Guest shiloh357 Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 So common sense is to attack strictly ISIS but not Assad in Syria, when ISIS (who recruits soldiers very, very fast) uses the fight against Assad, a brutal dictator, as one of their primary recruiting tools? ISIS is looking to create a caliphate which means they have to overthrow Assad. So us attacking ISIS works in Assad's favor. Assad has already allowed the US to commit airstrikes inside Syria against ISIS. Unfortunately the president won't listen to experienced military leaders who have advised him that we need ground troops because the air strikes alone are doing the job, as evidence by the fact that ISIS is still on the attack in Kobani. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 "There is only one realistic way to tackle the ideology of the Islamic State, and that is to inflict military defeat after military defeat." —Col. Richard Kemp, former commander of British ground forces, Afghanistan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burning_Ember Posted October 10, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 21 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,009 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 100 Days Won: 3 Joined: 09/20/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted October 10, 2014 You really haven't illustrated a plan other than send ground troops to deal with this. How many ground troops do you need? What specifically is the goal for those forces? Are they tasked with taking land or just shooting at ISIS? How long are they supposed to be there? Perhaps most important, what are the negative effects sending troops? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 You really haven't illustrated a plan other than send ground troops to deal with this. How many ground troops do you need? What specifically is the goal for those forces? Are they tasked with taking land or just shooting at ISIS? How long are they supposed to be there? Perhaps most important, what are the negative effects sending troops? I do know this. The airstrikes on ISIS are doing no good at all. You can't take and hold ground from the air. The only way to stop ISIS is to get a sufficient number of troops including artillery and armor on the ground with the capability of neutralizing the ISIS threat. ISIS numbers about 30,000 at last count. We would want to go in with overwhelming force and mow them under. We want to go in with such ferocity that they despair of further conflict And then we need to leave a residual force there to make sure those cockroaches don't raise their ugly Islamic heads again. Something our current administration was too stupid to do in the first place. We would leave troops there just like we have troops in Germany and Japan and Korea that have been there since the 40s and 50s. Perhaps most important, what are the negative effects sending troops? Seriously???? The "negative effects of sending troops??? You are kidding??? Look at what happened when there wasn't any troops over there. The negative effects of not having troops over there is worse now than what will happen if we send forces over there and leave some of them there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustinM Posted October 14, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 144 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,512 Content Per Day: 0.68 Reputation: 625 Days Won: 10 Joined: 04/11/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/07/1979 Share Posted October 14, 2014 As long as PBHO is CiC and refuses to listen to his military advisers, I don't want any of our troops sent over there to fight. He will end up getting many of them killed for no reason. We shouldn't go to war with ISIS unless the ROE's are changed, and the goal is complete annihilation of the enemy, and no nation buildling. We must completely surround Iraq and lock it down. Which means cooperation with Syria, Iran, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. If we can't get their full cooperation, then there's no point in deploying our infantry there. ISIS will just hide out in Syria, or Iran and hit us on their terms, then cross back over the borders into safety. The Iraqi military are cowards. You can't teach an army like this to be valiant or brave in battle. They have no legacy of valor to remember, or tradition of honor to uphold. In the last 40 years, the Iraqi military has only seen defeat by their enemies, so of course they run, when they believe that defeat is inevitable. it is easier for a professional soldier to be courageous when facing an enemy like ISIS. The soldier knows ISIS takes no prisoners, so a soldier that knows this, fights as if they have nothing to lose, too bad the Iraqis haven't figured this out yet. They could have stopped them. Our soldiers fight bravely in places they have no stake in. Imagine if we had something like ISIS tearing through the countryside, wiping out entire villages, men, women, children. I think every man in this country would take up arms against them and wipe them out in no time. I also believe, for this reason, the islamists in our country, that want to fight the "infidels," do it over there. They know they wouldn't stand a chance here in the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts