Yes. OK, maybe just stupid, the invasion of Iraq was idiotic. Never be afraid to ask, we’re here to help.
So if the problem is execution as far as ground wars go, then we just need to do it smarter.
BTW, for those saying our allies aren’t putting enough skin in the game, our allies are doing all the dying on the ground. There’s a very intense ground war going on, we’re just not the ones fighting that part of it yet. But if our allies falter, ISIS will not be allowed to roll through Kurdistan, Syria, Iraq and Jordan.
Have noticed. Wholeheartedly approve.
In my view, all war should be total war – automatic institution of the draft, change the industrial base to support the war effort, rationing, etc. Not only would this make frivolous war far, far less likely, it would make potential enemies truly fearful – a real attack would result in the entire capacity (military, industry, etc.) of the United States coming at them.
In practice this would mean something like a Constitutional amendment that the President can authorize force for up to 60 days or so on his own, but beyond that Congress must declare war (resulting automatically in a draft, war footing, etc.) or else all military assets must come home.
The problem is a lot more than execution. There’s nothing that can ‘save’ a decision to enter a ground war of choice – even good execution will result in a bad outcome (though “bad” could easily get much worse).
You take the idea that the problem with the Afghanistan war was the execution and conclude that a completely different war with a different enemy in two different countries with different allies and different countries opposed is smart?
Your logic is so flawed that it’s stunning. You’re like Smapti when talking about the police or suicide. Bringing up Afghanistan is unrelated to ISIS. It’s a complete non-sequitor.
Hey guys, we could have done better in Afghanistan, that means that invading Canada is smart if we do it right!
Hmmm. Naturally, I’m inclined to dismiss this idea out of hand, but perhaps we should not be too hasty…
The “real enemy” they were talking about was the one that attacked us on 9-11 – al Qaeda, not ISIS. Right now it seems that the primary threat ISIS poses to the U.S. is their ability to inspire “lone wolf” style attacks. Maybe we shouldn’t be helping them to do that?
At any rate, what’s your goal here – get the fewest American’s killed? Are you really thinking right now that getting engaged in a full-scale ground war in Syria will result in fewer American deaths than the Obama administration’s current approach?
If the goal were to help the people of Syria and Iraq while keeping the risk to Americans relatively light, the best thing to do would probably be to accept large numbers of refugees, but I know you’re opposed to that.
How much did we save by going into Iraq early?
There was wide disagreement about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. There is none, at least in the places that matter, about the threat poised by ISIS.
And in any case, it’s irrelevant. We are at war with ISIS. That choice was made while most of you were napping. Unlike Iraq, which involved a long debate and buildup, the President decided pretty much overnight to go to war with ISIS and there wasn’t a peep of protest. So that particular debate is over. The debate now is how best to fight the war against ISIS. Does anyone think the current strategy is the best one?
Oh, and since this thread is actually about the coming election and not necessarily about the war itself, I’d note that Democrats are going to have a hard time being taken seriously on national security if they won’t even acknowledge that we’re at war. and pretend that we have all the options that we had before we started this war. The Democrats are strongest when they are the reality-based party. When talking about ISIS, they sound like Republicans talking about global warming.
Saddam posed no threat to the US, and a moderate threat to the region (and a huge threat to anyone with the misfortune of living under his rule). ISIS poses no threat to the US and a moderate threat to the region (and a huge threat to anyone living under their rule).
No – the best one would be to back off entirely and push others in the region to do the fighting. Our involvement strengthens extremists, unless we’re just supporting an effort led by regional actors. A ground invasion would be an incredible victory for extremists – just what they’re asking for, and with all the Arab men and women that would be killed by American weapons, recruiting and sympathy for the terrorists would go through the roof.
Your strategy weakens America, loses incredible ground in the war against extremists, and strengthens the terrorists.
The Republicans have successfully stoked some amount of fear of ISIS, despite the fact that ISIS has zero reach beyond their territory (aside from copy cats and wannabes with guns). And going to war on the ground with ISIS would just inspire more of these copy cats and wannabes, not less – if we get into a ground war in the region, we’ll see more San Bernadino type attacks. More dead bodies, abroad and at home – that’s what your strategy would bring.
Don’t forget raising taxes to pay for the war. Especially taxes on corporations & the very rich.
None of this cutting taxes, then starting two “wars.”
And it doesn’t bother you that we never got a chance to debate this? At least with Iraq we did. With ISIS, we just woke up and we were at war.
I’m not sure why that matters. Everyone knows who backs those fighting ISIS: The West and the US, and they probably assume Israel as well.
That’s happening right now, just less efficiently since our allies aren’t as good at this as we are.
The Republicans didn’t go to the UN and declare ISIS a serious threat. That was the President.
Yeah, sure – I wish we were totally out, except for logistical support and possibly very occasional targeted missions (not that there was any real debate with Iraq).
It’s quite different when the bombs and soldiers are American.
It’s happening a lot less than it would with a ground invasion, and I wish it was happening even less.
That was hyperbolic political rhetoric. ISIS is a serious threat to those under them and around them, and that’s it. They pose no threat to the US, and virtually no threat to Europe. Maybe a bit of threat to Turkey and Iran, but not much.
Paris found out otherwise. Yes, they were French and Belgian citizens, but many had gone to Syria for training. Which is exactly the threat the President mentioned in his UN speech.
A ground invasion from the US would make that threat far, far worse. “Fighting them there so we don’t fight them here” is bullshit and always has been – fighting them over there, especially on the ground, just increases resentment and the likelihood of copycat/lone-wolf/terrorist-inspired attacks.
If the President says differently he’s wrong (or saying so for political reasons).
The President has only said about a ground war that a) it’s what ISIS wants, and b) occupation would be a mistake.
But he does not make a distinction between fighting them on the ground and bombing them as far as their perception of the war. An American bomb not only kills the same as an American rifle or tank, it also makes us seem like we’re afraid. I’m sure that’s the propaganda they use, anyway.
They’ll use propaganda no matter what we do. But it will be much more effective if 1) they’re actually killing American soldiers and 2) if mass civilian casualties can be blamed on the US. Both are far more likely with a US ground invasion.
They’ll get American soldiers. How many died in Vietnam before we officially committed ground troops? Special forces, advisors, and pilots are at risk, and if they get into serious trouble that’s when things can really escalate.
“…and in the early morning hours, ISIS torpedo boats launched several high-explosive Islamic torpedoes, but the camels all drowned before they could swim close enough to detonate…”