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.
The Powell Doctrine (also credited to Reagan's SecDef Cap Weinberger) is that going to war should be a last resort, but that if we do, it should be with overwhelming force. Powell attributed his ideas in large part to his experiences as a young officer in the Viet Nam war.
Now we have moved almost to the other end of the spectrum in the war against ISIS. We conduct bombing raids only, with no "boots on the ground" except, evidently, for the rare commando raid to take out a specific individual. According to the above link JCS chair Martin Dempsey estimates that the defeat of ISIS will take 3-4 years. Former Bush and Obama SecDef Robert Gates has said that it is unrealistic to expect defeat of ISIS without boots on the ground. Robert Gates Says Obama Will Need To Use Boots On The Ground To Defeat ISIS
In a recent interview, GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz repeated the Powell Doctrine almost line for line in explaining what his approach to the use of military force would be. Should we bring back the Powell Doctrine, or stick to the 'light footprint,' 'no (or few) boots on the ground' approach that the Obama admin has adopted?
The Powell Doctrine (also credited to Reagan's SecDef Cap Weinberger) is that going to war should be a last resort, but that if we do, it should be with overwhelming force.
AKA shock and awe. The idea is that your enemy sees everything and people blowing up around them, they quickly come to the conclusion it's hopeless e.g. the massive amount of troops surrendering or not fighting during both gulf wars. The problem here is these are fanatics, they are not going to give up that easy.
I tend to advocate against war, but ISIS is causing a great deal of problems, and frankly, ISIS only exists because of our short sighted foreign policy. Remove them from power as quickly as possible, and along the way, make allies in the Middle East. Once ISIS is defeated, begin leaving the Middle East and continues to have dialogue with our allies to ensure ISIS doesn't attempt to make a come back. I do not want us just patrolling the area for another decade, so let's make this quick and clean.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
AKA shock and awe. The idea is that your enemy sees everything and people blowing up around them, they quickly come to the conclusion it's hopeless e.g. the massive amount of troops surrendering or not fighting during both gulf wars. The problem here is these are fanatics, they are not going to give up that easy.
Shock and awe when he good guys do it, terrorism when the bad guys do it.
I think we need to try to evacuate people who want to leave the region and then bomb the hell out of the region.
That would be great, but we are fighting an idea, their vision, their philosophy, their belief system. It is rather difficult to kill an idea once they have brainwashed every one and any one who will listen to them in that their way of life is the best way of life for everyone.
That strategy works against nation-state actors but not so much against branded ideologies that span continents.
Want to *truly* defeat ISIS? That would take a massive restructuring of western foreign policy and imperialism within the region. Until that happens these groups will keep coming about in different forms, each one more violent and aggressive than the last.
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.