge, in which indiscriminate and overwhelming use of force was counterproductive, in that they dried up any support we had from the populace, and in some cases drove the populace into active support of the insurgents; whereas the engagement strategies of the surge worked by turning the population against the insurgents.