War against Isis: US strategy in tatters as militants march on

Hamster Buddha said:

I'm not saying the SAA can do it alone, but I think if we ran a campaign with Allied Air Power backing up the SAA. with Special Forces embedded to call in close air support to keep the front lines moving, just like we did in Afghanistan with the Northern Alliance. Combine this with a Joint Operations Command based out of Doha, we could create a makeshift alliance between Iraq, Syria, US and other allied powers to form a joint strategy with a coordinated invasion. If this was done, we could have ISIS mopped up within a matter of weeks. There's no power on this planet that can stand up to a war on two fronts, (three if we got the Turks involved, but they want Assad out even more than the US does...)

Click to expand...

Its going to be a huge adjustment "working" with the Syrians-Obama demonized Assad (who is actually who I prefer in power in Syria-he's been a moderating influence) and wont lose face further by taking substantive action-and all of this would depend on Assads agreement-what does he get and are the strings attached to our presence acceptable to him? There has also never been a US presence in Syria (even historically, we have had very little contact) and cooperation would be difficult-but fine by all means I'd be open to trying it.

Beyond that-this would be more than Obama is even willing to do in Iraq-he'd need boots on the ground and wont do that until political winds demand so (leading from behind yet again). Now, arab armies are notorious for being poor fighters-even from the Kurds its relative-so what happens when and if they fail?

Obama will drag this out forever, because he has no desire to fight let alone win. Recent airstrikes have only been symbolic-if they hadn't been would we really need to have this discussion now?

apdst said:

The solution is to stop fiddle ****ing around and inflict massive casualties upon the enemy. I know it sounds crazy, but bombing empty buildings, in the middle of the night, isn't going to accomplish anything.

Click to expand...

When you fight, you fight to win-not to mitigate political damage during an upcoming election. This fight is coming to Obama even if he wants to bury his head in the sand.

Hamster Buddha said:

I've said this elsewhere, but it's worth repeating, only one time in the history of Strategic Bombing, has a nation ever capitulated from being bombed.... and I don't think we're at the point we need to start nuking hut villages...

Click to expand...

The US bombing campaigns, when relieved from the constraints of a tight ROE did very well in vietnam. But Im not saying carpet bombing will be effective here-this is a low intensity asymmetrical conflict, and ISIS will just put on civilian clothing and slip across the nearest border if they need to.

Its become a lightning rod to terrorists, much like Iraq post invasion-we should kill them there, and that will require boots on the ground. Once they are out we should transition control responsibly (not like our weak president) and then maintain a limited presence there.

Losing the peace because of a desire to meet a deadline for votes instead of accomplishing the mission is what got us here.

Hamster Buddha said:

I've said this elsewhere, but it's worth repeating, only one time in the history of Strategic Bombing, has a nation ever capitulated from being bombed.... and I don't think we're at the point we need to start nuking hut villages...

Click to expand...

You didn't even read my post, did you?

Kurmugeon said:

We cannot afford the cost to refight the Iraq War.

President Obama and the Dems have already slashed the Military Budget, to only turn around and spend the money on social program largess and Racial Pandering.

We cannot afford to continue the AirWar against ISIS, much less field a much more expensive ground war.

If we need to go onto a ground level military confrontation against ISIS, it must be done by greatly increasing the Military Budgets beyond the spending levels of the Dubya Iraq War, because ISIS is a much tougher opponent than Saddam Husein's forces ever were.

We are already spending at huge deficit levels, on Obama Social and Racial Largess, despite the cuts in the military budget. The deficit and huge nation debt increases have force the U.S.A to do round after round of Quantitative Easing, devaluing our currency at alarming rates.

If we fund the ISIS conflict at a level which would actually lead to victory, it would much, more more red ink and printing of dollars, devaluing the currency even further...


OR....


OR!... we could drastically cut off all of the new social program and racial pandering spending, to make room in a deficit, but at least not currency suicidal national budget.

So, What Programs to we cut first!

-

Click to expand...

Its going to get much more expensive when we have an actual terrorist state well established and better armed than they are now. And in the mean time many will die and a very bad message will be sent to our enemies-wait us out and the coast is clear.

As for budgetary concerns-they are significant-but Obama's myopia for his personal political benefit is the problem. The war on terror isn't over, it never was, and we aren't going to stop fighting it because a weak president decides he's left a "stable" Iraq behind. This is a long term war-and its not going away.

Hamster Buddha said:

Your post... just so much wrong... just... just

Click to expand...

If only this effect of my posts worked on the Progressive-Fascists...

You state that it is wrong, but do not state why, or substantiate your claims.

Sorry, but that is a political forums cop-out and cheap shot tactic.

Please point out any single statement I made that is in error?

Did we not greatly cut military budgets? Over the Obama years, hasn't the President been largely setting spending priorities, since Congress hasn't been passing a budget? Haven't the Democrats had control over all or most of Congress during the Obama years?

Over the Obama years, have we not greatly increase social program spending? and also programs to send money to minority groups?

Won't a ground War Cost more than just an Air War?

So far, hasn't ISIS fighters shown themselves to be much more determined, brutal and effective at combat, than any resistance shown by the Iraqi - Husein forces?

Haven't we done round after round of Quantitative Easing? Hasn't the American dollar lost considerable value against other currencies over the Obama years.

Haven't we been having trouble getting our foreign creditors to advance our broke government even more credit and difficulty raising the debt ceiling?

Hasn't the Obama years seen 40 cents or more of every dollar spent by the federal government come from borrowing, and deficit spending.

Isn't continuing to spend in deficit at our current levels a form of financial national suicide?


Just what did I say that is NOT TRUE!

-

US Conservative said:

Its going to get much more expensive when we have an actual terrorist state well established and better armed than they are now. And in the mean time many will die and a very bad message will be sent to our enemies-wait us out and the coast is clear.

As for budgetary concerns-they are significant-but Obama's myopia for his personal political benefit is the problem. The war on terror isn't over, it never was, and we aren't going to stop fighting it because a weak president decides he's left a "stable" Iraq behind. This is a long term war-and its not going away.

Click to expand...

If we allow the formation of an ISIS Radical, Terrorist (Beheading at every turn), Islamic State, and then Iran completes and slips them Nukes, what will be the price?

I am not saying we don't need to counter ISIS.

With ISIS, you can pay now, or you can pay later, but the longer you wait, the more blood it will cost!

I am saying that it cannot be financed by the current, crippled, American Economy. With the Greens pushing hard at further economy crippling shut down of coal power plants, and further restrictions, costs and regulations on American Industry, it is not going to get any better.

If we want to finance a major war, we need to put the entire country on a war footing, like we did in WWII, not just the few, brave American Souls who have been fighting our middle eastern conflicts for the last two decades.

And putting the country on a war footing, means cutting out the damn Liberal Social Program Spending CRAP!

-

Kurmugeon said:

If we allow the formation of an ISIS Radical, Terrorist (Beheading at every turn), Islamic State, and then Iran completes and slips them Nukes, what will be the price?

I am not saying we don't need to counter ISIS.

With ISIS, you can pay now, or you can pay later, but the longer you wait, the more blood it will cost!

I am saying that it cannot be financed by the current, crippled, American Economy. With the Greens pushing hard at further economy crippling shut down of coal power plants, and further restrictions, costs and regulations on American Industry, it is not going to get any better.

If we want to finance a major war, we need to put the entire country on a war footing, like we did in WWII, not just the few, brave American Souls who have been fighting our middle eastern conflicts for the last two decades.

And putting the country on a war footing, means cutting out the damn Liberal Social Program Spending CRAP!

-

Click to expand...

When you mention Iran slipping them nukes what do you mean? Iran is certainly not friendly to, and rather worried by ISIS.

I agree with the rest, but this wont be total war, ISIS is new to the scene, and not as well entrenched. It will be a bloody war, though.

As bad, Obama wants to do the same in Afghanistan-the terrorists there will just wait us out.

US Conservative said:

When you mention Iran slipping them nukes what do you mean? Iran is certainly not friendly to, and rather worried by ISIS.

I agree with the rest, but this wont be total war, ISIS is new to the scene, and not as well entrenched. It will be a bloody war, though.

As bad, Obama wants to do the same in Afghanistan-the terrorists there will just wait us out.

Click to expand...

If nothing else, Iran's leadership, for many decades, has been unpredictable and unstable.

Their leaderships recent denial of the Jewish Holocaust is just one sign of many that their hatred of Israel exceeds their good sense and decorum.

Many times in the past, Iran has done things against its long term self-interest, to strike at Israel, and passing Nukes to ISIS would be a great way for them to lash out at Israel, without being held accountable for the Nuking of a few major Israeli cities.

They can always claim that internal traitors, converts to ISIS, aided in the theft of the Nukes.



----------------------------------------------------------


You are right, if we let the Lefties have their way, they will make this into another long drawn out war of attrition.

And why shouldn't they?

At no time in American History did the Left gain so much ground Politically, or popular support, as the Anti-War protests of the Vietnam War years. It worked last time.

The only way a ground war against ISIS will be any other than a total disaster is a very fast, brutal, massive ground war of over powering strength, and we don't take ANY prisoners, we kill every combatant found on the battle field.

Allot of the people we are fighting now, came from our captivity not long ago.

No Prisoners! It is the ONLY way we can win against ISIS.

Additionally, we will need to go into, with massive force, any country they flee into, and damn the international borders.

If that means we invade Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, so be it.

We cannot WIN a war against ISIS unless we go at it as a form of Total WAR we have never seen, not even in WWII.

ISIS is already fighting in Total WAR mode. We cannot hope to defeat them with less.

Since I doubt we have the resolve to do any such thing, we cannot hope to WIN against ISIS. So don't even start the fight, get out now, and wait until the rest of the world BEGS (and PAYS) for U.S. to come back in force.

If we're not going to fight ISIS to WIN, we shouldn't get involved at all!

-

US Conservative said:

How exactly will "recognizing" the Syrians help? And the kurds are getting plenty of weapons.

Click to expand...

What Dem is talking about is how Obama is still pushing Regime Change with Assad. Same thing we've been discussing.

US Conservative said:

Its going to be a huge adjustment "working" with the Syrians-Obama demonized Assad (who is actually who I prefer in power in Syria-he's been a moderating influence) and wont lose face further by taking substantive action-and all of this would depend on Assads agreement-what does he get and are the strings attached to our presence acceptable to him? There has also never been a US presence in Syria (even historically, we have had very little contact) and cooperation would be difficult-but fine by all means I'd be open to trying it.

Beyond that-this would be more than Obama is even willing to do in Iraq-he'd need boots on the ground and wont do that until political winds demand so (leading from behind yet again). Now, arab armies are notorious for being poor fighters-even from the Kurds its relative-so what happens when and if they fail?

Obama will drag this out forever, because he has no desire to fight let alone win. Recent airstrikes have only been symbolic-if they hadn't been would we really need to have this discussion now?

Click to expand...

I agree, it's certainly a radical option, but I think this situation demands one and I'm not just talking about ISIS but in dealing with the ME as a whole. Obama would have a huge foreign policy success with the destruction of ISIS, and Assad would finally be back in control of all of Syria. Both sides would win in that case. It all depends on what Obama could stomach in terms of deciding the fates of the Syrian Opposition. And in regards to your concerns with Arab Armies performing poorly in the field, whatever inadequacies that they may have can be countered with Allied Air Power. I don't recall the Northern Alliance being an elite fighting force, and with a little air power, we drove the Taliban out of their positions of power.

But I think there's a bigger gain to be had than just in dealing with ISIS. The US has been missing an overall strategy ever since the Iraqi Government began to fail. In the past, our doctrine had been focused on making the ME more democratic, the theory is that democracies would be less likely to cause a lot a mess and in general, the idea of a more open society does sound appealing. However, by going this route, (supporting Maliki in Iraq, and Assad in Syria) we will be committing to a new course in the ME and that is that we will be fine with dictators as long as they can keep the rabble in line and not let it spill over to where it concerns either the US or the Europeans. I think the ME will begin to calm down once we start to see clear and strong leadership in these Arab Countries. And in the long run, it will also serve to drive a wedge between Iran and Iraq, or at least show Iraq that we can provide far more than Iran ever could hope for, and thus curbing their ambitions in the region. At the end of the day, what would be ideal is stable Iraq to serve as a counterpoint to Iran's ambitions, much as Saddam did prior to the first Gulf War.

Lastly, there is a reason why the FSA will only cause more problems, and you eluded to it yourself. It's one thing to push out ISIS, but it's a whole 'nother matter to be able to secure those lands, especially against the next enemy that would come up to bat, and that's Assad and the SAA. If we continue on the present course, all we're setting ourselves up for when ISIS is defeated, is getting involved in the Syrian Civil War. Best case scenario and the FSA could defeat the SAA, there's no way that force would be able to secure all of Syria, let alone get their act together. It took the US Military three or four years to figure out how to fight insurgents, you think the FSA is going to do any better. No, Assad and the SAA is the only viable solution to dealing with the ISIS crisis now, and keeping the peace afterwards.

US Conservative said:

The US bombing campaigns, when relieved from the constraints of a tight ROE did very well in vietnam. But Im not saying carpet bombing will be effective here-this is a low intensity asymmetrical conflict, and ISIS will just put on civilian clothing and slip across the nearest border if they need to.

Its become a lightning rod to terrorists, much like Iraq post invasion-we should kill them there, and that will require boots on the ground. Once they are out we should transition control responsibly (not like our weak president) and then maintain a limited presence there.

Losing the peace because of a desire to meet a deadline for votes instead of accomplishing the mission is what got us here.

Click to expand...

They did very well in terms of hitting strategic targets, but not in breaking the will of the Vietnamese, and that's what I was more alluding to. I've no doubt that we could easily take out ISIS C3 capabilities, but that alone won't defeat ISIS.

apdst said:

You didn't even read my post, did you?

Click to expand...

Sure I did, you want to inflict massive causalities, no doubt to try and break their spirit. And I'm telling you that one, many of these people are ready to die in the name of their god and two, only once in the history of strategic bombing has an enemy's will been broken and that was Japan in WW2.

US Conservative said:

World View: American-led air attacks are failing. Jihadis are close to taking Kobani, in Syria – and in Iraq western Baghdad is now under serious threat

America's plans to fight Islamic State are in ruins as the militant group's fighters come close to capturing Kobani and have inflicted a heavy defeat on the Iraqi army west of Baghdad.

The US-led air attacks launched against Islamic State (also known as Isis) on 8 August in Iraq and 23 September in Syria have not worked. President Obama's plan to "degrade and destroy" Islamic State has not even begun to achieve success. In both Syria and Iraq, Isis is expanding its control rather than contracting.

Cont... War against Isis: US strategy in tatters as militants march on - Comment - Voices - The Independent

Click to expand...

We should not be putting any boots on the ground. If the Kurds need heavy weapons then give the heavy weapons or sell them the heavy weapons. This aint our fight. We give the Kurds and the Iraqis the arms its up to them to have the balls to use them against ISIS. If they cant prevail against ISIS on their own it wouldn't matter if we won the ground battle because as soon as we leave they would move in. IF the Kurds and the Iraqi win their own fight ISIS is not coming back anytime soon after getting their butts kicked. So everyone is benefited to see if the actors in this mess have the right stuff to deal with ISIS. Better to know now than find out latter they are wanting.

Kurmugeon said:

If only this effect of my posts worked on the Progressive-Fascists...

You state that it is wrong, but do not state why, or substantiate your claims.

Sorry, but that is a political forums cop-out and cheap shot tactic.

Please point out any single statement I made that is in error?

Did we not greatly cut military budgets? Over the Obama years, hasn't the President been largely setting spending priorities, since Congress hasn't been passing a budget? Haven't the Democrats had control over all or most of Congress during the Obama years?

Over the Obama years, have we not greatly increase social program spending? and also programs to send money to minority groups?

Won't a ground War Cost more than just an Air War?

So far, hasn't ISIS fighters shown themselves to be much more determined, brutal and effective at combat, than any resistance shown by the Iraqi - Husein forces?

Haven't we done round after round of Quantitative Easing? Hasn't the American dollar lost considerable value against other currencies over the Obama years.

Haven't we been having trouble getting our foreign creditors to advance our broke government even more credit and difficulty raising the debt ceiling?

Hasn't the Obama years seen 40 cents or more of every dollar spent by the federal government come from borrowing, and deficit spending.

Isn't continuing to spend in deficit at our current levels a form of financial national suicide?


Just what did I say that is NOT TRUE!

-

Click to expand...

It's just that, I have hard time following/understanding your text, it's broken up and a bit jumbled is why I just put the picture. You can call it a cop out and you'd probably be right, cause I'd rather do that then try and follow your text.

No offense.

PirateMk1 said:

We should not be putting any boots on the ground. If the Kurds need heavy weapons then give the heavy weapons or sell them the heavy weapons. This aint our fight. We give the Kurds and the Iraqis the arms its up to them to have the balls to use them against ISIS. If they cant prevail against ISIS on their own it wouldn't matter if we won the ground battle because as soon as we leave they would move in. IF the Kurds and the Iraqi win their own fight ISIS is not coming back anytime soon after getting their butts kicked. So everyone is benefited to see if the actors in this mess have the right stuff to deal with ISIS. Better to know now than find out latter they are wanting.

Click to expand...

What other tests do you see them facing? Also, I find it interesting that you separate the Kurds from Iraq. Is it inevitable at this point that there will be a Kurdistan, and thus a war between the Kurds and the Turks that we'll be dragged into (at least politically).

Saddam Hussein is looking better and better by the day.......be careful what you **** with

Hamster Buddha said:

What Dem is talking about is how Obama is still pushing Regime Change with Assad. Same thing we've been discussing.



I agree, it's certainly a radical option, but I think this situation demands one and I'm not just talking about ISIS but in dealing with the ME as a whole. Obama would have a huge foreign policy success with the destruction of ISIS, and Assad would finally be back in control of all of Syria. Both sides would win in that case. It all depends on what Obama could stomach in terms of deciding the fates of the Syrian Opposition. And in regards to your concerns with Arab Armies performing poorly in the field, whatever inadequacies that they may have can be countered with Allied Air Power. I don't recall the Northern Alliance being an elite fighting force, and with a little air power, we drove the Taliban out of their positions of power.

But I think there's a bigger gain to be had than just in dealing with ISIS. The US has been missing an overall strategy ever since the Iraqi Government began to fail. In the past, our doctrine had been focused on making the ME more democratic, the theory is that democracies would be less likely to cause a lot a mess and in general, the idea of a more open society does sound appealing. However, by going this route, (supporting Maliki in Iraq, and Assad in Syria) we will be committing to a new course in the ME and that is that we will be fine with dictators as long as they can keep the rabble in line and not let it spill over to where it concerns either the US or the Europeans. I think the ME will begin to calm down once we start to see clear and strong leadership in these Arab Countries. And in the long run, it will also serve to drive a wedge between Iran and Iraq, or at least show Iraq that we can provide far more than Iran ever could hope for, and thus curbing their ambitions in the region. At the end of the day, what would be ideal is stable Iraq to serve as a counterpoint to Iran's ambitions, much as Saddam did prior to the first Gulf War.

Lastly, there is a reason why the FSA will only cause more problems, and you eluded to it yourself. It's one thing to push out ISIS, but it's a whole 'nother matter to be able to secure those lands, especially against the next enemy that would come up to bat, and that's Assad and the SAA. If we continue on the present course, all we're setting ourselves up for when ISIS is defeated, is getting involved in the Syrian Civil War. Best case scenario and the FSA could defeat the SAA, there's no way that force would be able to secure all of Syria, let alone get their act together. It took the US Military three or four years to figure out how to fight insurgents, you think the FSA is going to do any better. No, Assad and the SAA is the only viable solution to dealing with the ISIS crisis now, and keeping the peace afterwards.



They did very well in terms of hitting strategic targets, but not in breaking the will of the Vietnamese, and that's what I was more alluding to. I've no doubt that we could easily take out ISIS C3 capabilities, but that alone won't defeat ISIS.



Sure I did, you want to inflict massive causalities, no doubt to try and break their spirit. And I'm telling you that one, many of these people are ready to die in the name of their god and two, only once in the history of strategic bombing has an enemy's will been broken and that was Japan in WW2.

Click to expand...

The reason it worked with Japan was we were willing to oblige their need to die, and they realized we would. Its not very pleasant when your world is literally burning down around your ears. We didn't start till late in World War 2 to do concerted strategic civilian bombing raids and they were effective we did. We literally obliterated dozens of cities in Asia and Europe. Our bombings of Tokyo and Dresden were more devastating the two nukes we dropped.

Hamster Buddha said:

What other tests do you see them facing? Also, I find it interesting that you separate the Kurds from Iraq. Is it inevitable at this point that there will be a Kurdistan, and thus a war between the Kurds and the Turks that we'll be dragged into (at least politically).

Click to expand...

We wont be dragged into a conflict between the Kurds and the Turks, if the Turks and the Kurds are smart about it. If we send troops in again, then leave again, ISIS will probably pop back up like a demonic weed. If they take care of ISIS themselves, ISIS is mostly likely not coming back. They have to be able to handle the likes of ISIS. Its better to know now if they can. As far as the Kurds I bet they will settle for their little piece of Iraq and call it good. If they are smart. Turkey and the Kurds would benefit from that arraignment.

PirateMk1 said:

The reason it worked with Japan was we were willing to oblige their need to die, and they realized we would. Its not very pleasant when your world is literally burning down around your ears. We didn't start till late in World War 2 to do concerted strategic civilian bombing raids and they were effective we did. We literally obliterated dozens of cities in Asia and Europe. Our bombings of Tokyo and Dresden were more devastating the two nukes we dropped.

Click to expand...

You are correct in that the Firebombing of Tokyo, which was more deadly as a singular event than either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. And perhaps one could argue that Hirohito thought back to Tokyo and destruction that had been wrought there. But even though it was a deadlier attack, the psychological effect that so much of the cities had been wiped out in a single instant was far more of an impact, and what ultimately lead to Hirohito surrender declaration. Even in that case though, had Hirohito been stopped on the night of his radio address (there's an attempted coup that occurred on that night by the way, fortunately it failed) it's doubtful that the military or the people would of yielded.

PirateMk1 said:

We wont be dragged into a conflict between the Kurds and the Turks, if the Turks and the Kurds are smart about it. If we send troops in again, then leave again, ISIS will probably pop back up like a demonic weed. If they take care of ISIS themselves, ISIS is mostly likely not coming back. They have to be able to handle the likes of ISIS. Its better to know now if they can. As far as the Kurds I bet they will settle for their little piece of Iraq and call it good. If they are smart. Turkey and the Kurds would benefit from that arraignment.

Click to expand...

You've obviously not talked to some of the Turks on this forum (especially Sut). There's many in Turkey that see the Kurds as only terrorist, and could never tolerate a Kurdistan. It be like AQ setting up a small country in Mexico on our border.

Hamster Buddha said:

What Dem is talking about is how Obama is still pushing Regime Change with Assad. Same thing we've been discussing.



I agree, it's certainly a radical option, but I think this situation demands one and I'm not just talking about ISIS but in dealing with the ME as a whole. Obama would have a huge foreign policy success with the destruction of ISIS, and Assad would finally be back in control of all of Syria. Both sides would win in that case. It all depends on what Obama could stomach in terms of deciding the fates of the Syrian Opposition. And in regards to your concerns with Arab Armies performing poorly in the field, whatever inadequacies that they may have can be countered with Allied Air Power. I don't recall the Northern Alliance being an elite fighting force, and with a little air power, we drove the Taliban out of their positions of power.

But I think there's a bigger gain to be had than just in dealing with ISIS. The US has been missing an overall strategy ever since the Iraqi Government began to fail. In the past, our doctrine had been focused on making the ME more democratic, the theory is that democracies would be less likely to cause a lot a mess and in general, the idea of a more open society does sound appealing. However, by going this route, (supporting Maliki in Iraq, and Assad in Syria) we will be committing to a new course in the ME and that is that we will be fine with dictators as long as they can keep the rabble in line and not let it spill over to where it concerns either the US or the Europeans. I think the ME will begin to calm down once we start to see clear and strong leadership in these Arab Countries. And in the long run, it will also serve to drive a wedge between Iran and Iraq, or at least show Iraq that we can provide far more than Iran ever could hope for, and thus curbing their ambitions in the region. At the end of the day, what would be ideal is stable Iraq to serve as a counterpoint to Iran's ambitions, much as Saddam did prior to the first Gulf War.

Lastly, there is a reason why the FSA will only cause more problems, and you eluded to it yourself. It's one thing to push out ISIS, but it's a whole 'nother matter to be able to secure those lands, especially against the next enemy that would come up to bat, and that's Assad and the SAA. If we continue on the present course, all we're setting ourselves up for when ISIS is defeated, is getting involved in the Syrian Civil War. Best case scenario and the FSA could defeat the SAA, there's no way that force would be able to secure all of Syria, let alone get their act together. It took the US Military three or four years to figure out how to fight insurgents, you think the FSA is going to do any better. No, Assad and the SAA is the only viable solution to dealing with the ISIS crisis now, and keeping the peace afterwards.

Click to expand...

This radical option has a few problems-one is that there is no evidence that Obama is willing to do a thing-the second is the same for Assad.
For this administration to now suddenly stop demonizing Assad and then actively help him is going to be hard for Obama to do-even if he has the political capital to do so and I dont know that he does.

And Assad while certainly stuck in conflict does not appear to be going anywhere-especially with Iranian backing. Our strikes in Syria were not done with his permission, we struck where we wanted to. I dont know that he will feel any desire to hurt one enemy by helping another.

PirateMk1 said:

We should not be putting any boots on the ground. If the Kurds need heavy weapons then give the heavy weapons or sell them the heavy weapons. This aint our fight. We give the Kurds and the Iraqis the arms its up to them to have the balls to use them against ISIS. If they cant prevail against ISIS on their own it wouldn't matter if we won the ground battle because as soon as we leave they would move in. IF the Kurds and the Iraqi win their own fight ISIS is not coming back anytime soon after getting their butts kicked. So everyone is benefited to see if the actors in this mess have the right stuff to deal with ISIS. Better to know now than find out latter they are wanting.

Click to expand...

Lets say we dont intervene and ISIS takes all of Iraq (or at least what Iran does not). Then we have an established ISIS state that is openly at war with the US and any other nation that stands in its way of establishing a caliphate across the ME-we know this because they have said as much.
What then? We have an emboldened and more powerful enemy and we have a strategic geopolical adversary in Iran with an expanded presence. Thats lose all around for the US.

What happens when we then have to go back in? We will have traded lives for political expediency. Beyond that-we will have established to any of our future enemies that when we commit its only until a date on the calendar, not until the war is won. What do you think that will result in?

Im not happy about whats happening but the fact remains that our absence is what caused this. Isolationism wont improve our situation, it will make it worse.

Hamster Buddha said:

What other tests do you see them facing? Also, I find it interesting that you separate the Kurds from Iraq. Is it inevitable at this point that there will be a Kurdistan, and thus a war between the Kurds and the Turks that we'll be dragged into (at least politically).

Click to expand...

This is another issue-and dont forget Iran as well. I can even see Russia and China backing Iran to weaken our influence in the region.

PirateMk1 said:

The reason it worked with Japan was we were willing to oblige their need to die, and they realized we would. Its not very pleasant when your world is literally burning down around your ears. We didn't start till late in World War 2 to do concerted strategic civilian bombing raids and they were effective we did. We literally obliterated dozens of cities in Asia and Europe. Our bombings of Tokyo and Dresden were more devastating the two nukes we dropped.

Click to expand...

We need to oblige these terrorists as well. Send em to allah in style. This enemy is no less radical, probably more so.
And also remember that while we did indeed target civilian population centers, they were not the primary target-Japan had less capability to separate its civilians from its industry-and civilians had to work the factories. So while we did indeed kill many civilians-they were not the primary target (generally), rather it was the infrastructure that they tragically decided to live around.

Hamster Buddha said:

You are correct in that the Firebombing of Tokyo, which was more deadly as a singular event than either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. And perhaps one could argue that Hirohito thought back to Tokyo and destruction that had been wrought there. But even though it was a deadlier attack, the psychological effect that so much of the cities had been wiped out in a single instant was far more of an impact, and what ultimately lead to Hirohito surrender declaration. Even in that case though, had Hirohito been stopped on the night of his radio address (there's an attempted coup that occurred on that night by the way, fortunately it failed) it's doubtful that the military or the people would of yielded.

Click to expand...

There was a movie a few years back with Tommy Lee Jones that depicted that coup, it was close. But the fear at the time was that they would not surrender, and would fight on at any point. Even after the bombs.

US Conservative said:

Lets say we dont intervene and ISIS takes all of Iraq (or at least what Iran does not). Then we have an established ISIS state that is openly at war with the US and any other nation that stands in its way of establishing a caliphate across the ME-we know this because they have said as much.
What then? We have an emboldened and more powerful enemy and we have a strategic geopolical adversary in Iran with an expanded presence. Thats lose all around for the US.

What happens when we then have to go back in? We will have traded lives for political expediency. Beyond that-we will have established to any of our future enemies that when we commit its only until a date on the calendar, not until the war is won. What do you think that will result in?

Im not happy about whats happening but the fact remains that our absence is what caused this. Isolationism wont improve our situation, it will make it worse.

Click to expand...

Iran and ISIS will go at it. Let them. ISIS is Sunni and Iran is Shia. We have no business putting boots on the ground period. If Iraq and the Kurds cant handle it now they wont be able to handle it latter either. Providing material support to the Kurds Iraq and Syria if necessary is a better way to do things. We get in there and we will be hounded by all sides we have help that is fleeting at best. There is no real win for here. Just damage control. I am not advocating isolationism, I advocating either a more mercantile approach or a limited support approach. Either way our approach should be one that keeps our military presence to an absolute minimum just trainers advisers and technical help. These people must win the day themselves with their blood, their grit. If the situation goes to ISIS so be it, we let the Iranians and Saudi's deal with them and offer the two arms deals and we profit off the situation. ISIS will have to go through those 2 countries and I guarantee they aint going down easy to ISIS, especially the Iranians. If we take the radical step and support Syria (Bashar) as well then ISIS fights a two front war. Its definitely in our interests to stay out militarily and keep our presence minimal and mercantile.

US Conservative said:

We need to oblige these terrorists as well. Send em to allah in style. This enemy is no less radical, probably more so.
And also remember that while we did indeed target civilian population centers, they were not the primary target-Japan had less capability to separate its civilians from its industry-and civilians had to work the factories. So while we did indeed kill many civilians-they were not the primary target (generally), rather it was the infrastructure that they tragically decided to live around.

Click to expand...

Curtis Le May specifically targeted civilian cities in Japan. And did so in Germany as well. That's why we developed firebombs. We even built replicas of German and Japanese cities to determine the optimum method to achieve the greatest destruction. Make no mistake we were ruthless bastards and no targets were taboo. We considered civilians as legitimate targets because they were part of the war efforts manufacturing materials and assisting enemy fighting forces. If they were dead or homeless and hungry they would then detract from the war effort. Like I said we were ruthless pitiless calculating bastards.