Three Key Questions About War With ISIS

[TheGreatGatsby]

Obama s War Authorization Limits Ground Forces - Bloomberg View

Obama seems to be ratcheting up actions against ISIS.

From what I surmise without studying the issue in much depth, the new AUMF Obama will be proposing will:

* Allow various forms of support in the war against ISIS.
* Does not allow prolonged ground missions. Basically, no real fighting force on the ground to capture and sustain bases. I am assuming, air attacks are not prohibited.

Now then, I have three key questions for you guys:

1. Do you want to go to war with ISIS?
2. Do you think it is wise to go to war with ISIS while severely limiting ground capabilities?
3. Can we win this war with ISIS as basically a technical supporter and air strikes operations force for our 'allies'?

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Gonna answer the questions:

1. I do want to go to war with ISIS. I think that they're a great evil; and day in and day out, a great many people are dying at the hands of these barbarians.

2. My answer is yes and no.

I think if we have a president and legislature (and media) that is unwilling to make the strong case that ISIS is a great evil, then we won't have a nation that is willing to stomach what war really entails. I don't want to send soldiers into the field of operation for them to not have our great support as was arguably the case in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So, my answer is no in the sense that I question how effective we can really be without a sizeable ground force and having bases of operations.

But my answer is yes in that let's at least do something short of our nation really getting fully behind this war.

3. I think that winning depends on the strengths of our allies vs. strengths of ISIS. I've seen enough to at least be optimistic about it. How strong is ISIS. Obama called them the JV. Is that really true? I'd like to learn more about what their numbers are and what their strongholds, capabilities and geopolitical backings are.

 

[TooTall]

Gonna answer the questions:

1. I do want to go to war with ISIS. I think that they're a great evil; and day in and day out, a great many people are dying at the hands of these barbarians.

2. My answer is yes and no.

I think if we have a president and legislature (and media) that is unwilling to make the strong case that ISIS is a great evil, then we won't have a nation that is willing to stomach what war really entails. I don't want to send soldiers into the field of operation for them to not have our great support as was arguably the case in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So, my answer is no in the sense that I question how effective we can really be without a sizeable ground force and having bases of operations.

But my answer is yes in that let's at least do something short of our nation really getting fully behind this war.

3. I think that winning depends on the strengths of our allies vs. strengths of ISIS. I've seen enough to at least be optimistic about it. How strong is ISIS. Obama called them the JV. Is that really true? I'd like to learn more about what their numbers are and what their strongholds, capabilities and geopolitical backings are.

Obama will start by telling ISIS all of the things that he won't do. That is a certain way to never defeat them.

 

[High_Gravity]

1. I would have to say yes, the thing is after Iraq and Afghanistan the average American is very uneasy to get into another conflict, and the thing is if ISIS is destroyed, who gets their territory? are the Shia Militias in Iraq that came from Iran just going to pack up and go home after? I doubt it, theres alot of unanswered questions and I don't think we even know what our goal is here after the destruction of ISIS.
2. No, if you go to war all options have to be open. Limited war is what we have been doing for decades and it ties our hands behind our backs.
3. No, I don't think our allies in this fight have the muscle to totally eliminate ISIS. The Kurds have shown they are ferocious warriors but they are fighting with Soviet era weapons and without modern equipment they can only do so much, maybe if we get serious and arm them they can do it but even than sending Kurds into arab majority areas would be a PR nightmare, Arabs hate the Kurds. Some Arab armies willing to fight ISIS on the ground and get their hands dirty with support from us would be ideal but I dont know if any have the capability, most Arab armies are a joke.

 

[Iceweasel]

The primary problem is that it will be done like all the other military actions, political. Everything is political with these people, the military will not be able to do what it wants or needs to. The generals have not been happy with the WH micro-management.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

The primary problem is that it will be done like all the other military actions, political. Everything is political with these people, the military will not be able to do what it wants or needs to. The generals have not been happy with the WH micro-management.

We know this. But still looking for people to go on the record with their answers to the three questions. This thread is not for hedgers

 

[Penelope]

Do we have a vested interest in a Shia or Sunni Iraq? I know SA wants a Sunni, and ISSI is Sunni right, they use to have Iraq with Hussein, so it use to be Sunni.

I think the ME should take care of it . The Iraq army is much larger than ISIS and well fight for your land.

What are we suppose to do , take sides? We messed up Syria with trying to do a coup, so the Syria army is weak but its not our fight. Let it play out.

Sorry answer to #1 is NO so 2 and 3 are NA for me.

 

[Iceweasel]

The primary problem is that it will be done like all the other military actions, political. Everything is political with these people, the military will not be able to do what it wants or needs to. The generals have not been happy with the WH micro-management.

We know this. But still looking for people to go on the record with their answers to the three questions. This thread is not for hedgers

The hedger is in the White House. It should be obvious my answer is to let the military folks make the military decisions.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Obama s War Authorization Limits Ground Forces - Bloomberg View

Obama seems to be ratcheting up actions against ISIS.

From what I surmise without studying the issue in much depth, the new AUMF Obama will be proposing will:

* Allow various forms of support in the war against ISIS.
* Does not allow prolonged ground missions. Basically, no real fighting force on the ground to capture and sustain bases. I am assuming, air attacks are not prohibited.

Now then, I have three key questions for you guys:

1. Do you want to go to war with ISIS?
2. Do you think it is wise to go to war with ISIS while severely limiting ground capabilities?
3. Can we win this war with ISIS as basically a technical supporter and air strikes operations force for our 'allies'?

(1) -- NO. We have a very bad track record in wars ( since WWII ).
(2) -- NO. Either fight war as war, or stay at home.
(3) -- NO / MAYBE. It all depends on the extent in which we take part. A full all-out assault with everything we have, and the added support of allies, it's possible.

 

[aaronleland]

Gonna answer the questions:

1. I do want to go to war with ISIS. I think that they're a great evil; and day in and day out, a great many people are dying at the hands of these barbarians.

2. My answer is yes and no.

I think if we have a president and legislature (and media) that is unwilling to make the strong case that ISIS is a great evil, then we won't have a nation that is willing to stomach what war really entails. I don't want to send soldiers into the field of operation for them to not have our great support as was arguably the case in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So, my answer is no in the sense that I question how effective we can really be without a sizeable ground force and having bases of operations.

But my answer is yes in that let's at least do something short of our nation really getting fully behind this war.

3. I think that winning depends on the strengths of our allies vs. strengths of ISIS. I've seen enough to at least be optimistic about it. How strong is ISIS. Obama called them the JV. Is that really true? I'd like to learn more about what their numbers are and what their strongholds, capabilities and geopolitical backings are.

1. I agree completely that ISIS has to be taken out.

2. I disagree that we should send in any sizable ground forces. The current US-led coalition is unprecedented in it's makeup. Never before have we drawn so many Muslim countries to our side to fight other Muslims. If they are unable to settle this fight with their own ground forces then that region is hopeless. Our only other option would be entrenching ourselves in the Middle East for the rest of our country's history.

3. I am also optimistic based on the support of other Muslim countries. It may all be political, but the fact is that ISIS's presence in the region threatens the stability of these Muslim country's control. They will do anything they can to eliminate that threat.

In fairness to Obama for his "JV" comment, ISIS's lightning fast offensive in Iraq and Syria was unprecedented, and most likely unforeseen by anybody. Now that the threat is clear their advances have been slowed dramatically. I think it similar to the German blitzkrieg of WW2. You can take over a large amount of land in a small period of time, but maintaining control is another matter.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Obama will start by telling ISIS all of the things that he won't do. That is a certain way to never defeat them

They are already on the way to being defeated. Support our pilots and our intelligence officers and our sllies like the Peshmerga and the Iraqis willing to fight, and quit sending signals to the men of military age from the Islamic ME that idiot Republicans want to sendAmericans to do the ground fighting for them.

Stop it. Write to McCain and Lindsay Graham telling them to shut up about US ground combat troops. There must be 10 million military aged males of the Islamic faith in that region that need to show up at military training center and go fight the DAIISH terrorist scum that are a bigger threat to them and their families and property than they are to ours.

We'll cover the air above but this ground fight is theirs.

 

[TooTall]

Gonna answer the questions:

1. I do want to go to war with ISIS. I think that they're a great evil; and day in and day out, a great many people are dying at the hands of these barbarians.

2. My answer is yes and no.

I think if we have a president and legislature (and media) that is unwilling to make the strong case that ISIS is a great evil, then we won't have a nation that is willing to stomach what war really entails. I don't want to send soldiers into the field of operation for them to not have our great support as was arguably the case in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So, my answer is no in the sense that I question how effective we can really be without a sizeable ground force and having bases of operations.

But my answer is yes in that let's at least do something short of our nation really getting fully behind this war.

3. I think that winning depends on the strengths of our allies vs. strengths of ISIS. I've seen enough to at least be optimistic about it. How strong is ISIS. Obama called them the JV. Is that really true? I'd like to learn more about what their numbers are and what their strongholds, capabilities and geopolitical backings are.

1. I agree completely that ISIS has to be taken out.

2. I disagree that we should send in any sizable ground forces. The current US-led coalition is unprecedented in it's makeup. Never before have we drawn so many Muslim countries to our side to fight other Muslims. If they are unable to settle this fight with their own ground forces then that region is hopeless. Our only other option would be entrenching ourselves in the Middle East for the rest of our country's history.

3. I am also optimistic based on the support of other Muslim countries. It may all be political, but the fact is that ISIS's presence in the region threatens the stability of these Muslim country's control. They will do anything they can to eliminate that threat.

In fairness to Obama for his "JV" comment, ISIS's lightning fast offensive in Iraq and Syria was unprecedented, and most likely unforeseen by anybody. Now that the threat is clear their advances have been slowed dramatically. I think it similar to the German blitzkrieg of WW2. You can take over a large amount of land in a small period of time, but maintaining control is another matter.

3. The rise of ISIS was foreseen and predicted by a number of Generals and some Politicians. The only one that mattered that didn't foresee it is Obama. He didn't want to see or hear it because leaving Iraq was one of his talking points to get reelected.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

TT 10729928

3. The rise of ISIS was foreseen and predicted by a number of Generals and some Politicians. The only one that mattered that didn't foresee it is Obama. He didn't want to see or hear it because leaving Iraq was one of his talking points to get reelected.

Name one general or politician who foresaw and predicted the rise of ISIS prior to their breakup with al Qaeda. You must have some quotes prior to the rise that you are basing your latest screed against President Obama.

And when you provide a name and a statement from a particular such enlightened soul there will be some questions about it that I will want to ask you.

 

[aaronleland]

Gonna answer the questions:

1. I do want to go to war with ISIS. I think that they're a great evil; and day in and day out, a great many people are dying at the hands of these barbarians.

2. My answer is yes and no.

I think if we have a president and legislature (and media) that is unwilling to make the strong case that ISIS is a great evil, then we won't have a nation that is willing to stomach what war really entails. I don't want to send soldiers into the field of operation for them to not have our great support as was arguably the case in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So, my answer is no in the sense that I question how effective we can really be without a sizeable ground force and having bases of operations.

But my answer is yes in that let's at least do something short of our nation really getting fully behind this war.

3. I think that winning depends on the strengths of our allies vs. strengths of ISIS. I've seen enough to at least be optimistic about it. How strong is ISIS. Obama called them the JV. Is that really true? I'd like to learn more about what their numbers are and what their strongholds, capabilities and geopolitical backings are.

1. I agree completely that ISIS has to be taken out.

2. I disagree that we should send in any sizable ground forces. The current US-led coalition is unprecedented in it's makeup. Never before have we drawn so many Muslim countries to our side to fight other Muslims. If they are unable to settle this fight with their own ground forces then that region is hopeless. Our only other option would be entrenching ourselves in the Middle East for the rest of our country's history.

3. I am also optimistic based on the support of other Muslim countries. It may all be political, but the fact is that ISIS's presence in the region threatens the stability of these Muslim country's control. They will do anything they can to eliminate that threat.

In fairness to Obama for his "JV" comment, ISIS's lightning fast offensive in Iraq and Syria was unprecedented, and most likely unforeseen by anybody. Now that the threat is clear their advances have been slowed dramatically. I think it similar to the German blitzkrieg of WW2. You can take over a large amount of land in a small period of time, but maintaining control is another matter.

3. The rise of ISIS was foreseen and predicted by a number of Generals and some Politicians. The only one that mattered that didn't foresee it is Obama. He didn't want to see or hear it because leaving Iraq was one of his talking points to get reelected.

Can you link to any generals or politicians who predicted that a group of terrorists would take over vast regions of two countries in a matter of a few months? Did the leaders of these Muslim countries fighting ISIS not get the memo?

 

[aaronleland]

TT 10729928

3. The rise of ISIS was foreseen and predicted by a number of Generals and some Politicians. The only one that mattered that didn't foresee it is Obama. He didn't want to see or hear it because leaving Iraq was one of his talking points to get reelected.

Name one general or politician who foresaw and predicted the rise of ISIS prior to their breakup with al Qaeda. You must have some quotes prior to the rise that you are basing your latest screed against President Obama.

And when you provide a name and a statement from a particular such enlightened soul there will be some questions about it that I will want to ask you.

You beat me to it by seconds.

I hate you.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

This is not our war. Obama has been correct in the US giving air support, drone attacks, leading the 60+ countries whose war it is.

The right is pushing hard for a ground war and won't be happy until there are thousands of dead Americans to blame on Obama. Sadly, some Americans agree with this but mostly because its an opportunity to disagree with the president.

Kill off ISIS and more will follow. We've seen that already and there's no reason to believe it won't happen again and again.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Its been a surprise to me to see how many here have posted that they believe the US (President Obama) has done little or nothing in the fight against ISIS.

Another example of willful ignorance.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

TGG 10729296

1. Do you want to go to war with ISIS?

If one does not ''want to go to war with DAIISH terrorist scum it is way too late to stop or deny it from happening. We have been at war with all forms of terrorist scum since the invasion of Afghanistan early in 2002. The DAIISH terrorist scum were mostly identified as Taliban and al Qaeda and located primarily in Afghanistan and what was known as the lawless regions in Pakistan all along the Afghan border with Pakistan.

The US military operation into Afghanistan was justified as our inherent right to self defense in response to the attacks on 9/11/2001. That was a war against DAIISH. We have been at war with DAIISH terrorist scum ever since.

The invasion of Iraq was an aberration from our war against DAIISH terrorist scum because there were no terrorist scum in Iraq where Saddam Hussein had control and military authority inside Iraq's borders.

So your question needs to be fine tuned to read:

1. Do you want the US war against DAIISH terrorist scum to continue?

My answer to that is hell yes.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Obama s War Authorization Limits Ground Forces - Bloomberg View

Obama seems to be ratcheting up actions against ISIS.

From what I surmise without studying the issue in much depth, the new AUMF Obama will be proposing will:

* Allow various forms of support in the war against ISIS.
* Does not allow prolonged ground missions. Basically, no real fighting force on the ground to capture and sustain bases. I am assuming, air attacks are not prohibited.

Now then, I have three key questions for you guys:

1. Do you want to go to war with ISIS?
2. Do you think it is wise to go to war with ISIS while severely limiting ground capabilities?
3. Can we win this war with ISIS as basically a technical supporter and air strikes operations force for our 'allies'?

The mistake you and most others on the right make is to incorrectly perceive 'ISIS' as some sort of entity that can be dealt with using a conventional military force.

It isn't.

Indeed, should the United States attempt to attack ISIS, its fighters will simply return to their home towns and villages and reconstitute once the American military is gone. ISIS is the consequence of civil war in Syria and political instability in Iraq; consequently resolution can be brought about only through political means, not military, at least as far as the United States is concerned.

And most important, it is not the United States' responsibility alone to deal with ISIS, Americans must never again die pointlessly in the ME, the United States may offer arms, supplies, and intelligence to regional partners who must bear the greater responsible for addressing ISIS.

Last, this isn't 'our' war, this isn't something 'we're' compelled to 'win,' and this isn't anything the Nation must 'get behind.' It's not 1944, ISIS is not the Nazis, and Syria and Iraq are not Belgium and France; what you're advocating is yet another failed American war in Asia.

It's truly remarkable how most conservatives fail to learn from history, and how willing they are to throw away American lives.

 

[Kondor3]

Time to give the place back to Britain and France as an open-ended Mandate.

They haven't had any Colonial or Imperial fun in a while, and, I mean, c'mon, it's just Camel Jockeys.