The ISIL problem could be fixed?

Who thinks that the U.S. should either commit 500K troops or more, like the original Gulf War, and seriously just take over the Iraq, Syria situation or let it drag out for another 10-30yrs and keep using just enough half measures to cost us much more in the long run?

Or of course, the other option is to completely pull out and stay out this time, then let whoever is able take over Iraq and whatever other ME regions?

But are there really anymore than these three options, and why does fighting to win seem like such a bad PR campaign? The collateral damage is literally going to be worse if dragged out but it won't appear all at once like a massive offensive.

I think Obama must be overwhelmed with all the Media Headlines and almost daily calamities being reported on?


Obama: 'There’s A Sense ... The World Is Spinning So Fast and Nobody Is Able To Control It'

grip said:

Who thinks that the U.S. should either commit 500K troops or more, like the original Gulf War, and seriously just take over the Iraq, Syria situation or let it drag out for another 10-30yrs and keep using just enough half measures to cost us much more in the long run?

Or of course, the other option is to completely pull out and stay out this time, then let whoever is able take over Iraq and whatever other ME regions?

But are there really anymore than these three options, and why does fighting to win seem like such a bad PR campaign? The collateral damage is literally going to be worse if dragged out but it won't appear all at once like a massive offensive.

I think Obama must be overwhelmed with all the Media Headlines and almost daily calamities being reported on?


Obama: 'There’s A Sense ... The World Is Spinning So Fast and Nobody Is Able To Control It'

Click to expand...

On one side of the Islamic state is the worlds fourth largest military, on the other side is NATO's second largest military. Let them take care of this.

Montecresto said:

On one side of the Islamic state is the worlds fourth largest military, on the other side is NATO's second largest military. Let them take care of this.

Click to expand...

Well, that's really my point that there are countries with more vested interest already geographically closer that could have a large impact. But, I suppose none of them are willing to put any capital in the game, maybe because the more you take sides in sectarian violence the more inflamed, complicated and confusing it becomes? There's also no guarantee, if we or someone else went in full force and took control that it would last?

grip said:

Who thinks that the U.S. should either commit 500K troops or more, like the original Gulf War, and seriously just take over the Iraq, Syria situation or let it drag out for another 10-30yrs and keep using just enough half measures to cost us much more in the long run?

Or of course, the other option is to completely pull out and stay out this time, then let whoever is able take over Iraq and whatever other ME regions?

But are there really anymore than these three options, and why does fighting to win seem like such a bad PR campaign? The collateral damage is literally going to be worse if dragged out but it won't appear all at once like a massive offensive.

I think Obama must be overwhelmed with all the Media Headlines and almost daily calamities being reported on?


Obama: 'There’s A Sense ... The World Is Spinning So Fast and Nobody Is Able To Control It'

Click to expand...

Fighting to win requires leadership. You need a hardass that is going go crush the ISIS vermin and their supporters, by simply unleashing the military for weight and might and removing restrictions from them. That wont happen with this president. He is not the type to say "Collect their heads and hides, leave the corpses to the coyotes. Method is of no concern to me. Results are."

Pulling out completely with this president is the better option. Just go home and let the two sides duke it out. With this president we have that would be best.

A third option would be to pull out, and then start selling to all on our side of the conflict weapons and training for confiscatory rates and shade the rates to the sides we prefer (Kurds). We would give PMC's letters of marque and reprisal for the purpose of hunting down, killing, and stealing from ISIS that we would expect to be honored by the Kurds and Iraqis and Syrians and whomever else is in the region that are "allies". This is a more mercantile view but personally I think our best option by keeping us as a government out but as a people present and being helpful to the side we want to win. I don't think our president is capable of executing such a strategy unfortunately.

grip said:

Well, that's really my point that there are countries with more vested interest already geographically closer that could have a large impact. But, I suppose none of them are willing to put any capital in the game, maybe because the more you take sides in sectarian violence the more inflamed, complicated and confusing it becomes? There's also no guarantee, if we or someone else went in full force and took control that it would last?

Click to expand...

But they're not going to do anything because the U.S. is willing to take all of the expense to do it for them. So long as we're willing to fight everyone else's fights, nobody is going to take any moves that might inflame the Muslim extremists. I'm sure we're paying off all of our partners in the so-called "coalition" too. We're bribing them to make a token effort so it doesn't look like we're doing this alone.

PirateMk1 said:

Fighting to win requires leadership. You need a hardass that is going go crush the ISIS vermin and their supporters, by simply unleashing the military for weight and might and removing restrictions from them. That wont happen with this president. He is not the type to say "Collect their heads and hides, leave the corpses to the coyotes. Method is of no concern to me. Results are."

Pulling out completely with this president is the better option. Just go home and let the two sides duke it out. With this president we have that would be best.

A third option would be to pull out, and then start selling to all on our side of the conflict weapons and training for confiscatory rates and shade the rates to the sides we prefer (Kurds). We would give PMC's letters of marque and reprisal for the purpose of hunting down, killing, and stealing from ISIS that we would expect to be honored by the Kurds and Iraqis and Syrians and whomever else is in the region that are "allies". This is a more mercantile view but personally I think our best option by keeping us as a government out but as a people present and being helpful to the side we want to win. I don't think our president is capable of executing such a strategy unfortunately.

Click to expand...

Cephus said:

But they're not going to do anything because the U.S. is willing to take all of the expense to do it for them. So long as we're willing to fight everyone else's fights, nobody is going to take any moves that might inflame the Muslim extremists. I'm sure we're paying off all of our partners in the so-called "coalition" too. We're bribing them to make a token effort so it doesn't look like we're doing this alone.

Click to expand...

See, this is what I thought that almost everyone agrees that we're handling this in a ridiculous way. You'd think after the past 12 yrs of occupying and fighting in this region, we'd have learned not to repeat the same errors over and over. We don't apply pressure on our ME allies enough and play weak positioned politics with everything.

Other. Time travel. 1) Never get involved in the Soviet-Afghan War, 2) Never pay for radicalization books to be written and mass produced, 3) Never get involved in hostilities with Iraq when they invaded Kuwait, 4) Never support Arab dictators & 5) Mind our own mother****ing business.

Alas, it is way too late for that. ISIL, al Qaeda, militant Islam directed at the U.S., etc -- it's all blowback from the actions we've taken against Arabs in their homeland. We just have to ride out the storm from here.

You play policeman and you withdraw. ISIS comes in. Then you play policeman again. Then you play Russian poker with sanctions. What next?

The most difficult option here is discussion and education on what Islam has become. Not just in the hands of groups such as ISIS (ISIL, Islamic State, or whatever you want to call them today) or Al-Qaeda but even in the hands of "allies" such as Saudi Arabia. It is a conversation few really want to have and liberals have been very wrong on to date. We have example after example of ideology and behavior that is flat out unacceptable in terms of more Western ideologies (across our spectrum left or right or otherwise.) It then seems to me we have no choice but to start to be very assertive about what has happened to that region of the world, perhaps said another way what has not happened. A society that has not grown up by in large because of a religion that regardless of splinter suggests forward thinking is acting against "authority." Or acting against "God." On just that level we have a fundamental problem on aptitude for change no matter how many times we try to force the matter.

For the US it has to start with a very confusing and hypocritical foreign policy that seems to start and end with what we (or our other "allies") get out of the deal. Each time that is evaluated over the past 40 or so years we end up with nations we support because of some reason, odds are Oil or strategic location. Each time that is evaluated we should have been looking to what is it we accept, and what is it we are willing to fight to change. But we do far too much of the former and hardly any of the latter. Today we need to be evaluating along the lines of ISIS and Al-Qaeda being backyard problems for nations such as Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Turkey, etc. The problem is they often cannot (or will not) and in part because of our own actions. There is now reliance on the US as the world's police department to continue engaging in futile effort.

The people that make up ISIS have been there a very long time, and they have seized on opportunity that we at least in part allowed to happen in Syria and completely allowed to happen in Iraq. Our prior policy is coming back to bite us today as the region as a whole does not have the aptitude for more western governmental or sociological thinking. But we try to force that anyway. Their religion does not allow it and more importantly how they tend to look at "authority" from that religion does not allow it. The more extreme versions like ISIS or Al-Qaeda of are willing to kill over the matter and it grabs the media's attention. But, that should not allow us to forget that in Saudi Arabia (for example) another flavor of the same religion suggests one cannot openly practice Christianity, there is no tolerance for being gay, a woman's place is well behind a man's place, etc. All the things you would think Liberalism would be strongly against yet suggests we not judge Islam to harshly. I find that foolish.

Because of all that I personally have a hard time supporting yet another long term military venture into a region of the world incapable of real change as a result of those actions. The longest war in US history seemingly is changing little in Afghanistan, not sure why we expect things to be different in Iraq. Installing just some other government turned out to be weakness ISIS capitalized on, especially in the context of being over an Iraq military with a "drop your weapons, ask no questions, and run like hell" mentality. Again, our actions made matters worse. I would argue Iraq is less stable now than when Saddam was in charge. We are responsible for that and we spent way too many military lives to get such little result. Such a disservice to our Military.

So I have little choice but to side with assertive education on what Islam is today, and getting out of the repeat cycle of military involvement that in the end breeds even more contempt for the US (and our allies) in the long term. There is only one other equally difficult option to consider. Total genocide. Everything else is a continuation of an already tried policy of various failure, and that ultimately means kicking the can down the road yet again.

It's clear we cannot eradicate terrorists or terrorism. My view is rather flexible --- optimally I'd say contain the fighting, stay out of direct action, let these ME states fight each other. The more they are focused on killing each other the better. That said, if the US is going to commit our military it's either all in, or GTFO. If it's all in, we should commit full force - kill and secure as much as possible, then leave. If we're not going to commit to an all-in strategy - then we shouldn't be there at all. This ***** footing around with a few bombs here and there and a fake coalition with coalition partners who do nothing isn't working.