If, when defending your support for Donald Trump, and your response is,
"But but but... HILLARY!!!", then you lost the argument before you even began.
I'm not seeing much in the way of a "coalition", but I assume Obama is being forthright in one coming along at some point in time.
I'm not sure why the Iraqi army is so woefully inept, but with their numbers and armaments, i'm sure they could feasibly make quick work out of defeating ISIS..... provided they operate under competent and aggressive leadership ( which seems to be absent)
personally, i'm against US intervention here... but as we are already engaged, I don't think it's a bad idea to use our infantry units in defensive postures in key locations.
this would ensure our guys are utilized to protect "innocents" while freeing up coalition combat units to chase ISIS around the desert (with the necessary support of our air campaign)
not only it is fairly solid military doctrine, it would lend itself to popular support domestically...which would, in turn, lend itself to domestic political capital.
Syria is a different nut to crack altogether... I don't foresee there being a "coalition" formed in Syria that will be worth a damn.
then again, i don't give a damn about Syria..and I wouldn't help Assad do a damn thing
The only way to defeat radical Islamic terrorists and regimes is to eliminate the radical element of Islam. We can't do that by bombs, it has to be done socially, and I'm not sure that the US can change the social nature of people in a country on the other side of the world.In short, they only way to beat ISIS is to beat them on the ground. This goes double for ISIS units on the defensive.
The best we can do is likely to contain them to the territory that they already have control over. Works for me, because as long as we can keep them over there, we don't have to worry about them being here.
I am glad to see they are doing airstikes near Kobani.
It is a shame it did not happen when Isis was not part way into the town.