ISIS will topple Saudi Arabia

[TooOldForThis]

The author, Robb, wrote a book entitled, Brave New War: The Next Stage of Terrorism and the End of Globalization (2007). I have not read the book, but the intro says: "the technology that has enabled globalization also allows terrorists, criminals, and violent ideologues of every stripe to join forces against a far bigger and richer foe without revealing their identities, following orders, or even working toward the same ultimate goal. This new brand of open-source warfare enables insurgents to coordinate attacks, swarm on targets, and adapt rapidly to changes in their enemy's tactics, all at minimal cost and risk... this evolutionary leap in the methods of warfare makes it possible for extremely small nonstate groups to fight states and possibly win on a regular basis."

So far at least, no state has been beaten by ISIS. They've moved into situations where there was already a civil war. Nor have they been able to put together a state. And the terror they've produced is so tiny that the media describes each of the victims. This is not war, it's not even a small riot. It's just a media circus.

For example, ISIS appears to have adapted to the air campaign. They've melted into the local population and they don't mass to form large targets.

This strategy is possible for terrorists but it doesn't work for a state. To survive, a state has to protect its civilians. So ISIS melts into the local population? When the US and Britain firebombed Germany they weren't worrying about the Nazis melting into the local population. During war you kill them all and let God sort them out. ISIS can't protect their civilians therefore they cannot fight a war. War is mass murder. ISIS's civilians aren't being targeted because there is no real war. It's a media circus, a propaganda war.

In Saudi Arabia and Jordan I think they'll avoid major confrontations and instead try to start a civil war against "corrupt" monarchies. Believing that Saudi Arabia will survive intact is taking a bet that the House of Saud, a rich corrupt family of aristocrats will buy there way out of trouble or sacrifice their own people in an all out total war to save their skins. I don't know if I would put a lot of money on "monarchs" surviving in the 21st century, much less a corrupt authoritarian absolute monarchy.

I agree, Saudi Arabia and Jordan could fall at any time and without much warning. They could fall without ISIS being involved. And the worst case, as far as ISIS being a threat goes, would be ISIS taking them over. Could that happen? Maybe, but the public relations department at ISIS is the worst I've seen since the Mexican drug cartels who advertise by decapitation. What ISIS propaganda is doing is making enemies not taking territory.

But suppose that ISIS does pick up Jordan and Saudi Arabia. These are inherently weak countries and cannot support any real war. Neither of them has any significant war industry (nor is there in the rest of ISIS territory). Jordan imports 87% of its food and Saudi Arabia 70%. A few months after the start of a real war the few units they have left will be out of ammunition. Their civilians will be eating zoo animals and pets (followed by much worse) and morale will collapse. The problem ISIS has is that they cannot protect their civilians. Nor can any of the Arab states. The way the media paints it, it is the modern industrial democracies that cannot protect their citizens from ISIS but in truth it is the reverse. And the vast majority of civilian casualties are being taken in ISIS territory not France or Britain.

That said, I'm not making any bets that ISIS will win, just yet. The bet would be like buying some long dated OTM crude, /CL, calls. But, I think you have to consider the possibility and perhaps take a small long-term /CL trade if you sense that ISIS is getting any traction in "The Kingdom."

I don't think it's a bad bet, but you should have plenty of warning so you shouldn't have to burn a lot of time premium. And I would take profits before war actually begins.

A Saudi collapse would make the 1970s oil squeeze look very mild. And I think it would be the beginning of a real war. If the US government has any sense, the first thing they'll do is rationing and price controls. But the full territory that ISIS is claiming (i.e. Morocco east to Iran or India, I forget) is so militarily weak that I can't imagine a war lasting more than a few years.

We're in peace right now (thank God) and it's easy to forget what war is like. The first thing that collapses is international trade and the oil trade above all else. Military might determines where oil goes in wartime and that's a matter of "blue-water" navies. Same happens with food, minerals, etc. China would be in deep trouble, along with all the little unaligned countries that don't produce their own oil. In fact, people think of China as preparing for war but if they are, they're doing a rather mediocre job of it. They're becoming incredibly dependent on trade that they cannot possibly protect.

 

[dbphoenix]

So far at least, no state has been beaten by ISIS. They've moved into situations where there was already a civil war. Nor have they been able to put together a state. And the terror they've produced is so tiny that the media describes each of the victims. This is not war, it's not even a small riot. It's just a media circus.



This strategy is possible for terrorists but it doesn't work for a state. To survive, a state has to protect its civilians. So ISIS melts into the local population? When the US and Britain firebombed Germany they weren't worrying about the Nazis melting into the local population. During war you kill them all and let God sort them out. ISIS can't protect their civilians therefore they cannot fight a war. War is mass murder. ISIS's civilians aren't being targeted because there is no real war. It's a media circus, a propaganda war.



I agree, Saudi Arabia and Jordan could fall at any time and without much warning. They could fall without ISIS being involved. And the worst case, as far as ISIS being a threat goes, would be ISIS taking them over. Could that happen? Maybe, but the public relations department at ISIS is the worst I've seen since the Mexican drug cartels who advertise by decapitation. What ISIS propaganda is doing is making enemies not taking territory.

But suppose that ISIS does pick up Jordan and Saudi Arabia. These are inherently weak countries and cannot support any real war. Neither of them has any significant war industry (nor is there in the rest of ISIS territory). Jordan imports 87% of its food and Saudi Arabia 70%. A few months after the start of a real war the few units they have left will be out of ammunition. Their civilians will be eating zoo animals and pets (followed by much worse) and morale will collapse. The problem ISIS has is that they cannot protect their civilians. Nor can any of the Arab states. The way the media paints it, it is the modern industrial democracies that cannot protect their citizens from ISIS but in truth it is the reverse. And the vast majority of civilian casualties are being taken in ISIS territory not France or Britain.



I don't think it's a bad bet, but you should have plenty of warning so you shouldn't have to burn a lot of time premium. And I would take profits before war actually begins.

A Saudi collapse would make the 1970s oil squeeze look very mild. And I think it would be the beginning of a real war. If the US government has any sense, the first thing they'll do is rationing and price controls. But the full territory that ISIS is claiming (i.e. Morocco east to Iran or India, I forget) is so militarily weak that I can't imagine a war lasting more than a few years.

We're in peace right now (thank God) and it's easy to forget what war is like. The first thing that collapses is international trade and the oil trade above all else. Military might determines where oil goes in wartime and that's a matter of "blue-water" navies. Same happens with food, minerals, etc. China would be in deep trouble, along with all the little unaligned countries that don't produce their own oil. In fact, people think of China as preparing for war but if they are, they're doing a rather mediocre job of it. They're becoming incredibly dependent on trade that they cannot possibly protect.

Your posts are way too reasonable. It's a refreshing change.

 

[Turveyd]

No way could ISIS seriously damage Saudi or Jordan, no way could they cut off there food imports and the US would step in to help Saudi atleast.

I don't think ISIS care about protecting there civilians in the first place, civilians with some backing will turn on them sooner or later.

I think ISIS will drop back to a terrorist organisation, not an army and will just do random attacks and give up on holding land.

Before Air Power was used against them, the speed they where capturing land and there growth was a concern, but the mass casualitys, lack of mobility is thankfully reducing there effectiveness hugely.

 

[bidwell]

No way could ISIS seriously damage Saudi or Jordan, no way could they cut off there food imports and the US would step in to help Saudi at least.

I don't think ISIS care about protecting there civilians in the first place, civilians with some backing will turn on them sooner or later.

I think ISIS will drop back to a terrorist organisation, not an army and will just do random attacks and give up on holding land.

Before Air Power was used against them, the speed they where capturing land and there growth was a concern, but the mass casualitys, lack of mobility is thankfully reducing there effectiveness hugely.

No doubt that ISIS has some problems governing its occupied land. But, I go back to a Robb post entitled, The Cost of Ignoring Military Innovation, from Jan 31st. ISIS has more money, manpower, and resources, than any terrorist organization that we have seen. I will not be surprised when they start innovating new tactics.

What will happen when they get a hold of some decent anti-aircraft missiles and shoot down the first US bomber, and take a US pilot prisoner? Say they capture a few more pilots. How does that change the calculus? The Viet Cong intentionally used wounded and stranded pilots as bait to lure rescue helicopters into ambushes. Also, just think how devastating IED's have become in Iraq and Afganistan. No one knew what an IED was 10 years ago. War is evolving.

This is a real war with ISIS and I would not call it a media circus. To underestimate ISIS is to ignore the history of warfare - it changes. And with modern technology it will change even faster. As Robb writes: "If military theory hasn't changed, please oh please tell me when it stopped evolving. Give me the specific date when military history ended and repetition began."

 

[Turveyd]

Its been going on for a year already, they should of bought stingers before they started, ability to knock out the odd plane, would stop or limit airpower used against them.

They will just fly above the missiles or jam them anyway.

Reports from the Jordon increased strikes have caused, much ISIS demoralization and retreating, the hardline nutters are dead already, there weapons bunkers are destroyed, there black market oil sales to fund are weak at best, price of oil not helping.

Pretty much game over, back to isolated terrorist attacks mainly in there own back garden, they have never had the ability to do much damage, 911 being the exception, they won't repeat that again ( unless US wants excuse to invade somewhere and something to anger there public again )


Game over, lets hope hurt them enough to stop them bothering again.

 

[Turveyd]

US is getting info unoffficially aswell, defectors


Game over

 

[jem]

very interesting perspective...thanks for your insight.

ISIS has shown zero ability to take any territory at all from a state that is *not* in the middle of a civil war. And the fighting against such states at peace (example Jordan and Saudi Arabia) so far has been completely desultory that no war, in fact, exists.

I doubt that a real war will begin. By "real" I mean a war of national survival which is what the author is describing. If it does, you'll recognize it by the following:

(1) Complete mobilization of the states involved. That means universal conscription, laws that prevent citizens from doing anything other than help in the war effort, etc. Think what the US was like during WW2 to get an idea what a state at war looks like. Right now Jordan and Saudi Arabia are at peace. Here, plan a vacation in Jordan: http://www.tripadvisor.com/Tourism-g293985-Jordan-Vacations.html

(2) Attacks against ISIS civilians. No real (total) war makes progress by attacking only the military forces of the enemy. This is especially true when the enemy is picking up volunteers from the civilian population. The problem for Saudi Arabia and Jordan is not ISIS per se, it is the civilian populations that support ISIS. Almost no one cares about the 18-year-old ISIS volunteers that are killed. They are semi-suicidal and bent on excitement, and death (or risk) in battle is what they want. Wars are ended when the volunteer's parents, sisters, children, aunts, uncles, friends and pets start being killed at home. This is why total war always ends up with attacks against civilians. You must defeat the civilians; as long as the civilians are healthy, the military is easily replaced. 18-year-old volunteers are cheap. In fact they're free and getting rid of them solves employment problems at home. When their bodies come back they make for great propaganda in support of the cause.

(3) Total war always is accompanied by blockades. The purpose of a blockade is supposed to be to "stop the importation of military equipment", but somehow, blockades almost always end up involving food. For example, during WW1 and WW2, the primary objectives of Germany and Britain's naval forces was to cause starvation among the opposing civilian populations. One of the side effects of this was that Germany had to get rid of "excess mouths" and they put 12 million people through death camps. This is the primary way that civilian populations are killed during total war. And it is especially effective in the Middle East where so little of the land is arable and what is arable is subject to effective aerial bombardment (think dam busting and anti-agricultural attacks).

In short, when you start seeing millions of people dying of starvation in ISIS held territories, you will know that Jordan and Saudi Arabia are fighting for their lives and a real war is on. Until then, what's going on is mostly a show. Few people are being killed but maximum media exposure is accompanying it.

Real war means that millions of people die without anyone knowing. Compare the current casualties with the casualty rate of WW2 (which was mostly about Europe, a chunk of territory roughly comparable in size and population then, to the size of the territory ISIS is supposedly going to conquer). There were an average of 20,000 people killed every day for 8 years, about 7 million per year. Like Stalin said, one death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic. A war could happen, but right now we are at peace, thank God. In terms of body counts, what's going on now is within an order of magnitude of the worst of the sports riots of the Roman Empire; that is, KIA totals in the roughly 30,000 area. The ISIS crap is not war, what you're seeing is a propaganda spectacle.

 

[TooOldForThis]

What will happen when they get a hold of some decent anti-aircraft missiles and shoot down the first US bomber, and take a US pilot prisoner? Say they capture a few more pilots. How does that change the calculus? The Viet Cong intentionally used wounded and stranded pilots as bait to lure rescue helicopers into ambushes.

If the US president wants to, of course he can use aircraft losses like the ones you describe as an excuse to escalate, stay the course, or leave. Maybe some military suppliers will get new contracts. Widows will weep. More entertainment for the news readers. Still not war.

Also, just think how devastating IED's have become in Iraq and Afganistan.

Total US KIA in Iraq and Afghanistan has been 6845 (through 2014, icasualties.org as source), or about 1.7 per day over the 11 years involved. This is not "devastating". During WW2, the USSR had devastating losses. They were close to 10,000 times larger than 1.7 per day but despite having roughly half the present US population they kept fighting and won. Iraq and Afghanistan are not examples of devastating war. What we have is "news as entertainment". We don't even have conscription. Honestly, why are you so worried about such small numbers?

No one knew what an IED was 10 years ago. War is evolving.

Of course war is evolving, but IEDs are as old as gunpowder. All military forces use them when they've run out of "unimprovised" explosive devises. Terrorist bombings were common in the US 100 years ago. In 1928 the anarchists used an IED to attempt to kill one of my great grandfathers (and his family), but fortunately nobody was hurt. By the way, did you know that the US is roughly #6 worldwide for IEDs detonated per year? Here's the link to the congressional testimony:

Since 2007, IED incidents outside of Iraq and Afghanistan have increased to more than 500 IED events per month, with Colombia having the greatest number of IED events followed by Pakistan, India, the United States, and Syria, which recently moved into the top five.
http://homeland.house.gov/sites/homeland.house.gov/files/Testimony - Barbero.pdf

This is a real war with ISIS and I would not call it a media circus. To underestimate ISIS is to ignore the history of warfare - it changes. And with modern technology it will change even faster. As Robb writes: "If military theory hasn't changed, please oh please tell me when it stopped evolving. Give me the specific date when military history ended and repetition began."

Every weapon ISIS is using has already been in use for decades. In fact, all of them were invented by the West with the possible exception of the knives they use to decapitate people. I think that every military theory and propaganda method they're using has already been in use for thousands of years. Maybe I'm missing something. Educate me. Could you describe what ISIS is doing that has never been done before?

Maybe the military phrase for what I'm asking you to describe here is a "revolution in military affairs" or "RMA". For example, aircraft carriers completely changed naval combat. Or aircraft changed land warfare. Or assault rifles. Or mines. IEDs are a type of mine. There has not been an RMA invented by a backward country in many centuries. All these advances were invented by the advanced countries. Eventually they spread to the less advanced countries but by the time they do, the advanced countries have come up with new stuff. This is why advanced countries win wars so quickly.

 

[Ricter]

Obama sending The Party of No a request for war powers vs. ISIS. This could prove interesting...

Obama Sends Congress Draft War Authorization
Posted: 02/11/2015 8:57 am EST Updated: 1 hour ago


"WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama on Wednesday formally asked Congress for new war authority to fight Islamic State militants.

"Obama's request came in the form of a new Authorization for the Use of Military Force. It's a retroactive request: Congress is receiving the document six months after the U.S. began bombing the Islamic State group, also called ISIS. The president has said he believes he already has the authority to go after the group -- citing a sweeping 2001 AUMF as his legal grounds to act unilaterally -- but welcomes congressional signoff. Some lawmakers don't think he currently has the authority.

"The proposed AUMF would limit military action against the Islamic State to three years and allow limited use of U.S. ground troops for things like rescue operations or intelligence sharing. It would put no geographic limitations on the military campaign; instead, it would limit military action to countering the Islamic State and associated forces. It would also repeal a 2002 Iraq War AUMF that never expired, but it would leave in place the broad 2001 AUMF. The new AUMF would sunset in three years.

"Obama will give a statement on his proposal at the White House later Wednesday.

"Lawmakers have been clamoring for AUMF language from the White House for months, as a starting point for their debate on war authorization legislation. But just because they have it now doesn't mean it will sail through Congress.

"Republicans don't want to restrict the president's ability to fight the Islamic State, so many won't like the limits on U.S. ground troops. Democrats, meanwhile, are wary of mistakes made in the Iraq War and want tight limits on the use of troops. Some won't like that the 2001 AUMF is left in place, and some have already raised concerns with the AUMF's language dictating when U.S. ground troops can't be used: in "enduring offensive ground combat operations."

More >>

 

[bidwell]

If the US president wants to, of course he can use aircraft losses like the ones you describe as an excuse to escalate, stay the course, or leave. Maybe some military suppliers will get new contracts. Widows will weep. More entertainment for the news readers. Still not war.

You make some good points and bring me back to the conversation. ISIS and its ilk are like cockroaches. But, who in this discussion said the US was in a war? According to Wikipedia the Iraq War is over, it went from March 20, 2003 to December 18, 2011. The topic is ISIS toppling Saudi Arabia. You were arguing a moot point when you wrote, "Still not war."

However, you might need to change that statement. Because, as pointed out, today Obama sent a letter to Congress asking for the authorization to go back into Iraq and fight ISIS. We will have to leave it to other arbiters, like Wikipedia, to make the call if and when this rises to the threshold of "war." This is the so called Authorization for the Use of Military Force [AUMF]. The October 2002 AUMF was the act that authorized the last Iraq War.

NY Times: President Obama on Wednesday formally asked Congress to authorize a three-year military campaign against the terrorist group the Islamic State that would avoid a large-scale invasion and occupation but in addition to air power could include limited ground operations by American forces to hunt down enemy leaders or rescue American personnel.

Also, ISIS at least according to Wikipedia is involved in enough nasty business to be referred to as "at war."

Wikipedia / ISIS: Participant in the Iraq War (2003–2011)and Insurgency (2011–present), the Syrian Civil War and its spillover, the 2014 Libyan Civil War, the Sinai insurgency, the War in Afghanistan (2015–present), the War in North-West Pakistan, the Moro insurgency in the Philippines, the Insurgency in the Maghreb (2002–present), and the al-Qaeda insurgency in Yemen.

Primary target of the Military intervention against ISIL, the interventions in Iraq, the interventions in Syria, and the Global War on Terrorism

Turning back to your other points.

Total US KIA in Iraq and Afghanistan has been 6845 (through 2014, icasualties.org as source), or about 1.7 per day over the 11 years involved. This is not "devastating". During WW2, the USSR had devastating losses. They were close to 10,000 times larger than 1.7 per day but despite having roughly half the present US population they kept fighting and won. Iraq and Afghanistan are not examples of devastating war. What we have is "news as entertainment". We don't even have conscription. Honestly, why are you so worried about such small numbers?

Very interesting stats, I was not really worried about "small numbers," I was trying to point out that IEDs in Iraq and Afghanistan were a major cause of US casualties. A quick search turns up these numbers from US Today:

Somewhere between more than half to two-thirds of Americans killed or wounded in combat in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have been victims of IEDs planted in the ground, in vehicles or buildings, or worn as suicide vests, or loaded into suicide vehicles, according to data from the Pentagon's Joint IED Defeat Organization or JIEDDO.

That's more than 3,100 dead and 33,000 wounded. Among the worst of the casualties are nearly 1,800 U.S. troops who have lost limbs in Iraq and Afghanistan, the vast majority from blasts, according to Army data.

It seems like I see one of these wounded vets every time I turn on the TV, with those wounded warrior commercials. That constant reminder of IED damage can be called "small numbers," but even small numbers of crippled amputees, if they are highly visible can have a big psychological impact. What parent wants their sons and daughters to go into a IED zone?
Didn't LBJ say that when he lost Walter Cronkite he lost the Vietnam War. Lose the support at home lose the war. I don't think this country has the stomach for another long ground war in Iraq in part because of the "small numbers."

IEDs are as old as gunpowder.

Certainly mines and explosive booby traps have been around since the invention of gunpowder. No one would disagree about that. And if you listen to the video on that US Today page the GI's first referred to these things as "roadside bombs" when they encountered them in Afghanistan in 2003. The term "IED" is a recent acronym. It now rightly has it's own Wikipedia page, that page was created on July 11, 2003. So IEDs are new in sense of how destructive, and sophisticated they are. For example, being remotely triggered by radio, cell phone, or infrared. What happens when one is attached to a drone? Will that still be called an IED or a flying mine?

But please, you don't have to call them IED's if you don't want to, go old school and just call them mines or booby traps. That sounds good? Also, you can lobby Wikipedia to change the page title. If you don't want to do that and you want to use the term IED, then you are conceding the point to me that they are a new wrinkle in warfare.

Every weapon ISIS is using has already been in use for decades.

You are missing my point. What's new with ISIS is their unique combination of strategy and tactics. You could say the exact same thing at the start of World War II about the Germans, "every weapon Germany is using was used in WWI." However, the Germans put together the combined arms: aircraft, tanks, mobile infantry and artillery in what was called blitzkrieg warfare and it overwhelmed the Poles, French in British within weeks.

BTW, notice from this Robb article, how the Saudi Arabian border with Iraq resembles the infamous World War 1 Maginot Line. Talk about old school defense.

So it's the combination of the new and old in different ways that makes ISIS dangerous. That's the nature of warfare. Fight the last war and you lose.

Somewhat new things (not the only ones I'm sure) that ISIS is doing. See the Robb blog Global Guerrillas for more info, I am not an expert:

1) Recruiting over the internet with videos etc.
2) Using the internet to encourage sympathizers to strike in Western countries if they can't come to Syria
3) Using the internet to train sympathizers in terrorist acts
4) Offering rewards to kill specific Jordanian pilots, who are attacking them. And providing the names and home addresses of those pilots.
5) Just plain easier organizing and communicating, using encryption on the internet
6) Mass distribution of propaganda (beheadings, etc.) on the internet.

I just want to go back to my bottom line, which is recognizing that ISIS is a unique threat and that they could topple Saudi Arabia, probability greater than zero, less than one.

IMO I think the tipping point in Saudi Arabia could happen quickly if ISIS gets any traction in the country. A few key assassinations, a few defections and and next thing you know the royal family is on their planes to Switzerland or London.

This is why advanced countries win wars so quickly.

Really? That is not true. Who won the Vietnam war? We officially were in the Iraq war for (8 years, 8 months, 4 weeks and 1 day). Who won in Iraq? Afghanistan (13 years, 2 months and 3 weeks)? We just gave up in both and went home. Are you serious?

So, you can dismiss ISIS, which it seems like what your points are trying to do. But, if you could make money by buying crude just before they do serious damage to Saudi Arabia would you?