Invasion Scenario
It's been asserted (by Oliver North) that ISIS has 3,000 members with valid U.S. passports.
The southern border is extremely porous.
The Obama admin only considered sending national guard troops to the border after governor Perry already did.
Let's say ISIS gets 3,000 into the country.
They select isolated towns/areas along the border... say the *Canadian* border. Probably in Michigan.
They launch an attack, perhaps disguising it as some kind of domestic uprising.
The Obama administration dithers. On purpose.
ISIS captures a town or two. The only resistance they're going to get is from armed locals.
While the country is focused up north, an invasion force captures a southern border town, using capture munitions and equipment from Iraq.
The only resistance there is going to be the border patrol and their beanbags (they won't invade where perry has post the Nat'l Guard, and even if they do, especially with the ROE the guard will be operating under, it will be a short fight).
Now ISIS can divide the country in half by driving up the Mississippi valley and linking the two forces. They have now secured their breaches in the border so they can ensure a further supply of troops and supplies, to use in addition to those captured from U.S. arsenals.
They'll have lots of support from the Moslem world, but also from looters looking to pick over the body of the U.S. once we're prostrate and dead.
Eventually they'll get to a point where they can sue for peace, and retain pockets of Islamic enclaves within the U.S. In a few years, they launch further attacks using these enclaves as staging areas, in order to gain more territorial control over the dying republic.
And it can happen because the Obama admin will only put up token, impotent resistance... on purpose, IMO.
The southern border is extremely porous.
The Obama admin only considered sending national guard troops to the border after governor Perry already did.
Let's say ISIS gets 3,000 into the country.
They select isolated towns/areas along the border... say the *Canadian* border. Probably in Michigan.
They launch an attack, perhaps disguising it as some kind of domestic uprising.
The Obama administration dithers. On purpose.
ISIS captures a town or two. The only resistance they're going to get is from armed locals.
While the country is focused up north, an invasion force captures a southern border town, using capture munitions and equipment from Iraq.
The only resistance there is going to be the border patrol and their beanbags (they won't invade where perry has post the Nat'l Guard, and even if they do, especially with the ROE the guard will be operating under, it will be a short fight).
Now ISIS can divide the country in half by driving up the Mississippi valley and linking the two forces. They have now secured their breaches in the border so they can ensure a further supply of troops and supplies, to use in addition to those captured from U.S. arsenals.
They'll have lots of support from the Moslem world, but also from looters looking to pick over the body of the U.S. once we're prostrate and dead.
Eventually they'll get to a point where they can sue for peace, and retain pockets of Islamic enclaves within the U.S. In a few years, they launch further attacks using these enclaves as staging areas, in order to gain more territorial control over the dying republic.
And it can happen because the Obama admin will only put up token, impotent resistance... on purpose, IMO.
Anyone know the situation in Iraq regarding personal weapon possession? My guess is the USA has done such a good job disarming the populace, ISIS is able to take over an area without much resistance because they know opposition will be one-dimensional. They can count on it being only the local law enforcement which can be infiltrated, may be sympathetic, or at the very least can be anticipated. They try a hostage taking/beheading routine in Michigan and I suspect they'll have some initial success, but then immediately be surrounded by a well armed hunting citizenry who may well act on their own before the national guard even gets a chance to respond.
I'll agree about hunting rifles being superior to .223s, but there's no difference when facing main battle tanks.
the ISIS troops doing doughnuts with the APC on the news the other day didn't seem to have too much trouble figuring out how to use American armor.
But, I get your point. Everyone knows that gentlemen can outfight rabble.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andre...
Since US Muslims are not as radical as those in UK, I reckon the 3,000 figure is an exaggeration. But, give it a couple of years ..