# ISIS captures Ramadi...now what? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 18, 2015, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isis-captures-ramadi-now-what/720328 "2015-05-18T21:30:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2015, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isis-captures-ramadi-now-what/720328/21 "2015-05-19T18:57:46Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Success is relative, but I’ll see no Americans dying and no hundreds-of-billions wasted as a big “success”. No, that’s not what success looks like. We could have “accomplished” that by doing nothing. Success looks like accomplishing your objectives. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2015, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isis-captures-ramadi-now-what/720328/22 "2015-05-19T19:06:55Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > No, that’s not what success looks like. We could have “accomplished” that by doing nothing. Success looks like accomplishing your objectives. Says you. It depends on the objectives, and depends on the cost, according to me. I’ll agree that, compared to what actually happened, a “successful” Iraq policy in the aughts would have been to do nothing. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2015, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isis-captures-ramadi-now-what/720328/23 "2015-05-19T19:13:40Z")
Maybe it would be a useful exercise to identify the people who thought the US efforts so far would have prevented something like this, and then stop listening to the advice of such people with regard to Iraq. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2015, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isis-captures-ramadi-now-what/720328/24 "2015-05-19T19:38:46Z")
He’ll be out of office in a couple of years anyway. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2015, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isis-captures-ramadi-now-what/720328/25 "2015-05-19T19:40:38Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Says you. It depends on the objectives, and depends on the cost, according to me. > > I’ll agree that, compared to what actually happened, a “successful” Iraq policy in the aughts would have been to do nothing. We’re not talking about “the aughts”-- we’re talking about Obama’s policy in the last year or so of dealing with the so-called Islamic State. If you absolutely must remind us how Obama is better then Bush, fine. Remind us and let’s get that over with. But pretending that a policy can be called successful if it doesn’t accomplish it’s objectives is rather silly. Obama’s policy is geared toward degrading and destroying the so-called Islamic State. It may be too early to judge it’s success, but I was responding to someone who said the strategy “was working”. If you’d prefer, I’ll change my comment to “If this is what it looks like when it’s working, I’d hate to see what ‘not working’ would look like”. And I think we can be certain that the poster in question was referring to the actual strategy Obama put in place, not a strategy that you or I might wish he had put in place. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2015, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isis-captures-ramadi-now-what/720328/26 "2015-05-19T19:53:59Z")
What if his policy is “Degrade and destroy ISIS but for God’s sake don’t send American ground troops no matter what”? Then “Have you sent ground troops yet?” means we still have success, even if ISIS captures Damascus and Baghdad and Mecca. Will I have a sad if ISIS captures Baghdad? Yes, that will be terrible. Does that mean I think we should send ground troops to Iraq to prevent it? No I do not. We already stuck our dick in the meatgrinder once, I don’t think sticking our dick in again is such a good idea. Even if it means all that we accomplished by the first dick-meat-grindering turns out to be a complete waste that doesn’t mean further dick-meat-grindering is a good idea. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2015, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isis-captures-ramadi-now-what/720328/27 "2015-05-19T20:01:55Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > What if his policy is “Degrade and destroy ISIS but for God’s sake don’t send American ground troops no matter what”? > > Then “Have you sent ground troops yet?” means we still have success, even if ISIS captures Damascus and Baghdad and Mecca. Then it appears that success just means that no American ground troops are involved, and the first clause of the policy has no meaning. If ISIS captures Mecca and Baghdad and Damascus, then they haven’t been degraded or destroyed very successfully. Suppose they do capture Baghdad and Damascus. Then, along with Iran, they attack Israel and nuclear war breaks out in the Middle East. Do we have success then? Assume no US ground troops were involved. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2015, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isis-captures-ramadi-now-what/720328/28 "2015-05-19T20:04:25Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > What if his policy is “Degrade and destroy ISIS but for God’s sake don’t send American ground troops no matter what”? > > Then “Have you sent ground troops yet?” means we still have success, even if ISIS captures Damascus and Baghdad and Mecca. What makes you think that is his policy, since that’s not what he told us. No, I prefer to use what he told us he would do. “Not sending in ground troops” is a tactic, not a goal to be accomplished. And even if it were, then I still wouldn’t call that a success. Wow, he was “successful” in restraining himself from sending in ground troops. BFD. You might as well add: and make sure I remember to send Sasha a birthday card. Did Obama send her a birthday card? Yes. Success!!! ---
**Author:** ![rock\_party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e19b73/32.png) [@rock\_party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rock_party)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2015, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isis-captures-ramadi-now-what/720328/29 "2015-05-19T20:04:39Z")
> [@](#): > > “If this is what it looks like when it’s working, I’d hate to see what ‘not working’ would look like”. “Not working” looks like Iraq before the surge. You remember. When we had 120,000 troops there and Brittan had about 20,000. And weekly roadside bombs, suicide bombers and IED’s were killing 30…40…50…of our troops on a regular basis. And we were spending more than a billion a week. That’s what “not working” looks like. ---
**Author:** ![Diceman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Diceman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diceman)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2015, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isis-captures-ramadi-now-what/720328/30 "2015-05-19T20:13:30Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > I see no reason to think this. I think it makes sense to train in various terrains, including desert, regardless of whether or not it’s for some specific future plan. I dunno. There seems to be a general agreement that Jade Helm is uncommonly large in scale. And this theory makes a lot more sense than the typical “OMG they’re gonna overthrow the government” stuff you normally hear. If Jade Helm really is a preparation for boots on the ground in Iraq, then Obama might as well switch his allegance to the Republican party, because the Democrats will probably expel him from the caucus. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2015, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isis-captures-ramadi-now-what/720328/31 "2015-05-19T20:13:33Z")
> [@rock\_party](#): > > “Not working” looks like Iraq before the surge. You remember. When we had 120,000 troops there and Brittan had about 20,000. And weekly roadside bombs, suicide bombers and IED’s were killing 30…40…50…of our troops on a regular basis. And we were spending more than a billion a week. That’s what “not working” looks like. No, that’s what ‘not working’ looked like when Bush was president and we were evaluating his policy. Bush is not president and this is not Bush’s policy we’re talking about. Is it that important that we not criticize Obama that every time someone does we have to get a “But Bush was so much worse!!” post? Agreed, Bush was so much worse. Great, now let’s talk about Obama. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2015, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isis-captures-ramadi-now-what/720328/32 "2015-05-19T20:21:00Z")
You’re missing the point, **John**. The argument is that Obama’s policy is working better than the alternative of sending in ground troops–we know how well that works because we just tried it recently. I’m not endorsing that argument, but your complaint about unnecessary invocation of 2005 is misplaced. ---
**Author:** ![rock\_party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e19b73/32.png) [@rock\_party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rock_party)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2015, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isis-captures-ramadi-now-what/720328/33 "2015-05-19T20:23:01Z")
Ok let’s. We want Obama to fix this. With some troops on the ground, but less, not more. And we definitely want less casualties. Not more. And we want him to spend less. Not more. And we want it done now. What the fuck, get it done Obama. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2015, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isis-captures-ramadi-now-what/720328/34 "2015-05-19T20:26:39Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > You’re missing the point, **John**. The argument is that Obama’s policy is working better than the alternative of sending in ground troops–we know how well that works because we just tried it recently. It’s “working better” if your only criterion of success is “we don’t have ground troops in Iraq”. If the criteria include things like “who controls Ramadi” then Obama’s policy is not working better. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2015, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isis-captures-ramadi-now-what/720328/35 "2015-05-19T20:31:17Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > It’s “working better” if your only criterion of success is “we don’t have ground troops in Iraq”. If the criteria include things like “who controls Ramadi” then Obama’s policy is not working better. I don’t know about you, but I think an intelligent Iraq policy would have lots of criteria for success. They would no doubt include who controls Ramadi in 2015, but also who is more likely to control it in 2025. It would include how many billions of dollars you want to spend sending young Americans to die in order to buy temporary stability for a broken and corrupt government. Stuff like that. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2015, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isis-captures-ramadi-now-what/720328/36 "2015-05-19T21:00:36Z")
> [@rock\_party](#): > > Ok let’s. > > We want Obama to fix this. With some troops on the ground, but less, not more. > > And we definitely want less casualties. Not more. > > And we want him to spend less. Not more. > > And we want it done now. > > What the fuck, get it done Obama. I don’t know about you, but I didn’t want Obama to try and fix this at all. I don’t think it’s fixable by us. Iraq has a political problem, and the insurgency is a symptom of that political problem. If the Sunni Arabs thought the government was doing good by them, they would not have allowed the so-called Islamic State to take hold in their territory in the first place. If the so-called Islamic State were to disappear tomorrow, the problem would still exist and we’d almost certainly see a new insurgency appear in short order. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2015, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isis-captures-ramadi-now-what/720328/37 "2015-05-19T21:43:55Z")
So OK John this is not a success. A success would involve the defeat of ISIS without significant input of US blood and treasure. A success may also include the end of bigotry, wold wide Democracy and ponies for everyone. The problem is that success in this situation was likely not possible. The only options were various greater or lesser forms of failure. With this in mind the statement “If this is what success looks like, I’d hate to see failure…” is not particularly constructive. As it suggests that if only things were done differently the failure could have been avoided. ---
**Author:** ![davida03801](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b5e925/32.png) [@davida03801](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davida03801)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2015, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isis-captures-ramadi-now-what/720328/38 "2015-05-19T22:21:43Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > You’re missing the point, **John**. The argument is that Obama’s policy … Obama has a policy ??? Escaped me. Can some one explain to me what it is ? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2015, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isis-captures-ramadi-now-what/720328/39 "2015-05-19T22:26:57Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > We’re not talking about “the aughts”-- we’re talking about Obama’s policy in the last year or so of dealing with the so-called Islamic State. If you absolutely must remind us how Obama is better then Bush, fine. Remind us and let’s get that over with. > > But pretending that a policy can be called successful if it doesn’t accomplish it’s objectives is rather silly. Obama’s policy is geared toward degrading and destroying the so-called Islamic State. It may be too early to judge it’s success, but I was responding to someone who said the strategy “was working”. If you’d prefer, I’ll change my comment to “If this is what it looks like when it’s working, I’d hate to see what ‘not working’ would look like”. And I think we can be certain that the poster in question was referring to the actual strategy Obama put in place, not a strategy that you or I might wish he had put in place. Okay, that’s fair. In terms of what Obama’s stated goals are, it’s not particularly successful. I just don’t care particularly about his stated goals – I care much more about American money and lives, so I see success/failure in light of how much money and lives we are spending (wasting) in the region. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Dr.Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Drake)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2015, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isis-captures-ramadi-now-what/720328/40 "2015-05-19T23:02:48Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > I suspect that the ISIS thing is going to turn into a 10 year long war. . . . I think you mean _a 20-year war_. 2015–2003 = 12 already. If you want to be US-centric, 2011–2003 = 8, + the more limited air support of 2014 & 2015, brings it up to 10. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isis-captures-ramadi-now-what/720328.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isis-captures-ramadi-now-what/720328.md?page=3)