Three Key Questions About War With ISIS

[hortysir]

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.

That's how I'm feeling about it.
When I first heard the President was asking for additional war powers I was like, "Cool....finally....thank you"
But is it because the polls (i.e.advisers) told him to? Because we've finally managed to convince him to do Something?
Is it just political posturing on his part just so he can say, "See? I did something" (however limited it may be) so when the shit hits the fan later it's not on him?
I'm hopeful that this is a good move but I can't help but be skeptical

 

[Iceweasel]

That's how I'm feeling about it.
When I first heard the President was asking for additional war powers I was like, "Cool....finally....thank you"
But is it because the polls (i.e.advisers) told him to? Because we've finally managed to convince him to do Something?
Is it just political posturing on his part just so he can say, "See? I did something" (however limited it may be) so when the shit hits the fan later it's not on him?
I'm hopeful that this is a good move but I can't help but be skeptical

My hope ran out years ago. He's got a pretty steady track record of seeing everything through political agenda driven goggles.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

aaron 10730100

You beat me to it by seconds.

Do you think TooTall will provide his source or run. This will be fun to watch.

Great informed minds think alike.

 

[Moonglow]

Syria does not want US ground troops...Iraq does not want US ground troops..Until these two nations decide to let us in with ground troops our hands are tied....

 

[NotfooledbyW]

horty 10730100

Is it just political posturing on his part just so he can say, "See? I did something" (however limited it may be) so when the shit hits the fan later it's not on him?

What shit do you think is going to hit what fan where? Seriously. Can you explain what you mean by that?

 

[hortysir]

horty 10730100

Is it just political posturing on his part just so he can say, "See? I did something" (however limited it may be) so when the shit hits the fan later it's not on him?

What shit do you think is going to hit what fan where? Seriously. Can you explain what you mean by that?

If we can't hit them hard enough or hurt them bad enough and we wind up with another 9/11, for example.
These cockroaches are spreading and, unless/until we cut their legs off, they're going to continue to spread.
I don't see it happening anytime soon. I think they're still too splintered. But, then again, we didn't see that beautiful Tuesday morning turning to shit so quickly either.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

TGG 10729402

1. I do want to go to war with ISIS.

Do you mean that you want the war against DAIISH terrorist scum to continue?

For instance: Just yesterday Peshmerga forces seized three strategic bridgeheads on the west bank of the Tigris River, north of Mosul. Do you understand the importance of the locations of those bridgeheads in formerly held DAIISH areas? Do you think Mosul is being surrounded by the good guys?

. Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve

February 9, 2015Release # 20150209.1 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

ISIL Pushed from Bridgeheads North of Mosul

SOUTHWEST ASIA – Combined Joint Task Force-Operation Inherent Resolve delivered precise and effective airstrikes on enemy positions near Mosul, in support of the Iraqi Government’s fight against ISIL. Security Forces from the Kurdish region seized three bridgeheads on the west bank of the Tigris River, north of Mosul in formerly held Daesh areas.

Do you want these types of operations to continue or do you want to join the right wing piss fest on Obama that he does not talk about DAIISH terrorist scum in some kind of McCainly-Bushly manly ballsy way.

Should we hold off the air strikes and Peshmerga and Iraqi Army until the US president and legislature (and media) make a strong enough case that ISIS is a great evil so we have a nation that is willing to stomach what war really entails?

Or should we keep doing what we've been doing? Failure is not an option.

 

[aaronleland]

aaron 10730100

You beat me to it by seconds.

Do you think TooTall will provide his source or run. This will be fun to watch.

Great informed minds think alike.

I doubt he will respond to either of our posts, if he returns to this thread at all.

 

[sealybobo]

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'?

I think Iraq Saudi Arabia and all the rest need to defeat isis or they'll be taken over. We can't put boots on the ground unless you are talking about special ops. Small elite fighting units we fly in for special missions.

I like using satellite technology and unmanned drones.

The rest of the world can send troops. Why us?

 

[Manonthestreet]

what coalition??? This Admin doesnt know first thing about war and considers global warming a bigger threat.I am not in favor of them doing anything. Shut it down and wait and see what the next Admin is. These are not serious people.

 

[Moonglow]

what coalition??? This Admin doesnt know first thing about war and considers global warming a bigger threat.I am not in favor of them doing anything. Shut it down and wait and see what the next Admin is. These are not serious people.

Derp says huh?
Even the UAE started bombing again,,try to stay up with current events....

 

[Manonthestreet]

Playing pitch and toss more like...I dont think Jordan or UAE have proper targeting capability.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

horty 10730702

If we can't hit them hard enough or hurt them bad enough and we wind up with another 9/11, for example.

So do you have a matrix developed which shows the number and timeline that DAIISH terrorist scum must be hit hard enough and hurt bad enough so that Obama can rest 'politically' assured that we don't wind up with another 9/11 which US rightwingers would shamefully blame not on the DAIISH terrorist scum but on President Obama? Does your matrix require 10,000 US troops engaged in ground combat or 50,000 or 500,000 so Obama can't be blamed for a 9/11 similar terrorist attack?

Or are you opposed to sending US troops to a combat role inside Iraq and Syria?

 

[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.

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.

I wish it were that simple. Obama funded the Syrian rebels (ISIS). He's known what they're about.

 

[sealybobo]

what coalition??? This Admin doesnt know first thing about war and considers global warming a bigger threat.I am not in favor of them doing anything. Shut it down and wait and see what the next Admin is. These are not serious people.

Your side would drag Iran into it. In fact I watch religion TV and they sound just as worried about Iran today as McCain was in 2008.

In fact I'm sure the GOP wants to war with Iran. Is that your plan?

 

[aaronleland]

Playing pitch and toss more like...I dont think Jordan or UAE have proper targeting capability.

The UAE and Jordan receive significant support from the U.S. government. They probably have targeting systems closely similar to ours, and you are footing the bill.

 

[hortysir]

horty 10730702

If we can't hit them hard enough or hurt them bad enough and we wind up with another 9/11, for example.

So do you have a matrix developed which shows the number and timeline that DAIISH terrorist scum must be hit hard enough and hurt bad enough so that Obama can rest 'politically' assured that we don't wind up with another 9/11 which US rightwingers would shamefully blame not on the DAIISH terrorist scum but on President Obama. Does your matrix require 10,000 US troops engaged in ground combat or 50,000 or 500,000 so Obama can't be blamed for a 9/11 similar terrorist attack?

Or are you opposed to sending US troops to a combat role inside Iraq and Syria?

Have I claimed to be a military strategist or a member of the Joint Chiefs?
All I can do is hope we annihilate them or, at the very least, cripple them to the point that they're not a threat to any peace-loving people.
IMO ground troops should only be a last resort and then only the exact number needed and not one more than necessary

 

[Manonthestreet]

Playing pitch and toss more like...I dont think Jordan or UAE have proper targeting capability.

The UAE and Jordan receive significant support from the U.S. government. They probably have targeting systems closely similar to ours, and you are footing the bill.

No they do not.Jordan raid pics show vast majority of what they dropped was unguided dumb bombs.

 

[Manonthestreet]

what coalition??? This Admin doesnt know first thing about war and considers global warming a bigger threat.I am not in favor of them doing anything. Shut it down and wait and see what the next Admin is. These are not serious people.

Your side would drag Iran into it. In fact I watch religion TV and they sound just as worried about Iran today as McCain was in 2008.

In fact I'm sure the GOP wants to war with Iran. Is that your plan?

My Plan??? I think I said I dont trust people who think global warming is bigger threat shut it down........Obamas plan is delay until Iran has the bomb if they dont alrdy.

 

[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.

I wish it were that simple. Obama funded the Syrian rebels (ISIS). He's known what they're about.

Do you have sources to where the U.S. funded ISIS? There are many rebel groups in Syria, and one of the most prominent are the Kurdish soldiers fighting ISIS. I'm not doubting what you say. It wouldn't be the first time we funded groups we later deemed terrorists.