You know better than that. Once you start a war you cannot control its progress. We’ve been very lucky so far. The Reagan-Bush 41 policy is actually the correct way to wage war. Clear mission, properly resourced, don’t start a war unless you intend to win it. The Democrats throw bombs around like it’s not even a “real” war, but when it doesn’t get results things tend to take on a life of their own. As witnessed by our steadily increasing ground commitment in Iraq and Syria. Bet Obama didn’t plan on that when he started bombing. Unless Clinton intends to run, she won’t actually have a choice: she’ll be forced to commit the troops needed to get the job done.
This is more of the same fantasy – that troops enmeshed in Middle East sectarian conflicts can “get the job done” – newsflash, they can’t, at least not without a never-ending commitment. She won’t be “forced” to do anything – it’s always a choice. A choice to get Americans killed for nothing, or not.
If we go in with ground troops to try and defeat ISIL, we lose, end of story. There’s no version of that scenario that, in 5 or ten years or more, doesn’t have lots more Americans killed and even more strife in the region. American troops in the region will only make it worse in the medium and long term, especially for us. And even more especially for those thousands of Americans (and their families) killed for nothing.
It continues to boggle the mind that anyone can rationally believe that American troops would make the situation better. Kind of like how anyone can believe that “the Surge worked” – the Surge was a failure, just slightly less colossal of a failure than the pre-surge strategy. Americans were still dying by the score every month – just fewer scores than before. They were still dying for nothing.
We’ve had this argument quite a few times, and you could be right. But the decision to go to war with ISIS was a decision to go to war with ISIS. Clinton isn’t running from that fight. Obama isn’t running from that fight. He’s very reluctantly escalating, but escalating he is.
You seem to think that there’s a way to walk back a war. Only if you’re local allies can handle the fight. And how often has that ever happened?
I don’t accept that this is between winning and losing. There’s no way for us to win by force. Even destroying ISIL wouldn’t be a victory, since we’d have to stay there for decades, and lose thousands more American lives, to prevent a new version from rising. Like the movie, the only way to win is not to play.
You might be right. But we got involved. Bombs didn’t work, so then it was bombs + special forces. That didn’t work, so now it’s bombs+special forces+ “support” troops. I’m sure you’ve seen this movie before. Fortunately, ISIS is not the Viet Cong, so we may win with what we’ve got over there now. Things are starting to go better. But if it takes more to get the job done, it’s going to happen and I think you know that. The time to decide was before the first bomb was dropped. Once a war is started, it goes how it goes.
It’s not how it needs to go. Escalation is a choice, not an inevitability, and it will get my friends killed for nothing if ground troops en masse get involved.
Unfortunately this is no movie and we don’t get the option of winning by not playing. “Not playing” has serious and negative impacts on us and the world as well.
Agreed 100% that winning/losing is less the issue than choosing the most likely least poor option.
Probably neither all in with ground troops or complete disengagement are that least poor option.
It’s not really a choice, unless the war means nothing. Historically, the only time we’ve ever been able to cut and run is when we’re doing peacekeeping or humanitarian missions. Things get hot, we leave. Even those have had costs to our credibility, which provokes our enemies.
But this is a real war. Not only would retreating be our first real defeat since Vietnam, it would also, like Vietnam, leave our allies to die. Except it’s worse this time, because our allies are fighting mainly because we’re urging them on with our promises. The Kurds just want to defend their territory. The Shiites just want to defend their territory. You think they want to be fighting street by street in Fallujah right now? And we’re just going to abandon them?
Then there are the poiltical realities. Clinton is not going to lose a war.
I reject pretty much every assertion in this post. I think you’re wrong about almost everything on ISIL.
And what you advocate would cause us much, much worse of a “loss” than not doing so.
That’s the needle the President is trying to thread now, but I don’t think he realized when he started this intervention that his options are limited. As long as our local allies fight credibly, the strategy qualifies as the “least bad” option.
But what happens if they get routed, and ISIS starts advancing towards Baghdad and Beirut, with no credible opposition to stop them on the ground? We went to war with half a million troops to defend Kuwait. You think we’d actually let them take the far more strategic Iraq?
What if I told you that retreating would mean a certain Republican victory in the next Presidential election? Because it would.
I don’t believe that it would, but even if it would I’m against sacrificing American lives for political advantage, so it wouldn’t change my opinion at all.
To me, your views show an incredible disregard for the lives of my friends and the rest of the American military.
Far less negative impact than getting more involved would, especially for the thousands of Americans who would die.
I’m skeptical, but it’s a far better option than ground troops en masse.
The only situation that would justify large commitment of ground troops would be if our local allies were routed and ISIS was advancing on Baghdad, Damascus, and Beirut, as well as threatening the Kurds.
No President is going to allow that to happen.
They don’t remain silent on domestic policy.
Clarence Thomas is reportedly considering retiring after the election
Clinton could potentially be appointing replacements for Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg and Thomas, stocking the court with young liberal justices. Republicans would, of course, try and obstruct but if there’s a Democratic Senate I could see the rules quickly rewritten.
That would be a very good thing for the prosperity and productivity of our economy.
Hillary has a 100%-0% advertising spending edge in battleground states.
In 2012, it was Obama 54%, Romney 46%.
Trump has no campaign.
May the trend continue!
That is just amazing.