Guerrilla Radio

Corresponding from the Combined Joint Task Force – Operation Inherent Resolve (CJTF – OIR), Keerthana Nimmagadda reviews the discussion on the ways to deal with guerrilla tactics.

After losing control over their capitals to the coalition, the Islamic State (IS) has moved into deeper pockets of the Republic of Iraq (Iraq) and the Syrian Arab Republic (Syria); they have adapted to a guerrilla-style of warfare[1] as it is better suited to those regions. The council, therefore, chose to debate on how to tackle these strategies.

The Commander of the Kingdom of Denmark (Denmark) pointed out that owing to the small size of the IS, it is advisable to open another front during a strike, as the guerrilla militants will not be able to withstand both fronts successfully. The Commander of the Republic of Finland (Finland) was in accordance with Denmark, and brought up that since guerrilla warfare means the usage of speed and surprise, they will not be able to withstand long-winded attacks and snipers.

The Commander of the United Kingdom (UK) of Great Britain and Northern Ireland suggested the use of drones to aid the neutralization of Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs). The Representative of Malaysia agreed that drones were indeed handy devices that could be used to attack small groups of IS militants. The Commander of the French Republic (France) proposed that airstrikes would work better than drones, or even ground troops, in these situations. The Representative of Iraq disagreed on this and reminded the committee that airstrikes are not the wisest options in civilian regions. The Commander of Canada supported Iraq by recalling that guerrilla forces concentrate on exploiting sparse armies, on which airstrikes would not have a critical impact. The Commander recommended extensive reconnaissance missions in lieu of airstrikes.

Towards the end of the debate, the Representative of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) caused a flurry amongst certain delegates by recommending the integration of Sunni and Shi’a Muslims, to increase the size of the Iraqi troops who would be fighting against the IS militants. The Commander of France expressed indignation at the suggestion, because of the existing sectarian violence between the two sects, which can prove to be dangerous. The Representative of the NATO asked why France was against the reunion of the sects – he opined that this would bring stability in the region. The Commander of Iraq jumped in by saying that a few popular areas in the country of Iraq have seen an integration of the two sects, leading to the formation of the Popular Mobilization Front (PMF)[2]. The Commander of France rebutted by saying that the PMF was an exception; efforts have been made on a larger scale, only to be met with failure. France stated that this was simply not the time for ambitious experiments and was adamant that the two sects will never fully integrate.

The debate was brought back to the area of focus with Finland asserting that defeating guerrilla warfare is about using political instincts and not military tactics. The Commander stressed on the need for infantry and ground troops, which was met with general accordance. The commanders of the coalition ended the debate with quite a few strategies to improve their fight against the guerrilla warfare operated by the IS militants.