CDZ Should we put boots on the ground?

[Nosmo King]

Let's lay aside all the theology and sociology. This debate is not intended to be a debate on radical Islam's rationale and relationship with the majority of the Muslim world. Rather I'd like to know if you think it is necessary and reasonable to commit American ground forces to Syria and Iraq.

Give the facts of our Iraqi and Afghanistan experiences training and equipping their armed forces as well as our commitment of blood and treasure spent there for 14 years, can we see the light at the end of the tunnel? Can we expect the same results in our fight against ISIS as the results of our efforts in that area after a decade?

Do you feel confident in our generals and admirals to devise a plan of war to defeat not a nation or overthrow a dictator, but combat an idea to total victory?

 

[Interpol]

I would have to vote no on sending American troops to Syria on the traditionally conservative basis that we should never hit the ground without a realistic plan to win the war, secure the peace, and get out.

Neighboring Muslim nations have more than 5 million soldiers but commit close to nothing mostly due to fear or retaliation (though some of them are sympathetic to the extremists). The way I see it, Iraq failed because Iraqis stood down and let their country be run over by ISIS. America and its coalition can only be expected to do so much. In the final analysis, ISIS in that region is being contained there since they can't seem to hold onto cities very long due to the fact they have no governing strategy, only terror tactics. They will only be decimated in that region by locals who know and understand the area far better than us. They must stand up. We must urge them to stand up by tying foreign & military aid to their direct involvement in the fight.

If neighboring Muslim nations commit just 10% of their armed forces, that would be 500,000 troops in Iraq and Syria, well more than enough to bring stability to the region. After all, this is their fight more than it is ours. For ever Western person these fanatics kill, they murder tens of thousands more of their own.

If that happens and we simultaneously transform our bulky, old school, 20th century military model into a sleeker, more covert counter-terrorism that can meet this 21st century challenge, I believe we'll see better results than what we have now, which is an enemy that melts back into the population. A military isn't designed to fight that strategy. More covert ops with field agents who melt into the population is the obvious answer. Have to get 'em where they are. Have to get with the 21st century now and adapt, because the last 14 years have proven we have a counter-terrorism blind spot you could drive a nuke through.

 

[DarkFury]

Going after Islamic State at this point means going into THREE countries at the SAME time so NO. Anything short of that is a game of Whack-A-Mole and Putin has the hammer. Let him get on with it.

 

[Nosmo King]

I would have to vote no on sending American troops to Syria on the traditionally conservative basis that we should never hit the ground without a realistic plan to win the war, secure the peace, and get out.

Neighboring Muslim nations have more than 5 million soldiers but commit close to nothing mostly due to fear or retaliation (though some of them are sympathetic to the extremists). The way I see it, Iraq failed because Iraqis stood down and let their country be run over by ISIS. America and its coalition can only be expected to do so much. In the final analysis, ISIS in that region is being contained there since they can't seem to hold onto cities very long due to the fact they have no governing strategy, only terror tactics. They will only be decimated in that region by locals who know and understand the area far better than us. They must stand up. We must urge them to stand up by tying foreign & military aid to their direct involvement in the fight.

If neighboring Muslim nations commit just 10% of their armed forces, that would be 500,000 troops in Iraq and Syria, well more than enough to bring stability to the region. After all, this is their fight more than it is ours. For ever Western person these fanatics kill, they murder tens of thousands more of their own.

If that happens and we simultaneously transform our bulky, old school, 20th century military model into a sleeker, more covert counter-terrorism that can meet this 21st century challenge, I believe we'll see better results than what we have now, which is an enemy that melts back into the population. A military isn't designed to fight that strategy. More covert ops with field agents who melt into the population is the obvious answer. Have to get 'em where they are. Have to get with the 21st century now and adapt, because the last 14 years have proven we have a counter-terrorism blind spot you could drive a nuke through.

It might be argued, merely academically, that some of the strategies, but not the tactics ISIS uses is similar to the way the colonists fought the British. And take any example from the Irish to the Boars to the Americans. And in all these engagements fought between the big British Army and guerrilla warriors, the technology, tactics and will to fight and win was on the side of the insurgency.

While our intelligence seems sketchy, you're absolutely right about a deeper and wider increase in real time, face to face operations.

I wonder if the nation is war weary? With the exception of a few isolated tragedies, we we at peace from 1974 to 2001. Can a generation grow up without the threat of war and then expect to be gung ho for fourteen continuous years of war?

 

[Zander]

Maybe.

But only after every single one of following countries commit to their own troops.

Albania
Belgium
Bulgaria
Canada
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Norway
Poland-
Portugal
Romania-
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Turkey
United Kingdom

It's time for Europe to wake the fuck up. We are not going to provide "free" security for them. When the 27 other NATO Nations all have "boots" on the ground
THEN- the United States will "HELP".

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

ISIS cannot be ‘defeated’ using conventional military ground forces– we know this to be true as a consequence of the failed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; indeed, the failed, unwarranted invasion of Iraq is a factor that contributed to the rise of ISIS.

 

[Mr. H.]

Boots. Lots of boots...

 

[Nosmo King]

Maybe.

But only after every single one of following countries commit to their own troops.

Albania
Belgium
Bulgaria
Canada
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Norway
Poland-
Portugal
Romania-
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Turkey
United Kingdom

It's time for Europe to wake the fuck up. We are not going to provide "free" security for them. When the 27 other NATO Nations all have "boots" on the ground
THEN- the United States will "HELP".

It's a matter of resources. While the European nations spent their capital on infrastructure and industrial innovation, we spent ours on defense.

It's a result of the Second World War. Europe was devastated and the Yanks had dropped a couple of A Bombs. Europe had no choice but rebuild, thanks to the Marshall Plan, and rebuild they did. France and Britain have war ready military units, but not the standing armies they had before the war.

And here was America. Physically unscathed by the war, industrial output at historic highs, we could afford to arm up. We spend more for defense by any metric, than any other nation on the planet. While Europe has now enjoyed, with the exception of the early 90s, seventy years of peace and fifty years of prosperity. So long as there is NATO, Europe can shrug it's shoulders about defense spending.

 

[Zander]

Maybe.

But only after every single one of following countries commit to their own troops.

Albania
Belgium
Bulgaria
Canada
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Norway
Poland-
Portugal
Romania-
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Turkey
United Kingdom

It's time for Europe to wake the fuck up. We are not going to provide "free" security for them. When the 27 other NATO Nations all have "boots" on the ground
THEN- the United States will "HELP".

It's a matter of resources. While the European nations spent their capital on infrastructure and industrial innovation, we spent ours on defense.

It's a result of the Second World War. Europe was devastated and the Yanks had dropped a couple of A Bombs. Europe had no choice but rebuild, thanks to the Marshall Plan, and rebuild they did. France and Britain have war ready military units, but not the standing armies they had before the war.

And here was America. Physically unscathed by the war, industrial output at historic highs, we could afford to arm up. We spend more for defense by any metric, than any other nation on the planet. While Europe has now enjoyed, with the exception of the early 90s, seventy years of peace and fifty years of prosperity. So long as there is NATO, Europe can shrug it's shoulders about defense spending.

Thanks for the history lesson Captain Obvious.

That was then, this is now. It is time for European liberals to face the music. You can't appease radical Islam.

 

[Nosmo King]

Maybe.

But only after every single one of following countries commit to their own troops.

Albania
Belgium
Bulgaria
Canada
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Norway
Poland-
Portugal
Romania-
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Turkey
United Kingdom

It's time for Europe to wake the fuck up. We are not going to provide "free" security for them. When the 27 other NATO Nations all have "boots" on the ground
THEN- the United States will "HELP".

It's a matter of resources. While the European nations spent their capital on infrastructure and industrial innovation, we spent ours on defense.

It's a result of the Second World War. Europe was devastated and the Yanks had dropped a couple of A Bombs. Europe had no choice but rebuild, thanks to the Marshall Plan, and rebuild they did. France and Britain have war ready military units, but not the standing armies they had before the war.

And here was America. Physically unscathed by the war, industrial output at historic highs, we could afford to arm up. We spend more for defense by any metric, than any other nation on the planet. While Europe has now enjoyed, with the exception of the early 90s, seventy years of peace and fifty years of prosperity. So long as there is NATO, Europe can shrug it's shoulders about defense spending.

Thanks for the history lesson Captain Obvious.

That was then, this is now. It is time for European liberals to face the music. You can't appease radical Islam.

i doubt the Europeans think appeasement is the only option to direct war. They just don't have the resources. Troops trained for the conditions in the Middle Wast.

 

[DarkFury]

Maybe.

But only after every single one of following countries commit to their own troops.

Albania
Belgium
Bulgaria
Canada
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Norway
Poland-
Portugal
Romania-
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Turkey
United Kingdom

It's time for Europe to wake the fuck up. We are not going to provide "free" security for them. When the 27 other NATO Nations all have "boots" on the ground
THEN- the United States will "HELP".

ALMOST every country on your list has already been "Trojan Horsed" by islamic refugees. Their war will be in their streets and IF Obama is allowed his way? Ours will be here.

The other "nice" Arab nations have NOT taken refugees for a reason. They don't want any standing Arab government overthrown YET.

 

[Gracie]

Maybe.

But only after every single one of following countries commit to their own troops.

Albania
Belgium
Bulgaria
Canada
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Norway
Poland-
Portugal
Romania-
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Turkey
United Kingdom

It's time for Europe to wake the fuck up. We are not going to provide "free" security for them. When the 27 other NATO Nations all have "boots" on the ground
THEN- the United States will "HELP".

This about sums it up ^^^

 

[jwoodie]

Maybe.

But only after every single one of following countries commit to their own troops.

Albania
Belgium
Bulgaria
Canada
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Norway
Poland-
Portugal
Romania-
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Turkey
United Kingdom

It's time for Europe to wake the fuck up. We are not going to provide "free" security for them. When the 27 other NATO Nations all have "boots" on the ground
THEN- the United States will "HELP".

It's a matter of resources. While the European nations spent their capital on infrastructure and industrial innovation, we spent ours on defense.

It's a result of the Second World War. Europe was devastated and the Yanks had dropped a couple of A Bombs. Europe had no choice but rebuild, thanks to the Marshall Plan, and rebuild they did. France and Britain have war ready military units, but not the standing armies they had before the war.

And here was America. Physically unscathed by the war, industrial output at historic highs, we could afford to arm up. We spend more for defense by any metric, than any other nation on the planet. While Europe has now enjoyed, with the exception of the early 90s, seventy years of peace and fifty years of prosperity. So long as there is NATO, Europe can shrug it's shoulders about defense spending.

Thanks for the history lesson Captain Obvious.

That was then, this is now. It is time for European liberals to face the music. You can't appease radical Islam.

i doubt the Europeans think appeasement is the only option to direct war. They just don't have the resources. Troops trained for the conditions in the Middle Wast.

Isn't this a circular argument? The US shouldn't act unless other countries commit resources they don't have?

 

[the_human_being]

ISIS cannot be ‘defeated’ using conventional military ground forces– we know this to be true as a consequence of the failed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; indeed, the failed, unwarranted invasion of Iraq is a factor that contributed to the rise of ISIS.

Who's failure? George Bush told us what would happen:

 

[Nosmo King]

Maybe.

But only after every single one of following countries commit to their own troops.

Albania
Belgium
Bulgaria
Canada
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Norway
Poland-
Portugal
Romania-
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Turkey
United Kingdom

It's time for Europe to wake the fuck up. We are not going to provide "free" security for them. When the 27 other NATO Nations all have "boots" on the ground
THEN- the United States will "HELP".

It's a matter of resources. While the European nations spent their capital on infrastructure and industrial innovation, we spent ours on defense.

It's a result of the Second World War. Europe was devastated and the Yanks had dropped a couple of A Bombs. Europe had no choice but rebuild, thanks to the Marshall Plan, and rebuild they did. France and Britain have war ready military units, but not the standing armies they had before the war.

And here was America. Physically unscathed by the war, industrial output at historic highs, we could afford to arm up. We spend more for defense by any metric, than any other nation on the planet. While Europe has now enjoyed, with the exception of the early 90s, seventy years of peace and fifty years of prosperity. So long as there is NATO, Europe can shrug it's shoulders about defense spending.

Thanks for the history lesson Captain Obvious.

That was then, this is now. It is time for European liberals to face the music. You can't appease radical Islam.

i doubt the Europeans think appeasement is the only option to direct war. They just don't have the resources. Troops trained for the conditions in the Middle Wast.

Isn't this a circular argument? The US shouldn't act unless other countries commit resources they don't have?

I believe that shouldering the boots on the ground action against ISIS solely upon the Europeans is ludicrous. That leaves the Russians and Americans to fill the void.

We have engaged in wars without a clear path to victory since Korea. I submit we are just not very effective unless our goal is to roll tanks through a Capitol city and set up a New Democratic government over our enemies. Can we do this against ISIS? Are we ready for perpetual war against an idea and not a national government?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Going after Islamic State at this point means going into THREE countries at the SAME time so NO. Anything short of that is a game of Whack-A-Mole and Putin has the hammer. Let him get on with it.

I agree.

Now that Poooting is finally getting off his butt and following Obama's lead, let him have it. However, Poooting is killing innocents where Obama targeted terrorists and it will take pathetic Poooting a long time to catch up to Obama's more than 7000 strikes. Poooting will never catch up to the more than 60 other countries who have already joined Obama is killing terrorists so he better get busy.

It is indeed whack-a-mole, the 5th generation of the mess that Ronnie RayGun started.

There are also something like 5 million soldiers in ME countries and Israel has between 200 and 400 nukes we gave them.

Why should we continue the same mistakes Bush made in the past? More reason to keep the Rs out of the Oval Office.

 

[Arianrhod]

ISIS cannot be ‘defeated’ using conventional military ground forces– we know this to be true as a consequence of the failed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; indeed, the failed, unwarranted invasion of Iraq is a factor that contributed to the rise of ISIS.

Who's failure? George Bush told us what would happen:

Nothing prophetic about "Yeah, well, uh, so we destroyed the inframastructure thingy and killed a bunch of civilians and women and children too and [chuckle] I guess you might say they're a little pissed at us."

 

[Arianrhod]

Going after Islamic State at this point means going into THREE countries at the SAME time so NO. Anything short of that is a game of Whack-A-Mole and Putin has the hammer. Let him get on with it.

I agree.

Now that Poooting is finally getting off his butt and following Obama's lead, let him have it. However, Poooting is killing innocents where Obama targeted terrorists and it will take pathetic Poooting a long time to catch up to Obama's more than 7000 strikes. Poooting will never catch up to the more than 60 other countries who have already joined Obama is killing terrorists so he better get busy.

It is indeed whack-a-mole, the 5th generation of the mess that Ronnie RayGun started.

There are also something like 5 million soldiers in ME countries and Israel has between 200 and 400 nukes we gave them.

Why should we continue the same mistakes Bush made in the past? More reason to keep the Rs out of the Oval Office.

And now that the cause of the downed Russian plane has been identified as a bomb, Putin will have to put on a shirt and get serious. The downside of that is his seizing the oil assets of whatever country his boots end up in...

 

[waltky]

Uncle Ferd says, "Yea...

... as long as dey's Arab boots."

 

[oldsoul]

Let's lay aside all the theology and sociology. This debate is not intended to be a debate on radical Islam's rationale and relationship with the majority of the Muslim world. Rather I'd like to know if you think it is necessary and reasonable to commit American ground forces to Syria and Iraq.

Give the facts of our Iraqi and Afghanistan experiences training and equipping their armed forces as well as our commitment of blood and treasure spent there for 14 years, can we see the light at the end of the tunnel? Can we expect the same results in our fight against ISIS as the results of our efforts in that area after a decade?

Do you feel confident in our generals and admirals to devise a plan of war to defeat not a nation or overthrow a dictator, but combat an idea to total victory?

IMO, the best way for These United States to combat ISIS, is through guerilla warfare. This would mean that we put small, highly trained, highly mobile units(ie. SEAL team six, and counterparts), into the area to take out individual "leaders". The higher the "ranking" the better. Also, we would need to target the clerics that are radicallizing their followers. All of which would need to be done clandestinely (look it up if you don't know the word), that way our government could have what the Reagan Admin. used to call "plausable denyability". It would sent a message, "if you fight us this way, we will get down in the mud with you and KILL your ass, cause we do it better", without having to look like we are doing anything.
If anyone has a better idea, I am all ears.