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

1. Yes you have. Korea was a half victory. Grenada was a victory. Panama was a victory. The First Gulf War was a victory. And Afghanistan was eventually a victory.
2. Yes I do.

 

IMO Turkey is fully capable of setting Russia straight.

 

Do you consider the WW II allied leaders and commanders bad leaders and war criminals?

 

Turkey is run by an Islamist dictator who is destroying the secular Turkish state and tacitly accepts the existence of the IS because they're fighting the YPG. He and Putin are not on the same page, and the only version of "setting straight" Erdogan will be doing to Putin is starting WW3.

 

"Half a victory". Nonsense, it is not even over, We are still at war with N.Korea.

Grenada? The war was with Cuba - was Cuba defeated? Castro killed or tried for his crimes?

Panama? We lost the canal zone.

The Iraq war continues - we did not win.

Afghanistan? The war continues - we did not win,

Yet, you still support this kind of war? The opposition to the next one will amaze you.

 

They were limited by the technology of the day. Smart weapons didn't exist in WW2. They couldn't limit civilian casualties.

And they also were fighting nation states not guerrilla armies.

 

You seem to have no idea what defines victory.

You go to war with a goal to achieve and you achieve that goal, you have won. That is victory.

Korea started with 1 objective (liberate South Korea) and got another (liberate North Korea). The first was accomplished, the second was not. Half victory.

Grenada: it doesn't matter if the Cubans were involved, the US had already given up on invading Cuba so that's irrelevant. They got rid of the Cuban-backed government as they intended. Victory.

Panama: doesn't matter, they installed a friendly government that would give them access to the Canal anyway; the intervention obviously shows that any Panamanian government that closes the Panama Canal will be deposed; US still gets what it wants, it's a victory.

First Gulf War: goal was to liberate Kuwait, NOT to get rid of Saddam Hussein. We did that. That is a victory.

Afghanistan: Goal was to destroy the al-Qaeda cell behind 9/11. Almost accomplished at Tora Bora but was botched. Victory finally achieved when Osama Bin Laden was found again and killed. Mission Accomplished, no further reason to stay.

Yes I do. I already told you, there is no final victory over ideology that spawns from the world's second largest (and soon to be largest) religion. You can only keep its threat minimized. There's no final battle where you kill them all and send all the troops home and throw a victory parade. Until Salafism is discredited as a movement, it will never end. All we can do, is squash them wherever they pop up.

 

IMO both Erdogon and Putin have a good deal more experience under their belts than Obama and would be much more capable than our President or our warmongering neocons of coming up with a sensible way to avoid the WWIII cataqstrophe you imagine.

Erdogon has been led around the mulberry bush for years by the West and was sincerely striving for a secular Turkey until he apparently realized the force was not with him, and like a good leader, decided to go with the winds of change.

We do not want to go against that wind ourselves unless we absolutely have to.

IMO our role should be to rescue innocent minorities, especially Christians, and avoid adding any more Muslims to our population.

 

Mustafa Kemal had a really simply solution for when the Turkish republic he founded got too Islamist.

He called in the military, crushed Islamist parties, removed the elected government if it was run by an Islamist party, and had new elections. The Turkish military has carried on this tradition throughout the decades to keep its country secular, in a country where much of the population is very devout and wants Sharia. (*)(*)(*)(*) the wind. The wind is blowing the wrong direction. Erdogan either only cares about popularity, or is an Islamist himself.

Erdogan is a scumbag. The only force right now that is defeating the Islamic State on the battlefield is the YPG and the Peshmerga. Erdogan has a problem with the YPG because they are allies of the PKK, so he's fine with the Islamic State killing them. He is an impediment to their destruction.

 

If this is true, then it would seem that the way for the USA to beat ISIS is to:
1) get a real president. One who will be taken seriously.
2) tell Putin, either Assad steps down NOW, or Assad dies now.
3) follow through on that promise.
4) hit al-Raqqa and Mosul with neutron bombs.
5) let the Sunnis do the mopping up

 

IMO Erdogon gave secularism the college try but gave up after the recent EU rebuff.

I am glad they did and he did, because that sequence of events may have saved Europe from becoming completely inundated with Muslims despite their excessively relaxed immigration policies.

Irregardless of what we think of nonsectarian Islam, if that is what the people in that part of the world want Westerners will not be able to stop it, and should not try.

What we need to do is take care to preserve our own cultures, religions, traditions, and lives. We have no obligation to allow a cowbird to nest in our lands.

 

This is humorous. I know how atheists would just love the world to be Godless, but it isn't up to you and the secular fascists you support. You can't snuff out Islam.

 

Perhaps you are correct. How many thousands of Canadians are willing to fight ISIS in the sand box?

 

You may be correct. But turning sand into glass that glows at night might give them a different aspect on live and let live.

 

By the same people who call everything ignorance which is non-islamic... Doesn't tell us much.

 

Fortifying the gates of Vienna makes better sense.

 

Isn't "Guerrilla armies" something of an oxymoron. How did the WW II leaders handle clandestine combatants?

N. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, IS ... are not "nation states"?

 

North Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq are nation-states. ISIS claims to be but they aren't. They are an illegal armed guerrilla group.

As for guerrillas in WW2, there weren't many. There were zero that had a global recruiting pool and could operate across international borders. The one's that did exist with that capability were on the side of the allies.

 

Winning: We win, they lose, the conflict is resolved. The difference is between a final peace and endless war.

For instance, we have not had to go to war with Germany, Italy and Japan in over 70 years because we *won* the war.

 

Combatants captured out of uniform were executed.

IS is a community of people with it's own territory and government. You really believe that is not a nation? How so?

 

Territory is power and you can't win territory by bombing. I agree, albeit reluctantly, that ground forces are the only feasible method of defeating ISIL and taking territory back.

 

This war can not be won on the ground. Rules of Engagement (ROE) tie the soldiers hands behind his back. The enemies war begins in the mosques, and the mosques are the one place we can not fight the war. Now if there were some savage mercenaries that could be hired to fight the war with out ROE restrictions, same as the enemy, then We could attack the enemy in their safe house mosques. Until the true dogs of war are released the battle on the ground is pointless. It is like killing every ant in the kitchen but never getting rid of them because you are afraid to poison the ant hole.

 

Have you seen its "territory"? I've seen river deltas that are less fragmented.

Have you seen its "government"? I've seen mafia groups more capable of taking care of the people and territory they claim.

ISIS is an insurgent group with delusions of grandeur.

 

How is a nation defined? Check and you will see that IS now fits the definition. Sad but true.

 

So does Coca Cola. I guess we should give them and Foxconn seats at the UN.