NATO needs to be the entity that takes on ISIS

[Tank]

NATO is the entity that needs to take on ISIS. Individual countries, or limited alliances, do not have the cohesiveness required to face down ISIS. The UN is too divided and crippled by the veto system. ISIS attacks NATO countries. The NATO remit is to collectively defend its members. NATO also has the political clout to stand up to Putin.

NATO

"At present, NATO has 28 members. In 1949, there were 12 founding members of the Alliance: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom and the United States. The other member countries are: Greece and Turkey (1952), Germany (1955), Spain (1982), the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland (1999), Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia (2004), and Albania and Croatia (2009)."

[Recusant]

Heavy Russian involvement in the tangled mess means that NATO has to tread carefully. NATO member Turkey's double-dealing has also complicated things considerably.

[Steeler]

Late to the party but.....A fucking men.

[Crow]

The people who need to take them on are the neighbouring muslim nations, not western nations half way around the world. Iran, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Turkey all have a lot to lose as well as having strong military forces at their disposal as the west provides them with a lot of weapons and it is in their interest to fight the ideologies of the cult like fanatics.

If those countries aren't prepared to fight then wage unconventional warfare, go after their money and backers especially if that means going after influential figures in ally countries, use propaganda and destabilise the legitimacy of their leaders, limit food and water supplies. If they still manage to develop then attack but only if they do develop as that is the only way a country that sticks to international laws on warfare can succeed. It is pointless fighting an ideology with military might at this stage death of their fighters is celebrated and used to recruit more idiots, it just adds fuel to the fire and exactly what they want. A war with the west is seen as their big driving force for expansion. Use our understanding of science and human pattern and behaviour to manipulate them. You are fighting an ideology so the war is with the minds of the individuals which form the collective, bullets and guns are not the right tools and is like using a hammer to make a cup of tea.

[Tank]

The people who need to take them on are the neighbouring muslim nations, not western nations half way around the world. Iran, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Turkey all have a lot to lose as well as having strong military forces at their disposal as the west provides them with a lot of weapons and it is in their interest to fight the ideologies of the cult like fanatics.

If those countries aren't prepared to fight then wage unconventional warfare, go after their money and backers especially if that means going after influential figures in ally countries, use propaganda and destabilise the legitimacy of their leaders, limit food and water supplies. If they still manage to develop then attack but only if they do develop as that is the only way a country that sticks to international laws on warfare can succeed. It is pointless fighting an ideology with military might at this stage death of their fighters is celebrated and used to recruit more idiots, it just adds fuel to the fire and exactly what they want. A war with the west is seen as their big driving force for expansion. Use our understanding of science and human pattern and behaviour to manipulate them. You are fighting an ideology so the war is with the minds of the individuals which form the collective, bullets and guns are not the right tools and is like using a hammer to make a cup of tea.

Classic 'hearts and minds' campaign in other words.

[Crow]

Classic 'hearts and minds' campaign in other words.

In this case no. Hearts and minds is usually to win over a populace to your cause and indirect military action. There is no populace to win as they have either fled in fear, living in fear or joined, the native resistance would only serve as a distraction. Whilst those are forms of unconventional warfare there is another side that uses lethal tactics that are direct but it is clandestine in nature but most importantly psychological. You attack them at their heart but it is always done to invoke fear and betrayal, you target the food, weapons and infrastructure, assassinate backers (regardless of their nationality), abduct soldiers from where they think they are safe, introduce hallucinogens that provoke bad trips, hack their devices and plant false incriminating evidence so they look like spys. You make them feel like they have no control and that the person next to them could be the enemy, you also use their own religion against them and their own tactics against them.

[No one]

Classic 'hearts and minds' campaign in other words.

If humans used their "hearts and minds",  there wouldn't be any war.

[Tank]

Classic 'hearts and minds' campaign in other words.

If humans used their "hearts and minds",  there wouldn't be any war.

Can't deny that one.

[Firebird]

The people who need to take them on are the neighbouring muslim nations, not western nations half way around the world. Iran, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Turkey all have a lot to lose as well as having strong military forces at their disposal as the west provides them with a lot of weapons and it is in their interest to fight the ideologies of the cult like fanatics.

Turkey, unfortunately, appears to be a lost cause at the moment. Erdogan seems to think ISIS is a part of his brethren and is willing to look the other way while they slip through the borders to Syria, as long as it means going after the Kurds. Ironic really, because I have no doubt they'd behead him at the first opportunity.  And I'd have a hard time imagining Saudi Arabia and Iran working together on anything considering how much they hate and try to outflank each other.

A war with the west is seen as their big driving force for expansion. Use our understanding of science and human pattern and behaviour to manipulate them. You are fighting an ideology so the war is with the minds of the individuals which form the collective, bullets and guns are not the right tools and is like using a hammer to make a cup of tea.

One interesting snippet from the Atlantic article about ISIS was how much they truly do buy into ancient Islamic prophesies, so much so that they celebrated the capture of an unimportant town called Dabiq because Mohammad prophesied that it's where a crucial battle between Islam and the "Romans" will take place. Many ISIS fighters now think "Romans" refers to the West. They celebrated when ISIS captured it even though it was unimportant, and get positively giddy at any rumor of western fighters there because it would signify the beginning of one of the final apocalyptic battles against the West that they're destined to win, a large part of the reason they signed up for this. So why not give them what they want? Land a few troops in Dabiq, pretend the big ground war is about to start, lure all their naive fighters in, and once they're gathered in one place, bomb them to hell.
Of course, it can't be that simple, but surely it wouldn't be that hard to try?