Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I do not think so. War making the USA way is very expensive and years can pass without any result except more rubble, dead, and ill feeling from otherwise neutral parties affected by our war making. The bombing alone is a temporary disruption if not followed up by land action.
Training foreign legions has apparently not worked either. See where the expensive U.S. training mission utterly failed. Announced earlier this year that the forces dissolved. Iraqi Army not much better.
Unless we are committed to a genuine WW2 type campaign and occupation then we should not be involved. I think the recent decade and a half of questionable warring will mean there is no political will behind it. Well, if another 9/11 type attack hits us and ISIS claims responsiblity then it will happen.
I do not think so. War making the USA way is very expensive and years can pass without any result except more rubble, dead, and ill feeling from otherwise neutral parties affected by our war making. The bombing alone is a temporary disruption if not followed up by land action.
Training foreign legions has apparently not worked either. See where the expensive U.S. training mission utterly failed. Announced earlier this year that the forces dissolved. Iraqi Army not much better.
Unless we are committed to a genuine WW2 type campaign and occupation then we should not be involved. I think the recent decade and a half of questionable warring will mean there is no political will behind it. Well, if another 9/11 type attack hits us and ISIS claims responsiblity then it will happen.
In terms of training - Obama spent quite a bit to train Syrian rebel forces with very little impact (and now Russia is bombing the very troops we trained). It's hard to say why it didn't work well, it could be inadequate checks and balances in place by our commander-in-chief. Like you said however Iraqi US trained troops do not perform much better, some of them. They do have some elite troops that perform well. And I think that's the key - training alone does not work, you must have a motivated armed force. In contrast US trained Kurd forces perform extremely well, they are highly motivated and are fighting for an established homeland. ISIS forces can not stand up to the Kurds in extreme northern Iraq, they will get whooped.
As far as ground forces, again people are not seeing the options. This doesn't have to mean a commitment of 100's of thousands of troops. In my view our biggest impact would be in special operation forces performing raids, killing or capturing the enemy, then getting back out to established bases. Our lack of local intel, for one, is severly handicapping us. Obama prefers to kill an enemy with a cruise missile rather than capture and put another foreign fighter into GITMO, but in my opinion that policy has hurt us in the ability to obtain information.
There is a growing idea that we the United States and now France should invade Syria and Iraq to take ISIS down. ISIS and future local terrorist are embolden by the attacks in France and see that nothing will be done to stop them. Drone attacks alone are not going to stop these people. The only way to stop them is to put 1000's of troops into Iraq and Syria. This time it needs to have UN approval and I think they could get it now.
1) No. Foreign troops on the ground is just a big recruiting poster for ISIS.
2) No. Let the middle east figure it out instead of our young men.
3) If we must, just give wheapons to the Syrian gov and maybe some airstrikes. Better Assad than ISIS.
In terms of training - Obama spent quite a bit to train Syrian rebel forces with very little impact (and now Russia is bombing the very troops we trained). It's hard to say why it didn't work well, it could be inadequate checks and balances in place by our commander-in-chief. Like you said however Iraqi US trained troops do not perform much better, some of them. They do have some elite troops that perform well. And I think that's the key - training alone does not work, you must have a motivated armed force. In contrast US trained Kurd forces perform extremely well, they are highly motivated and are fighting for an established homeland. ISIS forces can not stand up to the Kurds in extreme northern Iraq, they will get whooped.
As far as ground forces, again people are not seeing the options. This doesn't have to mean a commitment of 100's of thousands of troops. In my view our biggest impact would be in special operation forces performing raids, killing or capturing the enemy, then getting back out to established bases. Our lack of local intel, for one, is severly handicapping us. Obama prefers to kill an enemy with a cruise missile rather than capture and put another foreign fighter into GITMO, but in my opinion that policy has hurt us in the ability to obtain information.
No dispute from me. I looked for the first time the other day at the amount of territory under ISIS control and it looks like the size of the old Western Front along its longest length. I mention conventional because of the span of terrain. Special Operations forces seem to work best with targeted raids not formal invasion.
I do not think so highly of Special Operations stuff. Too support intenstive and every man functioning as a sort of individual fire team means they are fragile if taking casulaties. Same problem with small raiding forces in other wars. Better use would be for training ala Green Berets who are polictical/miltiary cadre. Well in my opinion but I am very old fashioned about military force use.
Dislike perpetual bombing as well. Means nothing if not followed up. Yes, there are exceptions as in Operation Orchid but that was a technology focused strike not human focused one.
Idk.... Invading Iraq is what brought about ISIS in the first place. Though I feel SOMETHING should be done, I'm not sure if war is the answer. I just feel like it's going to create more problems than it will solve :/.
ISIS began in Iraq as a result of the fragmentation of that country after the removal of Saddam Hussein, and then took advantage of the Sunni rebellion against Assad in Syria to move in there. Two mean ol' dictators who held lid on a lot of messy religious rivalries.
Why is it that the U.S. has never had a problem supporting one unsavory dictator after another in Central America, but seems to find them reprehensible in the Middle East (unless they are Gulf monarchies.) I've watched this American foreign policy farce since I was a teenager and I expect I will still be watching it in the next few years on the day I die.
We love dictators who shower U.S. business interests with favoritism, but we are all for democracy as the magic pill if foreign dictators aren't lavishing favors on U.S. business.
Beyond that we really don't seem to know our arse from our elbow when it comes to having a foreign policy.
No dispute from me. I looked for the first time the other day at the amount of territory under ISIS control and it looks like the size of the old Western Front along its longest length. I mention conventional because of the span of terrain. Special Operations forces seem to work best with targeted raids not formal invasion.
I do not think so highly of Special Operations stuff. Too support intenstive and every man functioning as a sort of individual fire team means they are fragile if taking casulaties. Same problem with small raiding forces in other wars. Better use would be for training ala Green Berets who are polictical/miltiary cadre. Well in my opinion but I am very old fashioned about military force use.
Dislike perpetual bombing as well. Means nothing if not followed up. Yes, there are exceptions as in Operation Orchid but that was a technology focused strike not human focused one.
Yup....ISIS controls territory (they are actually establishing a functional government in these areas - tax, social services, etc) which means conventional troops are needed to capture it and safeguard it. For that we need a leader in the white house that can influence foreign troops to conquer and occupy these zones. This is military grunt work, we don't need our skilled US operators for that, they will be assigned to specialized tasks. Middle Eastern troops can do that grunt part however - Jordanians, Saudi's, Turks, UN troops can occupy, etc. It takes some diplomatic wheeling and dealing - unfortunetly I think it's beyond the capabilities of our current commander-in-chief.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
