• 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!

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

Hamster Buddha said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not quite. There's a lot more history there. In any case Turkey has an ISIS problem whether they like it or not. They can deal with it themselves or let the Kurds deal with it and just keep the guns and money coming for the Kurds. Like I said the Turks and the Kurds can come to an agreement if they are smart that works for both, despite their mutual animosity. They have a common enemy. People tend to forget grudges for a while, if they have a common enemy.
 
PirateMk1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

But again-what happens when ISIS takes over? What if Saudi Arabia and Iran wont or cant fight them? What happens if they get into a proxy war there? What happens when ISIS uses its territory to attack US interests and our allies in the region?

The truth is that ISIS is evil, something we haven't seen to this degree for some time. The US made the mess in Iraq, we should clean it up. How do you expect to win the war on terror when you scede territory to the enemy based on a politicians deadline?
 
PirateMk1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Perhaps but its better than being appeasers or supplicants to ISIS these days. Not saying you are.
 
PirateMk1 said:
Not quite. There's a lot more history there. In any case Turkey has an ISIS problem whether they like it or not. They can deal with it themselves or let the Kurds deal with it and just keep the guns and money coming for the Kurds. Like I said the Turks and the Kurds can come to an agreement if they are smart that works for both, despite their mutual animosity. They have a common enemy. People tend to forget grudges for a while, if they have a common enemy.
Click to expand...

Just curious-do you think the US has an ISIS problem?
 
ISIS may be deadly, but I think they are contained. They cannot just take over the whole of ME.
 
PirateMk1 said:
Not quite.

There's a lot more history there. In any case Turkey has an ISIS problem whether they like it or not. They can deal with it themselves or let the Kurds deal with it and just keep the guns and money coming for the Kurds. Like I said the Turks and the Kurds can come to an agreement if they are smart that works for both, despite their mutual animosity. They have a common enemy. People tend to forget grudges for a while, if they have a common enemy.
Click to expand...

Yes, this may be a good opportunity for Kurds and Turks to get along better from then on after.
 
For what it's worth, these are my thoughts on the issue.

1. No people can be saved if they're not prepared to fight for themselves. The Kurds have proven to be brave and serious combatants and deserve the support of the west in their struggle against ISIS/ISIL/IS - they are bravely fighting to save Kobani, perhaps for cultural/nationalistic reasons, but they are fighting.

2. Either the UN or NATO needs to be more actively involved. Turkey is playing a very dangerous political game in this mess. They want Assad gone and they also want to see the Kurds both neighbouring them and within Turkey to be weakened. They are happy to sit on their border and watch Kobani fall and Kurds be slaughtered for their own internal benefit. NATO should demand, yes demand, Turkish involvement in this fight and if they refuse Turkey should be turfed from the alliance.

3. This mess cannot be solved by the US or by any coalition of western interests - it can only be solved, if at all, by a coalition of Middle Eastern interests. This is, in my opinion, the direct result of Obama/US indifference to what was an initial student/opposition uprising in Syria and turned into the battleground of various Muslim and terrorist interests throughout the Middle East. It is beyond western control and likely beyond western influence at this point.
 
CanadaJohn said:
For what it's worth, these are my thoughts on the issue.

1. No people can be saved if they're not prepared to fight for themselves. The Kurds have proven to be brave and serious combatants and deserve the support of the west in their struggle against ISIS/ISIL/IS - they are bravely fighting to save Kobani, perhaps for cultural/nationalistic reasons, but they are fighting.

2. Either the UN or NATO needs to be more actively involved. Turkey is playing a very dangerous political game in this mess. They want Assad gone and they also want to see the Kurds both neighbouring them and within Turkey to be weakened. They are happy to sit on their border and watch Kobani fall and Kurds be slaughtered for their own internal benefit. NATO should demand, yes demand, Turkish involvement in this fight and if they refuse Turkey should be turfed from the alliance.

3. This mess cannot be solved by the US or by any coalition of western interests - it can only be solved, if at all, by a coalition of Middle Eastern interests. This is, in my opinion, the direct result of Obama/US indifference to what was an initial student/opposition uprising in Syria and turned into the battleground of various Muslim and terrorist interests throughout the Middle East. It is beyond western control and likely beyond western influence at this point.
Click to expand...

But its going to be the same old story-Arab armies will fight poorly, the UN and Nato will not grow a pair-and we will be left with another tyrannical force unless someone steps in.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
What do you propose to be the solution?
Click to expand...

There are no good options. The two best are:

1. Withdraw and allow ISIS to do what it wants to do.
2. Wage all out war and ISIS and destroy it

Going half way gets half results. I would rather see option 1 than what we are doing.
 
US Conservative said:
But its going to be the same old story-Arab armies will fight poorly, the UN and Nato will not grow a pair-and we will be left with another tyrannical force unless someone steps in.
Click to expand...

Then that's the Middle East we will have to live with for the next few decades or so. A conventional army cannot combat unaligned and unidentified enemies that simply fade back into the population when confronted. Like cockroaches, they will run from the light and wait for darkness to come again, as it always does, and then they will come out again. A foreign force cannot defeat a cultural battle in another country. The US could not defeat the Chechiens for Russia or the Basque separatists in Spain. These are internal battles that must be solved internally if they are to be solved at all.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Then that's the Middle East we will have to live with for the next few decades or so. A conventional army cannot combat unaligned and unidentified enemies that simply fade back into the population when confronted. Like cockroaches, they will run from the light and wait for darkness to come again, as it always does, and then they will come out again. A foreign force cannot defeat a cultural battle in another country. The US could not defeat the Chechiens for Russia or the Basque separatists in Spain. These are internal battles that must be solved internally if they are to be solved at all.
Click to expand...

So in other words, the US should follow the worlds example and do nothing. The same old story.
 
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...

No way!

In Syria, one strike northwest of Al Mayadin destroyed an ISIL bulldozer
Click to expand...

U.S. Central Command | Oct. 5: U.S. Military Conducts Airstrikes Against ISIL in Syria and Iraq


We got em on the run! :lamo
 
US Conservative said:
So in other words, the US should follow the worlds example and do nothing. The same old story.
Click to expand...

As I said previously, I'd like to see the Kurds supported because they have proven to be a people willing to bravely defend themselves and to fight for what they believe in. I would support assisting the Kurds in defense of their region. I would also support defending strong western allies like Israel and Jordan, and some of the smaller Gulf States, should they come under attack. But I do not support the west being a substitute army for countries who cause problems and then expect America to clean things up.
 
CanadaJohn said:
As I said previously, I'd like to see the Kurds supported because they have proven to be a people willing to bravely defend themselves and to fight for what they believe in. I would support assisting the Kurds in defense of their region. I would also support defending strong western allies like Israel and Jordan, and some of the smaller Gulf States, should they come under attack. But I do not support the west being a substitute army for countries who cause problems and then expect America to clean things up.
Click to expand...

I read your prior comments but lets cut to the chase. In the end-if nobody else will act, it will fall on the US yet again-or nothing will get done and a terror state will be established in the heard of the ME.

You appear resigned to that-but thats not good enough for me. If Americans supported strikes based on what ISIS has done to this point, they will support it when they see how much worse things become as ISIS expands. It would also completely undermine the war on terror-sending the message that the US wont act, wont honor its obligations, and will run after a few beheadings. Thats not good enough.

This is the song that never ends-fight evil or let it consume everyone.
 
Our air strikes need to turn into an air campaign if they want any chance of success. We are damned if we do and damned if we don't, so make a decision, take the medicine. If the decision is to not go to war, then let's not pretend to help. If we are going to war, let's do it right and use our might. This sitting in the grey area is political and how you lose a war.
 
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...

Air, alone, has never defeated an enemy. Not Japan, Germany, not even the Iraqi Army during Desert Storm.

The, "they're ready to die for their god", logic is flawed, because nobody ever won a war by dieing.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
I have a suggestion. There is already a capable military force, on the ground, with YEARS of experience fighting this organization that we could cooperate with to finish the ISIS threat; Assad and the Syrian Military. Also, since it is still Syria, then Assad could be responsible for residual force to secure the area. His family has a history of taking care of business...

Would you both be okay with this?
Click to expand...

That's actually a terrible idea, for the following reasons:

1. The Assad regime is what's really the root cause behind the rise of ISIS. His pro-Alawi dictatorship is what spawned the grievances of the Syrian Sunni population, many of whom have joined ISIS. Even if Assad can be the ground force against ISIS (which it can't, and likely doesn't want to be), we have not solved the actual issue at hand.

2. Everyone in the coalition we have assembled against ISIS is anti-Assad. If we side with Assad, we can kiss any Turkish support goodbye, and Saudi Arabia and the UAE will likely ditch the anti-ISIS effort.

3. We have already posited ourselves as against the Assad regime and pro-opposition. Switching sides for no reason will seriously undermine our credibility both as an ally and as a rival.

4. Assad's never been the friendliest to US interests. Despite the constant bleating from those who either hate Obama and therefore love anyone who opposes him, or from those who worship at the feet of anti-American dictators, Assad is most emphatically not a moderating force: he's how Hezbollah grew to be so powerful, he occupied and destabilized Lebanon, and he allowed al-Qaeda in Iraq (now known as ISIS) to be funneled into Iraq through Syria. Assisting him will strengthen Iranian hegemony while doing nothing to benefit us.

5. Needless to say, he's awful. We can anticipate indiscriminate bombings and massacres not only against ISIS-held towns, but also against areas held by the more moderate Syrian opposition.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
What do you propose to be the solution?
Click to expand...

Open up both sides in the Syrian conflict to peace talks, and push for a unity government. Absent that, make it clear that we are still supportive of the Syrian opposition's efforts to overthrow Assad. Support Turkey's plan for a buffer zone, and implement a no-fly zone over all of Syria. Since we've now satisfied all of Ankara's (admittedly, slightly unreasonable) demands, we'll now have the Turkish army as ground troops against ISIS. The Turks will kick more ass than we can expect out of any other actor in the Syrian civil war, and will function as the professional land army that is needed to degrade ISIS.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
Air, alone, has never defeated an enemy. Not Japan, Germany, not even the Iraqi Army during Desert Storm.

The, "they're ready to die for their god", logic is flawed, because nobody ever won a war by dieing.
Click to expand...

Our wars in Kosovo and Libya were won through airstrikes :shrug:

Contrary to what the ODS people are saying, our airstrikes have been effective against ISIS - when they're happening. Gains made by the Kurds and FSA in Kobani have correlated with our airstrikes against the terrorists. That's why the strikes need to be around-the-clock, not just a few every day or two.
 
Last edited:
Hamster Buddha said:
First off, can we please not pretend like Assad isn't in part responsible for what's going down with the brutal way he reacted to protests? I mean, I agree that these people are barbarians and we don't need to be giving them political power, but that's not like I'm going to pretend that Assad or his Family hasn't committed some nasty atrocities.

Also do you have a link about the attacks being carried out by rebels?
Click to expand...

Greetings, Hamster Buddha :2wave:

I agree there's a lot of blame to go around, including our own government's handling of things at times, but Assad has shown his willingness to cooperate with us. "Better the devil you know" is sometimes appropriate.

I will have to find the link - it was sometime last week, I believe - but it's going to take some time to do so. I will post it when I locate it. It had to do with the distance the missile had to travel to deliver the sarin, and according to the investigators it came from the area the rebels held. Perhaps someone on here has that link available?
 
MadLib said:
Our wars in Kosovo and Libya were won through airstrikes :shrug:

Contrary to what the ODS people are saying, our airstrikes have been effective against ISIS - when they're happening. Gains made by the Kurds and FSA in Kobani have correlated with our airstrikes against the terrorists. That's why the strikes need to be around-the-clock, not just a few every day or two.
Click to expand...

Not with airstrikes alone. In both cases, ground forces were involved.
 
apdst said:
Not with airstrikes alone. In both cases, ground forces were involved.
Click to expand...

Of course airstrikes alone won't work, and no one is saying that they would. Obama's plan calls for the use of Syrian rebels as our ground proxies in Syria.
 
MadLib said:
Of course airstrikes alone won't work, and no one is saying that they would. Obama's plan calls for the use of Syrian rebels as our ground proxies in Syria.
Click to expand...

That won't work, either. One, because Obama isn't ready to commit the support they'll need and two, because there is no Syrian force that can take on ISIS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom