• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

ISIS Boasts Air Strikes are not Effective

It was an American led Coalition who first led the Iraq war, who introduced democracy and who stabilized the country.

It was literally never stabilized completely... ever.

Yes you can post that one thing you keep posting when Obama said we are leaving behind a stable Iraq, I don't care, he was wrong and it was a lie and he knew it.

But the fact of the matter is, is that Iraq was never truly stable, it was never truly safe and it will continue to be like this for some time.

As unfortunate as it may sound, Iraq was stable under Saddam, however brutally and horrifically he achieved that.

The world is better off without him... but for your average of the average Iraqi... perhaps not.
 
First of all, we waited too long. We let the Islamic State build up its money, capability and strength and weapons while it was still in Syria. And this is very big fail. I believe that we can come up with a new award, the opposite to Peace Prize. And give it to Mr. President
 
It was literally never stabilized completely... ever.
Who told you that?
Yes you can post that one thing you keep posting when Obama said we are leaving behind a stable Iraq, I don't care, he was wrong and it was a lie and he knew it. But the fact of the matter is, is that Iraq was never truly stable, it was never truly safe and it will continue to be like this for some time.
No, he and Biden were right at that time.
As unfortunate as it may sound, Iraq was stable under Saddam, however brutally and horrifically he achieved that.
Iraq was certainly not 'stable' under Saddam Hussein. You are following into the trap of historical revisionists, or just listening to really stupid people.
The world is better off without him... but for your average of the average Iraqi... perhaps not.
The troops should never have left and the democracy should have been supported into the indefinite future, just as in Germany, Italy, South Korea, and so on.
 
Here is an ISIS fighter boasting that the air strikes are not militarily effective.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/29/world/meast/isis-fighter-and-defector-interviews/index.

Sadly, he is probably right. ISIS is an army of militiamen operating is relatively small groups whose main armoured vehicles are pick up trucks turned into Mad Max style "technicals". Most supplies- and they dont need alot, are requisitioned from the locals (voluntarily, forcibly or coerced) and transported in individual civilian trucks. Likewise, there are not alot of easily demarcated front lines in the fighting.

As the similarily orgainized Serbs demonstrated in Kosovo, these types of forces mix in with civilians and can be very difficult to identify and stop. Then factor in that ISIS includes members who are veterans of both Iraq and Afghan conflicts who probably have a long list produced list of "dos and donts" produced by Darwinism when it comes to avoiding precision airstrikes.

In short, my guess is that effective air strikes need US spotters on the ground.
Of course they're going to say that. Does anybody expect them to say otherwise?

Granted, they're not going to win the war alone, but they do seem to be having an effect.


Our military was crafted around the idea of fighting large, formal state forces, not guerrilla warfare . More important than that, our public acceptance of warfare is exhausted and has giant circles under its eyes at the prospect of yet another conflict that may be drawn out for another unknown number of years. Although to be fair, who can really tell them apart anymore?

We now have Americans who are fifteen years old (and it looks at this rate that number's going to just keep rising) who never knew a time when we weren't at war.
I've been thinking this for a long time, and sometimes I think I'm the only one who see the elephant in the room for what it is.
 
Who told you that?
No, he and Biden were right at that time.
Iraq was certainly not 'stable' under Saddam Hussein. You are following into the trap of historical revisionists, or just listening to really stupid people.
The troops should never have left and the democracy should have been supported into the indefinite future, just as in Germany, Italy, South Korea, and so on.

Except the Germans or the others did not ask us to leave and the President did not sign an agreement to do that. I'm afraid the Iraqi's were ungrateful and hate Americans. Why did Bush sign an agreement to get out? Because the Iraqi's would not agree to anything but that. A set date for our total withdrawal which they petitioned the U.N. for.
 
Of course they're going to say that. Does anybody expect them to say otherwise?

Granted, they're not going to win the war alone, but they do seem to be having an effect.



I've been thinking this for a long time, and sometimes I think I'm the only one who see the elephant in the room for what it is.

Well I'm told that we have the best goddamn guerrilla fighting forces evar, and I guess I'm not qualified to doubt them since I have no military experience of any kind myself. That being said, I can't help but observe that the Israelis probably have more experience with guerrilla warfare than anybody, and they haven't exactly eradicated Hamas and Hezbollah.
 
Well I'm told that we have the best goddamn guerrilla fighting forces evar, and I guess I'm not qualified to doubt them since I have no military experience of any kind myself. That being said, I can't help but observe that the Israelis probably have more experience with guerrilla warfare than anybody, and they haven't exactly eradicated Hamas and Hezbollah.
I do have some military experience... albeit 30 years ago, and even then for only three years... but from my observations the mindset doesn't seem to have changed much. We still build to fight open and organized countries, and to project power, not small guerrilla forces.

We've done the air strike thing as a response many times in the last few decades, and it never really wins anything. Air power compliments other aspects, it is not a means unto itself.

That being said, I think we can use air power to help ground forces root them out, but the ground forces would have to be significant and be in sync with us. I'd also prefer that said ground forces be somebody else's ground forces... though that drastically lessens the likelihood of them being in sync., which probably dooms us to failure.
 
Of course they're going to say that. Does anybody expect them to say otherwise?

Granted, they're not going to win the war alone, but they do seem to be having an effect.

Sure, they are going to have an effect- how much of an effect is a matter of debate. In addition, I doubt that airstrikes are going to "shock and awe" ISIS into submission.

In short, they only way to beat ISIS is to beat them on the ground. This goes double for ISIS units on the defensive.
 
air strikes, alone, have exactly a 0% chance of defeating ISIS.
It seems everyone knows that except Obama, and that seems unlikely. What would be his motive then, knowing that these strikes are just a waste of fuel?
 
It seems everyone knows that except Obama, and that seems unlikely. What would be his motive then, knowing that these strikes are just a waste of fuel?

Political imagery to make it look like he's doing something. Too many people fall for it.
 
Political imagery to make it look like he's doing something. Too many people fall for it.

Yes, but who are these people? Some don't want to get involved at all while others say that if you are going to get involved, do it properly. No one is happy with this tepid response that doesn't even rise to being symbolic. Is there anyone behind the Obama face?
 
It seems everyone knows that except Obama, and that seems unlikely. What would be his motive then, knowing that these strikes are just a waste of fuel?

So all air strikes are a waste of fuel? Why have we used them for all our operations then? Why do we spend so much on our air force? It seems to me that it is the best way to eliminate the heavy weapons ISIS has acquired but you know a better way?
 
It seems everyone knows that except Obama, and that seems unlikely. What would be his motive then, knowing that these strikes are just a waste of fuel?

well, I would imagine his "plans" has infantry units from his arab "coalition" doing the lions share of the ground work... I think the air campaign, thus far, is just a stalling tactic meant to give time for the "coalition" to form and get in the game.

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
 
So all air strikes are a waste of fuel? Why have we used them for all our operations then? Why do we spend so much on our air force? It seems to me that it is the best way to eliminate the heavy weapons ISIS has acquired but you know a better way?

as anyone who has basic knowledge of military doctrine will tell you, air strikes are a support component.

such support is absolutely necessary, but it is not, in and of itself, capable of defeating any enemy.... especially a non-conventional enemy.
 
...We let the Islamic State build up its money, capability and strength and weapons while it was still in Syria. And this is very big fail....

Sounds like a fail for the Syrians and Iraqis to me, not a fail for the US. Where in the constitution does it way that we should defend foreign nations that are hostile to the US and are of no particular importance to the US?
 
...I doubt that airstrikes are going to "shock and awe" ISIS into submission.

That probably explains why Obama said that this wouldn't be a shock and awe scenario.

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 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.

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.
 
So all air strikes are a waste of fuel? Why have we used them for all our operations then? Why do we spend so much on our air force? It seems to me that it is the best way to eliminate the heavy weapons ISIS has acquired but you know a better way?
Have you been told that one air strike a day is the same as 300?
 
Sounds like a fail for the Syrians and Iraqis to me, not a fail for the US. Where in the constitution does it way that we should defend foreign nations that are hostile to the US and are of no particular importance to the US?
You'd have to add that human life is not important to the US. Has it come to that?
 
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.
That would seem to have been the logical thing to do.
 
well, I would imagine his "plans" has infantry units from his arab "coalition" doing the lions share of the ground work... I think the air campaign, thus far, is just a stalling tactic meant to give time for the "coalition" to form and get in the game.
Who knows what goes on in Obama's mind? Right now he's out fundraising.
 
You'd have to add that human life is not important to the US. Has it come to that?

American lives are very important to the US, much more so than the lives of people in other countries, particularly when those people won't bother to fight for their own lives. Our government is the government of the US, not the world, it's simply not the responsibility of the US government to police the world or to protect the world. I don't mind helping, it's probably our responsibility as humans, but you really can't help someone who isn't trying or who won't help themselves.

I wouldn't risk one US life for a hundred lives of foreign citizens who won't bother to defend themselves.
 
American lives are very important to the US, much more so than the lives of people in other countries, particularly when those people won't bother to fight for their own lives. Our government is the government of the US, not the world, it's simply not the responsibility of the US government to police the world or to protect the world. I don't mind helping, it's probably our responsibility as humans, but you really can't help someone who isn't trying or who won't help themselves. I wouldn't risk one US life for a hundred lives of foreign citizens who won't bother to defend themselves.
Who won't bother to defend themselves???

These people are fighting with small arms against the heavily armed ISIS, Kurdish women have become suicide bombers, men and boys who were safe in Turkey have returned to fight against the invasion and will certainly die that way.

Why not do a minimum amount of research before you make these claims?

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/New...cide-bomber-revealed-to-be-mother-of-two.html

UN warns of pending 'massacres' as ISIS closes in on Syrian city | Fox News

Syria town of Kobani on Turkish border will fall to ISIS, Turkish leader says - World - CBC News
 
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.

Sadly, such a policy only makes it more likely that we will have to worry about them here. Jihadi sees the west as evil and will eventually attack it, no matter what the actions of a particular nation are, or are not.

Allowing Jihadis to establish psuedo states only allows them to recruit, train, fund raise and network openly and on a vast scale. This is exactly what happened in the Taliban portions of Afghanistan and this directly facilitated 9-11.
 
Back
Top Bottom