# Air Power vs ISIS **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 18, 2014, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/air-power-vs-isis/704972 "2014-11-18T17:33:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![MikeF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@MikeF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MikeF)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/air-power-vs-isis/704972/1 "2014-11-18T17:33:24Z")
A quote from an article on Foreign Policy’s page: “Air power advocates say the Air Force could deliver a knockout blow to the Islamic State if allowed to, but instead, it’s relegated to a supporting role to the forces on the ground.” Who are these advocates and what, in particular, are they proposing? I thought it was pretty well accepted that that air power alone cannot “win” this type of war. There have already been stories that quote anti-Assad fighters as saying the airstrikes in Syria are doing more harm than good. With ISIS forces dispersing and mixing with the civilian population, B-52 strikes seem like a poor option. So what’s the plan for a “knockout blow”? ---
**Author:** ![Ryan\_Liam](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ryan_liam/32/3965_2.png) [@Ryan\_Liam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ryan_Liam)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/air-power-vs-isis/704972/2 "2014-11-18T17:55:51Z")
When they say things like this I’m always taken back to thinking ‘Did airpower stop the Vietcong or NVA from eventually winning?’ ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/air-power-vs-isis/704972/3 "2014-11-18T18:10:29Z")
> [@](#): > > I thought it was pretty well accepted that that air power alone cannot “win” this type of war. What type of war do you mean? ISIS has moved beyond being an insurgency like what we were fighting in Iraq and are still fighting in Afghanistan. ISIS is acting an actual military force, attempting to capture and hold territory, which means they need a logistics and supply system…which makes them vulnerable to air strikes. To ‘win’ THIS sort of war what you have to do is interdict their supply and logistics train…no beans or bullets no more moving forward to victory. So, ‘winning’ would probably mean that ISIS has to give up on set piece battles and capturing territory and fall back on insurgency tactics. > [@](#): > > There have already been stories that quote anti-Assad fighters as saying the airstrikes in Syria are doing more harm than good. More harm to who? Do you have a cite so we can see some context? I’d say doing more harm than help is going to depend a hell of a lot on who is saying that and why. > [@](#): > > With ISIS forces dispersing and mixing with the civilian population, B-52 strikes seem like a poor option. So what’s the plan for a “knockout blow”? Once they disperse into the general population and fall back on insurgent tactics they have lost, basically, even if they fight on for years or decades. Their big plan to take over vast swaths of the region through conventional military force will be over and done with, and they will have to go back to being insurgents/terrorists fighting endlessly from the shadows in asymmetric war. That might SOUND like a good thing and no difference, but their leadership isn’t going to be thrilled with the prospect, since it hasn’t worked out all that great for the various insurgent groups in the region. Hasn’t worked out all that great for us either, but it’s worked out a hell of a lot worse for them…and, of course, for the people who live there who are getting tired of the endless war and terror attacks. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/air-power-vs-isis/704972/4 "2014-11-18T18:12:01Z")
> [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > When they say things like this I’m always taken back to thinking ‘Did airpower stop the Vietcong or NVA from eventually winning?’ And your reply would be more than a bit disingenuous. Might give whoever you are talking to a good laugh, though. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/air-power-vs-isis/704972/5 "2014-11-18T18:14:03Z")
As the old saying goes, “to a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” To the AF and “air power advocates,” everything can be solved with more air power. ---
**Author:** ![Declan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecae2f/32.png) [@Declan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Declan)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/air-power-vs-isis/704972/6 "2014-11-18T18:33:12Z")
> [@MikeF](#): > > A quote from an article on Foreign Policy’s page: > > “Air power advocates say the Air Force could deliver a knockout blow to the Islamic State if allowed to, but instead, it’s relegated to a supporting role to the forces on the ground.” > > Who are these advocates and what, in particular, are they proposing? I thought it was pretty well accepted that that air power alone cannot “win” this type of war. There have already been stories that quote anti-Assad fighters as saying the airstrikes in Syria are doing more harm than good. With ISIS forces dispersing and mixing with the civilian population, B-52 strikes seem like a poor option. So what’s the plan for a “knockout blow”? Nope, we would be playing whack a mole. Only ten years after AL Q goes the way of the dodo, ISIS takes over. If we let the airpower types have their way, and if they hit every target on their lists, and not decoy sites, radio relays, etc, most likely another group with a catchy name would surface in a few years, with the same familliar faces. Its easier to keep things heated, and cull them as they group. The people that should be fighting this , are the local govts, who by all accounts are the best reason to join a group like ISIS for the average Achmed, to make a better life for himself. We need more Arab Springs, sooner or later someone is gonna say enough of this shit, and sort things out domestically. Declan ---
**Author:** ![Ryan\_Liam](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ryan_liam/32/3965_2.png) [@Ryan\_Liam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ryan_Liam)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/air-power-vs-isis/704972/7 "2014-11-18T18:37:03Z")
> [@XT](#): > > And your reply would be more than a bit disingenuous. Might give whoever you are talking to a good laugh, though. Why is it disingenuous? I accept the NVA had good anti aircraft capabilities, but the Vietcong did not, and the US had overwhelming air superiority for the entirety of the conflict. And still lost. So you have a good laugh. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/air-power-vs-isis/704972/8 "2014-11-18T18:55:22Z")
> [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > Why is it disingenuous? I accept the NVA had good anti aircraft capabilities, but the Vietcong did not, and the US had overwhelming air superiority for the entirety of the conflict. And still lost. So you have a good laugh. Because it’s such a ridiculous apples to orangutans comparison. North Vietnam was a full on nation state, they were being supplied logistically by two other major super powers (or, I guess in China’s case a regional power at least) from basically non-interdictable sources (i.e. we couldn’t prevent the Soviet Union OR China from sending supplies and tech to the North without starting WWIII). In addition, the North Vietnamese changed their logistics supply to the Viet Cong through other, quasi-neutral countries, and while we did attack into, say, Cambodia, it made it extremely difficult to interdict their supplies. All of that said, we did manage to quite extensively interdict supplies going to the Viet Cong from the North, and the reason we lost wasn’t because of air power but for political reasons in the end. So, yeah…it’s a good laugh. Since you are making it now to me, I’m howling here…and appreciate it, since a good laugh is always a welcome thing. BTW, on the topic of the OP, I don’t believe there is a ‘knockout blow’ possible, either from a heroic air strike or boots on the ground or whatever. This isn’t a Hollywood movie, and it’s not all going to be wrapped up over a long weekend. Air strikes and logistics interdiction can and have been effective against ISIS because they decided (for good reasons, at least from their perspective) to try and become a nation state and actually conquer and hold territory, which is the precursor to doing that. Unfortunately, that makes them vulnerable to the type of war the US and our allies are actually pretty good at…and they don’t have a nuclear armed superpower helping them out, nor anywhere to really hide except among the population, which is great for insurgents but not so great if you want to conquer a region and interpose your own government/ideology there. But a single air strike, or even a series of them isn’t going to ‘win’ in any meaningful way, and this isn’t going to be over by Christmas. Nor would putting (our) boots on the ground, not that this is a realistic option (thank the gods). ETA: I actually semi-agree with lev (I’m sure much to his shock)…to the Air Force types, every problem is a nail and every solution looks like a hammer. ---
**Author:** ![Ryan\_Liam](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ryan_liam/32/3965_2.png) [@Ryan\_Liam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ryan_Liam)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/air-power-vs-isis/704972/9 "2014-11-18T19:24:45Z")
> [@](#): > > Because it’s such a ridiculous apples to orangutans comparison. North Vietnam was a full on nation state, they were being supplied logistically by two other major super powers (or, I guess in China’s case a regional power at least) from basically non-interdictable sources (i.e. we couldn’t prevent the Soviet Union OR China from sending supplies and tech to the North without starting WWIII). In addition, the North Vietnamese changed their logistics supply to the Viet Cong through other, quasi-neutral countries, and while we did attack into, say, Cambodia, it made it extremely difficult to interdict their supplies. All of that said, we did manage to quite extensively interdict supplies going to the Viet Cong from the North, and the reason we lost wasn’t because of air power but for political reasons in the end. > > So, yeah…it’s a good laugh. Since you are making it now to me, I’m howling here…and appreciate it, since a good laugh is always a welcome thing. I never said the US lost because of air power, I said it couldn’t win a conflict alone, and I used the example of trying to eradicate the Vietcong/NVA as a prime example of how a force which had limited to zero capabilities,adapted to the attacks by a foe which had air superiority. There’s the similarity. One of the basic premises of the US military in Vietnam was overwhelming air power could overcome an insurgency/3rd world military. And it didn’t. The same basic principles still apply to engaging ISIS. US air power did not defeat the Vietcong anymore it will defeat ISIS now, because they both adapt to the limitation. As with the Vietcong, they got most of their supplies from _within South Vietnam_. > [@](#): > > **While outside material was vital to the war effort, much of the resources needed were obtained inside South Vietnam**. Tonnages needed for communist forces were modest for the low-intensity protracted war style.\*\* One Central Intelligence Agency study in 1966 found that the bulk of supplies needed were generated within South Vietnam.\*\*[18] Food was always had locally, taxed away from peasants, purchased or even grown by Liberation Army units. Captured stocks were also exploited. American logistical largesse also provided a bonanza as fraud and corruption siphoned off resources. Both weapons and food for example were readily available on the black markets of South Vietnam. > > **This capability of generating resources internally contributed to the mixed results obtained by massive US interdiction efforts- such as the bombing campaign in Laos.** Big search and destroy operations seized hundreds of tons of rice and other material in remoter base areas, but these could be regenerated and restocked again when roving US troops invariably moved on to their next sweep. The Ho Chi Minh Trail consumed massive amounts of attention, but the internal pipelines were also crucial, and these were not closed off because the US and particularly the GVN failed to control the major population concentrations effectively.[18] > **[NLF and PAVN logistics and equipment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viet_Cong_and_Vietnam_People%27s_Army_logistics_and_equipment#Supply_from_inside_South_Vietnam)** > > The Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese People's Army of Vietnam (PAVN) used well-organized logistics methods to supply and equip their fighting forces. This logistics organization helped greatly in their war against the American and South Vietnamese military during the Vietnam War. > The Viet Cong's full-time soldiers were referred to as the "Main Force" (Quân chủ lực). The National Liberation Front (NLF) was a united front designed to encourage non-communists to support the insurgency in the so... So enjoy. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/air-power-vs-isis/704972/10 "2014-11-18T19:42:03Z")
The Army could unleash a horde of attack helicopters that would pretty much devastate ISIS in short order. But Army helicopters don’t operate from carriers, making their deployment much more difficult, thus requiring a commitment of troops and assets the US isn’t willing to make. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/air-power-vs-isis/704972/11 "2014-11-18T19:49:07Z")
[QUOTE=Ryan\_Liam] As with the Vietcong, they got most of their supplies from within South Vietnam. [/QUOTE] _sigh_ Your cite doesn’t say ‘most’, it says ‘much’, and you still seem to fail to grasp that it’s an apples to orangutans comparison between the situation in Vietnam and the one in Syria and Iraq wrt ISIS. Your initial assertion that we can somehow say that air power can’t ‘win’ wars against ISIS because of VIETNAM! is laughable in that it glosses over all the differences, as well as the actual issues and complexity of the whole Vietnam war. I agree that the Air Force is and always has been overly optimistic in it’s assessment of how and what it could achieve with just air power, but pointing to Vietnam as if this meaningfully shows anything is silly. I don’t, however, want to hijack this thread into yet another stupid discussion about Vietnam, so I’ll leave things there. If you want to continue to push this analogy, feel free and knock yourself out. ---
**Author:** ![Ryan\_Liam](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ryan_liam/32/3965_2.png) [@Ryan\_Liam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ryan_Liam)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/air-power-vs-isis/704972/12 "2014-11-18T20:10:46Z")
> [@XT](#): > > _sigh_ Your cite doesn’t say ‘most’, it says ‘much’, and you still seem to fail to grasp that it’s an apples to orangutans comparison between the situation in Vietnam and the one in Syria and Iraq wrt ISIS. Your initial assertion that we can somehow say that air power can’t ‘win’ wars against ISIS because of VIETNAM! is laughable in that it glosses over all the differences, as well as the actual issues and complexity of the whole Vietnam war. \*\* I agree that the Air Force is and always has been overly optimistic in it’s assessment of how and what it could achieve with just air power,\*\* but pointing to Vietnam as if this meaningfully shows anything is silly. I don’t, however, want to hijack this thread into yet another stupid discussion about Vietnam, so I’ll leave things there. If you want to continue to push this analogy, feel free and knock yourself out. Dude, you are willfully ignoring the fact most of the Vietnam war was an application of US air power against a guerrilla group to try and prevent it from overthrowing a US client state it had tried to prop up. Again, considering this has gone over your head, the similarities are that in US air power is limited in its effectiveness without a proper offensive on the ground, and that guerrilla groups adapt (Like the Vietcong) to bombing effectively, there _are_ similarities. > [@](#): > > _sigh_ Your cite doesn’t say ‘most’, it says ‘much’ :smack: Oh I do apologise, the ability of the Vietcong to effectively regenerate itself by using the resources of the enemy is irrelevant, due to the wording of much rather than _most_. So cheers, I will continue to use this analogy. ---
**Author:** ![HoneyBadgerDC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/honeybadgerdc/32/1033_2.png) [@HoneyBadgerDC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HoneyBadgerDC)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/air-power-vs-isis/704972/13 "2014-11-18T20:22:03Z")
I think ISIS has been estimated at 30,000 strong. Even if you were to double that amount any attempt at grouping and moving as a unit would leave them vulnerable to air strikes. I am puzzled as to how Iraq has managed to give up so much ground to them. I am also puzzled as to how U.S. intelligence failed to see and react to the original movements being made. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Duality](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.duality/32/4098_2.png) [@Mr.Duality](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Duality)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/air-power-vs-isis/704972/14 "2014-11-18T20:43:11Z")
**XT** : you don’t think the situation in Syria has complexity? You don’t think ISIS members are as smart and adaptable as the Vietnamese Communists? I do. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2014, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/air-power-vs-isis/704972/15 "2014-11-19T02:35:44Z")
[QUOTE=Ryan\_Liam] So cheers, I will continue to use this analogy. [/QUOTE] Suit yourself. [QUOTE=Mr. Duality] XT: you don’t think the situation in Syria has complexity? [/QUOTE] Um…no idea where you got that idea or really what you are talking about. > [@](#): > > You don’t think ISIS members are as smart and adaptable as the Vietnamese Communists? Again, no idea where you get this idea from or what it has to do with anything I’ve said. The difference between Vietnam and what’s going on in Syria and Iraq are so vast and fundamental that there simply is no comparison. It has zero to do with how smart or adaptable they are or aren’t…and nothing to do with the OP, which is asking about whether air power could or would be decisive against ISIS (and has nothing at all about Vietnam in it at all). ---
**Author:** ![MikeF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@MikeF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MikeF)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2014, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/air-power-vs-isis/704972/16 "2014-11-19T17:55:01Z")
OP here. The type of war I am referring to is the type where there is no actual country/infrastructure to attack by way of air or anything else. Any attack on traditional targets like power grids or command and control centers is also going to directly impact the civilians who are already being slaughtered by ISIS. Are the ISIS supply lines actually vulnerable to bombing? Do they even exist in the normal sense? It seems they are just capturing what they need as they go. There is no one place that is funneling supplies along any particular routes. I guess they will run out of captured material sooner or later but with the money ISIS supposedly has, I don’t foresee any problem with them buying what they need. Anyway, my original question stands. What do the air power advocates propose, specifically? Is it a given that hordes of Apaches (or anything else) could decimate ISIS relatively quickly? When the whole ISIS thing first became big news I thought, “Why not let them create a state and all that goes with it?” Military bases, ministries and government buildings. At least then you have targets and the people will rise up against their oppressors. It would be just like Iraq. Oh, wait. ---
**Author:** ![HoneyBadgerDC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/honeybadgerdc/32/1033_2.png) [@HoneyBadgerDC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HoneyBadgerDC)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2014, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/air-power-vs-isis/704972/17 "2014-11-19T18:42:06Z")
? When the whole ISIS thing first became big news I thought, “Why not let them create a state and all that goes with it?” Military bases, ministries and government buildings. At least then you have targets and the people will rise up against their oppressors. It would be just like Iraq. Oh, wait. [/QUOTE] I kind of suspect this is what we were doing by allowing them to grow more confident and group the way they have. An insurgency can be long and drawn out even with a relatively small group of fighters. I am still not getting why we haven’t been more effective against them since they have grouped up. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2014, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/air-power-vs-isis/704972/18 "2014-11-19T19:29:47Z")
> [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > When they say things like this I’m always taken back to thinking ‘Did airpower stop the Vietcong or NVA from eventually winning?’ Perhaps more to the point : “or the Taliban ?”. Last I checked they still were very much a Thing, even after 10+ years of getting steadily blown up. In fact there’s \*\*more \*\*of them today than there were in 2001. ---
**Author:** ![Ryan\_Liam](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ryan_liam/32/3965_2.png) [@Ryan\_Liam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ryan_Liam)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2014, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/air-power-vs-isis/704972/19 "2014-11-19T20:42:00Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Perhaps more to the point : “or the Taliban ?”. > Last I checked they still were very much a Thing, even after 10+ years of getting steadily blown up. In fact there’s \*\*more \*\*of them today than there were in 2001. Yup, I’ll attest to that as well. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2014, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/air-power-vs-isis/704972/20 "2014-11-19T20:53:19Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Perhaps more to the point : “or the Taliban ?”. > Last I checked they still were very much a Thing, even after 10+ years of getting steadily blown up. In fact there’s \*\*more \*\*of them today than there were in 2001. Well, the Taliban would actually be a better example…and kind of demonstrates the point I tried and obviously failed to make earlier in the thread. In 2001, before the US and coalition involvement in Afghanistan the Taliban was in control of the country and ruled from the capital and had a more traditional military. Today they fight from caves in a disbursed manner using insurgency tactics. If ISIS wants to go back to that model there is nothing air power can really do about that except what it’s doing against the Taliban, basically attacks on any force concentrations, support for our own or allied ground operations and assassination missions against their leadership or whatever C&C we can find. However, if they want to try and engage in set piece battles, as they have been trying to do, then they have to come out and fight and they need logistics that will be vulnerable to our air power. Going back to fighting in a disbursed fashion and falling back on insurgency tactics would not, IMHO based on what their stated goals are, be a ‘win’ for them in any way, shape or form and would relegate them to basically the Taliban or AQ. Sure, the fight goes on, but they aren’t getting anywhere with that sort of fight, at least not wrt taking over a nation and building their own state. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/air-power-vs-isis/704972.md?page=2)