Do you support sending large U.S. ground forces to retake territory ruled by ISIS in Syria/Iraq?

[U2Edge]

pick out the ISIS members.

That's a problem in foreign countries, but not in Syria/Iraq when they are holding and defending territory out in the open with large well equipped forces, that have tanks, artillery, and many other weapons.

 

[Siete]

Syria .... bet there's a couple of ISIS thugs in there. Betcha 50,000 American soldiers can find them.

 

[U2Edge]

My God, more meddling? Really?? The West, especially the U.S., has caused the bloody carnage we're currently seeing in the Middle East. They've done enough damage. They should now just apologize to the Peoples' families they massacred, and then come home. We don't belong in their lands. We never did.

Defending yourself is not meddling. In the United States, when a killer is on the lose, you hunt him down and kill him. When the killers live abroad, you do the same. Its self defense. We did it in World War II, this is no different. The Islamic State Caliphate in Syria/Iraq is essentially no different than Hitler's Germany in that its territory must be taken as soon as possible.

Germany had a civilization, and even then we occupied it for 40 years. What's your plan for Iraq?

Retake the northern areas of Syria and Iraq and hand them back to the current legitimate government forces. Essentially reset the battlefield, drive ISIS underground, so the locals there can handle it on their own.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I say we either beat them or leave it be. One or the other.

I agree. All in or all out.

 

[M14 Shooter]

ISIS has already been rolled back by 25% of their maximum land holdings. If NATO or the UN decides to put together a force,

we should honor our treaty obligations, but no more.

Would you still feel that way if 6 months from now ISIS successfully attacks the Washington D.C. Subway system with sarin gas or anthrax killing 100,000 people? Do you really want to wait and risk thousands of U.S. lives because you want some procedural process. Is that how you would go about defending your home or one of your family members if you were attacked personally?

Depends - can they blame Bush?
If so, they don't care how many people are killed or how -- the more, the better,

 

[Hutch Starskey]

In case anyone has forgotten, WE WON the war in Iraq. Obama's withdrawal of all of our forces from that country demonstrated his profound ignorance of history: What if we had withdrawn from Germany after WW2? Is there any limit to his ideological conceit?

Your post displays a profound ignorance of the rise of ISIS.

 

[U2Edge]

Syria .... bet there's a couple of ISIS thugs in there. Betcha 50,000 American soldiers can find them.

That's not how ISIS took a 1/3rd of Iraq and Syria. They did not do it by hiding among the population. These used large forces that took large areas both countries. The Kurds and Iraqi's currently fight ISIS on a FRONT LINE. ISIS in Syria and Iraq is currently fighting a conventional war. The goal is to defeat as much of them and force the remnents to go underground where they will be less of a threat.

The current Kurdish assault on SINJAR in northern Iraq used 7,500 Kurdish forces and heavy U.S. airstrikes. They succeeded, but according to you that could not have happened because allegedly there were only 10 ISIS followers hiding among the civilians of SINJAR right?

 

[U2Edge]

As the geopolitical landscape currently sits - no.

With the current president in office - no.

It is clear that bombing isn't enough. Ground forces are required, however, simply deploying the US military isn't the answer.

The world at large needs to wake up to this problem and man up instead of simply asking Uncle Sam to do the job. This is simply a re-run of every prior conflict of this type.

And I wouldn't send in American men and women to get shot at, knowing that this administration is far too interested in political expedience to really wage a war. Turn it over to the Joint Chiefs and give them their best case scenario, not some strategy that balances military strategy with political strategy/expedience. This administration will never do that, so in other words, HELL NO.

So if ISIS launches a successful attack within the United States next week killing 10,000 or 100,000 people, you would still say the U.S. military should not go in on the ground to remove this threat? How many American civilians would have to die at home to change your thinking on this?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I support arming and training the people of Iraq and Syria to defend themselves and retake territory from ISIS. We can provide aerial and material support, but the actual fighting should be done by the Iraqis and Syrians themselves. All of this could have been avoided, if we'd employed that strategy to depose Saddam in the first place.

That strategy was employed against Saddam in the 1990s and it failed every time it was tried. Some problems require large professional military forces. Saddam did not come down until he faced one. The local forces may work eventually, but how many thousands of innocent civilians will die around the world while we wait.

Just this past two weeks, Russia lost 225 people in a plane bombing by ISIS, ISIS then killed 50 people in a well secured area of Beruit and 130 people in Paris along with 350 injured. We have supported the local forces for 18 months now and progress is too slow.

It's interesting that a couple weeks ago the Turks lost over 100 people in a terrorist attack,

and their loss was barely acknowledged and now barely remembered.

 

[U2Edge]

No. We don't need to spend another 9 years and thousands of American lives in that shit hole. They've been fighting for over 1000 years; we do not need to be part of that war which is not even ours and which continue will for another 1000 years;

And so, your response to ISIS and its international terrorism...?

Beef up security here and bomb the shit out of them if they pull off a terrorist attack here.

Bombing is only fully effective when they are combined with ground troops. Half of US sorties come back with their bombs because they can't find any targets. U.S. ground troops would massively enhance U.S. airpower.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I say we either beat them or leave it be. One or the other.

Don't forget to vote in the poll!

Whether by accident or design, the poll question is faulty. What, exactly, does "large" mean and in relation to what military strategy? Almost no one advocates a permanent occupation by US ground forces, although a UN peace keeping force in some areas might be warranted.

However, I do believe that a US base should have been established in Iraq as a stabilizing presence and counterweight to Iranian threats to its neighbors.

I said large ground forces, in the sense of those sufficient to retake the territory from ISIS and hand it back to the legitimate government authorities in Iraq and Syria. This is about resetting the battlefield so the locals can handle it themselves, this is not about a permanent occupation.

No more generals! We're running out of armchairs!

 

[bendog]

My God, more meddling? Really?? The West, especially the U.S., has caused the bloody carnage we're currently seeing in the Middle East. They've done enough damage. They should now just apologize to the Peoples' families they massacred, and then come home. We don't belong in their lands. We never did.

Defending yourself is not meddling. In the United States, when a killer is on the lose, you hunt him down and kill him. When the killers live abroad, you do the same. Its self defense. We did it in World War II, this is no different. The Islamic State Caliphate in Syria/Iraq is essentially no different than Hitler's Germany in that its territory must be taken as soon as possible.

Germany had a civilization, and even then we occupied it for 40 years. What's your plan for Iraq?

Retake the northern areas of Syria and Iraq and hand them back to the current legitimate government forces. Essentially reset the battlefield, drive ISIS underground, so the locals there can handle it on their own.

Assad has slaughtered 250K Syrians, and your plan is to give him back the territory from whence the refugees fled, and where people too poor to even flea are "living?"
I'd laugh if that wasn't so pathetic

 

[Mac1958]

Maybe we could wait and see how well our friends over there do before we start ordering more body bags.

Proximity breeds action, and those folks are a lot closer to the danger.
.

 

[KissMy]

Syria .... bet there's a couple of ISIS thugs in there. Betcha 50,000 American soldiers can find them.

Betcha more of those 50,000 US soldiers would die in the first months than the 129 the terrorist killed in France. It will just boost terrorist recruitment unless we spend $15 trillion & 20,000 American lives to occupy it for next 20-30 years. France doesn't even want to send ground troops & has not asked the UN, EU or USA to send ground troops.

 

[U2Edge]

Obama's killed over a thousand innocents as collateral damage in the drone war, expended around 2000 dead US soldiers and committed us to decades in Afghan.

Gen Odierno repeatedly says defeating Isis is not that huge an effort, but there's no civilian govt to fill in, so we're essentially looking at another several decades occupying Iraq, which the US public has no appetite for, or doing W all over again, and this time hoping against hope the Shia Iraqis are up to the task .... or MORE likely having Hezbollah take over N. Iraq and half of Syria, with the rest controlled by their pal Assad.

If Hollande or anyone else has a better solution, do tell.

Iraq was largely under control and at a low ebb in violence when the U.S. left in 2011 which was a mistake. ISIS occurred after the United States left. Afghanistan continues to function and maintains control of all 34 provincial capitals, the U.S. role is limited with 10,000 troops. Ironically right now, Afghanistan is more successful then Iraq which has two of its 18 provincial capitals under control of ISIS.

There is more the United States can do. ISIS will not go away on its own. I wonder how many minds will change here if tomorrow or next week there is large scale terror attack in the United States.

 

[NYcarbineer]

ISIS has already been rolled back by 25% of their maximum land holdings. If NATO or the UN decides to put together a force,

we should honor our treaty obligations, but no more.

Would you still feel that way if 6 months from now ISIS successfully attacks the Washington D.C. Subway system with sarin gas or anthrax killing 100,000 people? Do you really want to wait and risk thousands of U.S. lives because you want some procedural process. Is that how you would go about defending your home or one of your family members if you were attacked personally?

So you don't want to honor our treaty obligations? You're confused.

 

[U2Edge]

Syria .... bet there's a couple of ISIS thugs in there. Betcha 50,000 American soldiers can find them.

Betcha more of those 50,000 US soldiers would die in the first months than the 129 the terrorist killed in France. It will just boost terrorist recruitment unless we spend $15 trillion & 20,000 American lives to occupy it for next 20-30 years. France doesn't even want to send ground troops & has not asked the UN, EU or USA to send ground troops.

I'm willing to bet it would be less than that and you would not have to occupy the whole area, simply give it back to the legitimate government and closely support it. If the United States had not withdrawn its remaining 20,000 troops from Iraq in 2011, the ISIS take over of a third of a Iraq in June 2014 would not have happened and many of these terror attacks would have been prevented.

The United States is not doing all it can to eliminate ISIS and that puts U.S. citizens even in the United States at grave risk. I hope nothing happens and some how local forces are able to do the job, but that is irresponsible and risky from a security standpoint to do that. When you have a threat the size of ISIS you must use all your resources to weaken and reduce it and currently the United States is not doing that.

 

[U2Edge]

ISIS has already been rolled back by 25% of their maximum land holdings. If NATO or the UN decides to put together a force,

we should honor our treaty obligations, but no more.

Would you still feel that way if 6 months from now ISIS successfully attacks the Washington D.C. Subway system with sarin gas or anthrax killing 100,000 people? Do you really want to wait and risk thousands of U.S. lives because you want some procedural process. Is that how you would go about defending your home or one of your family members if you were attacked personally?

So you don't want to honor our treaty obligations? You're confused.

The United States has an obligation to use all means necessary to DEFEND ITSELF FROM ANY ATTACK. There is nothing in the UN CHARTER that says a country must asked for the right to defend itself.

Since you did not answer my question, it appears your just fine with watching 100,000 American civilians die in an Anthrax attack on the D.C. Subway. Wonderful.

 

[U2Edge]

Maybe we could wait and see how well our friends over there do before we start ordering more body bags.

Proximity breeds action, and those folks are a lot closer to the danger.
.

Its been 18 months and these are the results. How much longer do you want to wait? Are you waiting for an attack that kills 10,000 people in a U.S. city? Do you prefer that happened before doing something more?

 

[KissMy]

by the way when it comes to defense spending, the United States spent less on defense as a percentage of GDP the past 15 years than it spent on defense during the peacetime of the 1980s!

We exploded the debt & deficit with defense spending in the 1980's & every since. That is why the SS trust fund is empty. Now that money must be paid back. We can't compete with other nations while spending for the defense of the entire planet. Massive Defense spending is a huge noncompetitive tax burden.