As Much As I Hate to Admit It, A Ground Invasion of the Islamic State Makes Sense

The initial planning for the Gulf War took many months. The planning for this would take as long, or longer. I'm not saying we should go in next week.

Which option are you for? Total war (obviously messy). Or getting out completely and living with never ending San Bernadinos?

 

Its time to (*)(*)(*)(*) or get off of the pot.

 

Go kill them there or let them kill us here.

 

They stop as soon they know they cannot win. Has usually taken a lot of proof.

 

Mission accomplished.

Not victory. Compare to our last victories over Japan, Germany and Italy.

I notice you did not answer my question.

 

You can't stop individual acts of terror except through increased intelligence gathering and using the police to aggressively go after identified threats, but in the case of San Bernadino there are zero things that realistically could have been done that would have stopped that attack (barring massive attacks on individual liberty).

 

I think you missed my point.

ISIL came in because of the environment of repression against the population.

Removing ISIL does not close the space for such a group. So, there is NO reason to believe that they won't immediately reappear.

We won't have accomplished anything until there is no longer space for those groups to reappear, and retaking cities, bombing, etc. just doesn't even address that.

Removing Assad could address that IF there were a candidate who could pull Syria together - but, our efforts to find that leader have not succeeded.

 

Victory is measured by accomplishing one's objectives.

If you achieve your overall objective, you are victorious.

 

You can't close the space. The point is to reduce them to disorganized insurgency again. You obviously can't get rid of the idea or the will to fight for that cause. Military action is like taking your pills to treat a chronic condition. Only mitigates the symptoms, can't eliminate the disease. I admit that. But there's nothing more we can do.

Removing Assad with no viable alternative won't do any good. Yes the populace hates him, but the alternative is al-Qaeda.

 

Majority support ground war to retake the territory now held by ISIS after Obama withdrew from Iraq CNN poll:

53% say the U.S. should send ground troops to Iraq to fight ISIS.

6-in-10 disapprove of the President’s handling of terrorism

68% say America’s military response to the terrorist group thus far has not been aggressive enough.

60% say the U.S. military action against ISIS forces in Iraq and Syria is going badly

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/06/politics/isis-obama-poll/index.html

 

It's true that WE can't close the space, reduce them to a disorganized insurgency, or whatever you want to call it.

But, Sunnis can.

This problem needs to be thought through from the point of view of Sunnis.
- Sunnis are 75% of Syria.
- Syrian Sunnis have been lethally assaulted by the government of Syria (Assad) since 2001.

There isn't going to be a solution until THAT is solved. When it IS solved, Sunnis will be fully capable of preventing ISIL from disrupting their country.

But, until then one can hardly expect Sunnis to fight ISIL, who is also interested in fighting Assad.

 

IMO Iraq and Iran were fine with simply exterminating each others' excess populations.

I remember before we stupidly invaded Iraq they used to send waves of ideological youth against each other every few years to get mowed down.

They are quite OK with that sort of thing. Everyone wins.

Sunnis get to kill Shias; Shias get to kill Sunnis; and both countries get rid of contentious youth that could otherwise become an internal problem. Everyone that dies goes to Heaven.

We have screwed up the balance. We need to get the H out and allow them to proceed.

 

Well, your baseless opinion is noted. Pre-Islamic Arabua was known as the age of ignorance for a reason.

 

LOL. You mean like the Iraqis? Or Assad?

 

On the contrary--Until we stepped in, Daesh thought they were just involved in a regional fight.

I agree that now there may be some problems. but we still need to get out. It is a regional problem we should let others handle--and not "others" we are trying to control. We have very little understanding of the area. Russia does. Turkey does.

The Kurds do.

Let them all put their heads together and figure it out. IMO there will be less bloodshed and more satisfaction with the result.

In the meantime, keep the Islamists out of this country.

 

You seem determined to ignore the prophesy that a new Caliphate will arise after a great battle against the West in that area. Troops on the ground will simply result in more Daesh recruits.

 

So, should peaceful immigration of Muslims be allowed?

 

The imported wife could have been kept out.

 

America has achieved countless military objectives. We have not won a war since 1945.

You still have not answered my question.

Do you support sending our troops to another war in the ME under current leadership and rules of engagement? I suspect you don't.

 

It has absolutely nothing to do with "current leadership and rules of engagement".

What is necessary is for there to be an objective that is achievable and worth achieving (besides the requirements for entering into war).

In Syria, rearranging things so that Assad is still in charge, still killing Sunni civilians may be achievable, but it is not worth achieving. That was the situation when ISIL entered Syria. So, recreating that, even if we drive out ISIL for a while, doesn't accomplish jack.

The same was true in Iraq. We could conquer Iraq, but what we created wasn't worth the cost.

We pay a LOT for these lessons. Ignoring them is not acceptable.

 

We were able to win with WW II rules of engagement. Start there - then consider very carefully before going to war.

 

But the Caliph is not a priest. He does not speak for God.

Maybe according to the Shias.

Well, perhaps you're referring to Western pluralism. Why should non-Muslims be treated under Islamic law? They're not Muslims....

 

We have been taught the same lesson many times now since 1945. The American public finally gets it - they will turn on leaders who send troops into another indecisive conflict.

Leadership and rules of engagement are critical.

 

So massive civilian body counts, that would get shown in the news, that would lead to greater terrorist recruitment worldwide, that would lead to more attacks on the West.

So you've made the war more difficult to win.

 

I agree. But when they threatened genocide, Obama's conscience overruled his war aversion. And regardless, we now have to deal with them.

Don't think for a second Putin actually understands. If he did he wouldn't support Assad.