ISIS Boasts Air Strikes are not Effective

[American]

Americans don't want boots on the ground.

A majority of Americans -- 60 percent -- told a poll conducted for CNN they don’t want ground troops to be part of the combat operation against ISIS while 38 percent said they favor ground troops and 2 percent had no opinion.

US Ground Troops ISIS Poll: Americans Don't Want Boots On The Ground, Unless Military Does

Of course we know that boots will eventually be on the ground, and we'll likely have another long conflict costly in blood and treasure, ending with a declaration of "decimation" and the only real beneficiaries will be the defense contractors big business.

When the general public is trained in warfare, they can make smart decision about war. Just because they don't want "boots on the ground" doesn't mean it isn't the correct solution. The public is talking politics, not tactics.

 

[American]

You're dismissing the will of the people in favor of boots on the ground. Perhaps that's how you'd like to see things work, but that's not the democratic way.

We have a republican form of government, polls don't decide policy. What people should do is vote out representatives that don't listen to their constituents; if they don't like policy.

 

[imagep]

It was never intended to work, its a dog and pony show prior to the mid terms.

Dog and pony shows can be very effective. And if that is all it is intended to be, then it IS working.

 

[imagep]

When the general public is trained in warfare, they can make smart decision about war. Just because they don't want "boots on the ground" doesn't mean it isn't the correct solution. The public is talking politics, not tactics.

I agree. I can't imagine why most of us think that we know more about warfare than the people who study and live it for a living.

I've tried to put myself in the position of boots on the ground, fighting an enemy who we can't tell from the locals. About the only thing we could do is to stand around and wait until we are being shot at and then shoot back. Seems to me that would put US troops at a huge disadvantage over ISIS. It wouldn't be so hard for ISIS to determine who the American troops are.

We would be fighting in a situation where EVERYONE is an enemy to some extent or another, and it would probably be a mistake to believe that they Syrian and Iraqi people (in general) don't see the US as being an enemy also.

We've been that rout before, and it didn't work out well.

I'm not saying that we don't need boots on the ground to win, but we would be better off if those boots were the people who had more skin in the game than we do - the Iraqi and Syrian people.

 

[imagep]

We have a republican form of government, polls don't decide policy. What people should do is vote out representatives that don't listen to their constituents; if they don't like policy.

thus, indirectly, polls do decide policy. While we have a republic, we also have a form of democracy - the two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[American]

thus, indirectly, polls do decide policy. While we have a republic, we also have a form of democracy - the two are not mutually exclusive.

But when you try and use poll data to infer that govt policy should directly follow it, that is not republican....but mob rule.

 

[Zyphlin]

As a result, the various Al Queda groups- yes, I know that ISIS is not Al Queda, have quickly acknowledged and reported casualties.

Do you have some source substantiate this? I'm not saying it's wrong, just saying I can't remember many instances of news where I've seen ISIS or Al Queda announcing their casualty numbers. Or, more specific to what I asked you, actively coming out and suggesting that American or allied force attacks have been effective.

Likewise, Hamas and Hezbollah have been generally willing to acknowledge deaths from Israeli military actions and publically acknowledge casualties via paying out death benefits.

Different situation there. Propoganda over the years has done well in painting Israel as a "evil", or at least "negative", entity in the eyes of many in the west and such acknowledgements have a tangible benefit to their side by creating a significant rise of opposition against israel's actions. It's unlikely that ISIS would engender a similar response at this time.

You seem to have difficulty grasping the concept that one can, at the same time, be:
A. A terrorist
B for varying motivations, truthful

Not at all. I'm simply suggesting that a terrorist has little reason to acknowledge publicly anything that would hurt their efforts. I don't expect a terrorist organization to come out and say "Your tactics are working well." That's asinine. I expect a terrorist organization, just like I generally would expect a country, to act in their best interest.

Does it mean they're lying when they say it's not effective? No. Not at all. But I view it like a carney playing a shell game.

The Carney may tell me that the ball isn't under a certain shell. He might be telling me the truth. He might not be telling me the truth. I don't know. What I can reasonably guess however is the Carney doesn't WANT me to win so he's not willingly giving me useful information without some kind of ulterior motive. As such, when choosing which shell I turn over the information the Carney told me would be very low on my list of reasons I pick said shell.

Same thing with Poker. If a Poker player says he has a bad hand it's foolish to assume he's just being truthful. At the same time, it's foolish to assume he's completely lying, as it's quite possible he's trying to bluff you into folding by making you THINK that he's lying. What it boils down to is the Poker Player, since he is obvious attepmting to put himself in the best position, is a poor source to judge based on his volunatirly given information. it doesn't matter if he's telling the truth or not, there's no reason to think he's actively trying to help you so you should be looking for other tells and information to make your determination other than simply trusting that he's being 100% truthful.

In the case of the terrorists, they may be telling the truth about it being ineffective. Or they could be lying. I don't honestly know. What I have a reasonable guess of however is that they're not going to come out and say anything that they believe would harm their efforts or help ours. So that makes their statement of little worth.

Does it mean their statement is untrue? Not at all, it simlply means it's not a very trustworthy statement.

I never said I took the word of ISIS unchallenged. Rather, I always took the totality of their claim and the other factors to draw a conclusion that they may well be telling the truth.

Exactly. And I never said to COMPLETELY disregard ISIS's word. I suggested it would simply be at the bottom of a LONG list of other factors that would be my primary focus for drawing a conclussion.

 

[lifeisshort]

He did not say "we start bombing in 10 days." He did not say where we'd be bombing. I'm not the one lying here.

So here we are again. "Depends what the meaning of "is" is. Depends on what the meaning of "warning" is. Yes Kobie you are correct. Obama never said. I'm "warning" you guys I am going to start bombing you.:roll:

 

[imagep]

But when you try and use poll data to infer that govt policy should directly follow it, that is not republican....but mob rule.

If a degree of democracy is the same thing as mob rule, then I'm all for mob rule. At least it's an organized mob following rules and proceedures. I find that preferable to any alternative.

 

[imagep]

So here we are again. "Depends what the meaning of "is" is. Depends on what the meaning of "warning" is. Yes Kobie you are correct. Obama never said. I'm "warning" you guys I am going to start bombing you.:roll:

Can you think of a scenario when the enemy wouldn't suspect that we are going to start bombing them? Or when they wouldn't try to hide their command and control and fortify their positions?

I guess maybe if we started bombing Canada today, they wouldn't suspect it.

It was conservatives who started beating the drums of war first, not Obama. It's also possible, that if conservatives are right about the world thinking that Obama is so weak, that they didn't expect it. We dunno.

 

[American]

If a degree of democracy is the same thing as mob rule, then I'm all for mob rule. At least it's an organized mob following rules and proceedures. I find that preferable to any alternative.

Policy buy polls is not organized, nor according to any principles of legislating promoted by our founders.

 

[joG]

We have a republican form of government, polls don't decide policy. What people should do is vote out representatives that don't listen to their constituents; if they don't like policy.

Actually, voters should go one step further. They should tell their representative, what they expect them to do.

 

[lifeisshort]

Can you think of a scenario when the enemy wouldn't suspect that we are going to start bombing them? Or when they wouldn't try to hide their command and control and fortify their positions?

I guess maybe if we started bombing Canada today, they wouldn't suspect it.

It was conservatives who started beating the drums of war first, not Obama. It's also possible, that if conservatives are right about the world thinking that Obama is so weak, that they didn't expect it. We dunno.

Remember way back when. Obama was asked for his ISIS strategy and he had none. He spent weeks after that mumbling and fumbling about not doing anything until he got the world on his side. ISIS had plenty of time to see what was coming and take appropriate action. Obama missed his window of opportunity big time. Before the question of his policy was even asked he should have started the bombing. At that point there would have been no question what his policy was and ISIS would have been caught off guard and would have been decimated.

 

[joG]

I agree. I can't imagine why most of us think that we know more about warfare than the people who study and live it for a living.

I've tried to put myself in the position of boots on the ground, fighting an enemy who we can't tell from the locals. About the only thing we could do is to stand around and wait until we are being shot at and then shoot back. Seems to me that would put US troops at a huge disadvantage over ISIS. It wouldn't be so hard for ISIS to determine who the American troops are.

We would be fighting in a situation where EVERYONE is an enemy to some extent or another, and it would probably be a mistake to believe that they Syrian and Iraqi people (in general) don't see the US as being an enemy also.

We've been that rout before, and it didn't work out well.

I'm not saying that we don't need boots on the ground to win, but we would be better off if those boots were the people who had more skin in the game than we do - the Iraqi and Syrian people.

I think you are probably very close to spot on. We do not know the lay of the ground, die situation in the village, we don't have the stomach to do, what it would take to win the peace after the combat is done. Also, it might be a global public good to eliminate ISIS, but the main beneficiaries are in the neighborhood not us. So the costs both soft and hard should be carried by them. The US should help commensurate with the skin we do have in it. But Europe and the Arab League should be in the front.

 

[joG]

.....
I guess maybe if we started bombing Canada today, they wouldn't suspect it.
...

Now that is something he would be remembered for.

 

[ksu_aviator]

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.

I would never take an enemy's word at face value. Of course they want to appear to be stronger than "the great satan." I don't know if they are effective or not. I don't think JUST air strikes are going to work, I don't think they hurt our cause either. I'm hoping our military convinces Obama that it is necessary to enter into a ground war and prolonged occupation. I don't like that it is necessary, but it is necessary.

 

[joG]

Remember way back when. Obama was asked for his ISIS strategy and he had none. He spent weeks after that mumbling and fumbling about not doing anything until he got the world on his side. ISIS had plenty of time to see what was coming and take appropriate action. Obama missed his window of opportunity big time. Before the question of his policy was even asked he should have started the bombing. At that point there would have been no question what his policy was and ISIS would have been caught off guard and would have been decimated.

I am quite happy he did not go into Syria, which would have been necessary to stop ISIS from growing into the monster it has become. Syria was a problem mainly for the neighborhood (Arab League, Turkey, EU). They did nothing but blabber and now the dangers have grown. Even here in Germany the people are beginning to understand, that they can no longer free ride American made security. They are even beginning to appreciate that the US is important for their safety, has more institutional intelligence than anyone here and does a better job than they can. Syria and Ukraine have brought that home to quite a few people.

 

[VanceMack]

For those 'strictly speaking' types (or perhaps the better descriptor is 'literal') it can be said that they MAY have actually 'decimated' ISIS. From a literal perspective...ISIS would view decimation as a 'win'.

 

[Grant]

Americans don't want boots on the ground.

A majority of Americans -- 60 percent -- told a poll conducted for CNN they don’t want ground troops to be part of the combat operation against ISIS while 38 percent said they favor ground troops and 2 percent had no opinion.

US Ground Troops ISIS Poll: Americans Don't Want Boots On The Ground, Unless Military Does

Of course we know that boots will eventually be on the ground, and we'll likely have another long conflict costly in blood and treasure, ending with a declaration of "decimation" and the only real beneficiaries will be the defense contractors big business.

Polls should not be a substitute for leadership. Most people expect the government and all it's appropriate bureaucracies to have greater access to information than those waiting in a bus line-up. If the public has access to all the information the government possesses then perhaps they may be the answer and the President can then respond only to public opinion polls.

 

[US Conservative]

You're dismissing the will of the people in favor of boots on the ground. Perhaps that's how you'd like to see things work, but that's not the democratic way.

First, we dont live in a direct democracy, and second, dems in battleground states after years of railing against IRAQ as doves are suddenly hawks. These are actual congressional reps, not me.

Explain to me the democrat way.

Liberal doves run as war hawks
Liberal doves run as war hawks - James Hohmann - POLITICO.com

 

[CRUE CAB]

Our armed forces were crafted to adjust to any threat. Plus, we just spent 10 years fighting and defeating irregular forces.

Defeating?

 

[US Conservative]

Dog and pony shows can be very effective. And if that is all it is intended to be, then it IS working.

Dog and pony shows can be effective political stunts, and thats all this is. Obama going to war for the senate.

 

[US Conservative]

If a degree of democracy is the same thing as mob rule, then I'm all for mob rule. At least it's an organized mob following rules and proceedures. I find that preferable to any alternative.

Pure democracy would be a tyranny.

 

[ecofarm]

If a degree of democracy is the same thing as mob rule, then I'm all for mob rule. At least it's an organized mob following rules and proceedures. I find that preferable to any alternative.

:screwy

 

[imagep]

Pure democracy would be a tyranny.

We don't have pure democracy, it has never existed anywhere. The closest we can come to it is a representative democracy, which is more or less what we have. But for that matter, every other option is also tyranny, other than anarchy (which has also never really existed for more than a brief period of time). Someone always rules.