it’s less costly to fight a non-state insurgent group than a caliphate encompassing a billion Muslims with a military bought by much of the world’s oil wealth. And in any case, we’re already fighting them. That decision has already been made. What is very odd is the President trying to decide whether we should tie both hands behind our back or just one. What happened to the Powell doctrine? Go in with everything or don’t go in at all. Democrats are still tied to the LBJ doctrine of rolling escalation.
We aren’t really fighting them yet. These air strikes are quite obviously just drawing lines in the sand. Actively trying to exterminate them is a different kettle of fish.
We’re killing them. I don’t think killing more of them is going to make them angrier than they are now. Nor are they respecting our “lines in the sand”, not being rational actors and all.
These non rational actors are seizing assets clearly intended to make a viable economy and strategic position. You’re saying our best strategy is to think of them as a mad dog. That’s simply dumb.
Perhaps. But if they are rational, that means that they actually can seize these assets despite our bombing. Which means we have to do more to make sure they don’t seize those assets. Otherwise we’re the ones not being rational, because we are declaring that we are going to use a tactic(air strikes) regardless of whether it furthers our strategy or not.
They seized the vast majority of the assets before American air strikes. The initial strikes said"we’re not sure what we’re gonna do but we are sure you’re not invading Kurdistan." Even if they don’t respect that, I have no doubt that the ISIL heard that message rather than a declaration of war.
Which is why they beheaded American journalists.
Right. That response was basically “don’t fuck with us”. Now we have to go to war with them because they totally dared us to. Who’s not rational now?
So your argument is that if we continue the current level of bombing then they won’t try to kill Americans.
That’s a position within my argument. No doubt that Americans coming into their area of control will always be in danger, it’s not the same as them plotting attacks on American soil.
That would be irrational. An attack on American soil would bring total warfare to them, wherever they were. It would make the President’s decision for him.
If they are rational, then an attack on American soil is a stupid idea no matter what we’re doing to them.
Muslims in the region should take care of this, since they’re the ones most threatened. Saudi Arabia has a small air force and so does UAE.
It’s obvious we’re being goaded into going in. They need “The Crusaders from the West” or “The Great Satan” to reign destruction on them to get broader Islamic support.
Right now is Muslim against Muslim and it needs to stay that way. We can help these other countries, but it’s got to be the threatened Muslim countries in the region that wipe
Isis out.
You’re clowning. If America vowed to exterminate the IS scum and followed that up with force, attacking America’shomeland is obviously not totally irrational anymore.
If we are, in actuality, going after them totally. An attack on America only makes sense if they have nothing else to lose.
But I suspect they aren’t geopolitical experts. They have not stopped attacking the Kurds and I don’t think they see a distinction between the death we are raining on them now and the death we could be bringing to them.
So we both see the successful tactics, allliances and acquisitions they’ve made. You think regardless, , we should treat them as idiotic fanatics. I think we should tread cautiously and be as hands off as is practical. I think we’ll just have to disagree here.
I agree with this. I would think that the President given choices that are differing levels of bad would respond vaguely.
A) Let the ME countries deal with the problem.
Then the President makes us look weak.
B) Special Forces and air power strike targets.
The President isn’t doing enough, or too much, depending on political views.
C) The US supplies those combating ISIS along with air strikes.
We end up supplying ISIS if we back out.
D) We go full steam ahead on ISIS.
We weaken our ability to handle other global problems due to stretching our smaller military.
Given the issues in the rest of the world; Israel, Ukraine, possibly Pakistan, it is the wrong time to put all of our forces in a single conflict hoping for a quick resolution.
Pakistan may resolve itself. Israel is doing well enough with the support given.
However can the US keep with the air power against ISIS and have enough in reserve to help the Ukraine if NATO chooses?
If I were the President I would take the same path. We are doing what we can to help the people in the region.
If I were in charge I would give just enough support against ISIS to justify more forces in the area to combat them. Our air strikes are almost doing well…so we need more forces in the area. Our special forces are almost doing well enough and again we need forces in the area. Since we are almost curtailing ISIS we need more forces in the area.
Boom…force build up an the area that might be able to affect the Ukraine.
I agree with the post other than the lunacy thing…
I suspect the decisions the administration in making is based on lessons learned in Afghanistan fighting A.Q and Taliban.
The current bombing is random and unpredicatable enough that key targets are being destroyed by an essentially invisible force. It must be unnerving to not be able to see what’s killing you or predict where or when the next strike will come. There are reports that ex US and Brit ISIS fighters are starting to abandon ship like the rats they are. Why? Because they’ve become disenchanted with the cause and because they think they have options to save their skins. Right now they are being forced to fight with guns pointed at their back. But the mood seems to be changing in the ISIS ranks. These are small numbers yet, but I expect they’ll grow in time.
If the US and UK or some coalition puts boots on the ground to fight a more traditional war, these cockroaches will scatter. Much like AQ/Taliban did in Afghanistan, right across the border to Pakistan’s uncontrolled regions. Why? Because most of the ISIS fighters are not on their home soil. This is not their land they are fighting to defend. They are not vested in any meaningful way in the territories they’ve occupied and there is no infrastructure for them to defend. No homes. No families. They will vanish like roaches back to wherever they came from only to cause mischief there instead of in Syria and Iraq.
So while ISIS are gathered conveniently close, killing them with bombs is the most effective strategy there is, I believe. It may not be as glamorous as watching lines on the map showing US troops taking back territory from ISIS. It’s certainly not as chest thumpingly satisfying as seeing images of ISIS militants dead or surrendering while US soldiers look menacingly on.
Bottome line: the current strategy is working. Not as quickly as some would like, but it’s working. By now, everybody should be well aware that no involvement in that region is simple, or quick, or decisive. If it were, the west would have “won” by now.
I agree that it’s working, if we assume that the strategy is to protect the Kurds and Baghdad. However, we haven’t fully settled on a strategy yet. Once we do, the tactics will probably change.
When has any large military involvement “settled on a strategy”, end to end? Strategies change as conditions change. It shouldn’t even need saying.
The problem is the myriad vapid talking heads and congress people who think they are armchair generals, all flapping their jaws to get sound bites on the 24 hour news cycle. It’s not interesting to anyone to hear adults say, “Breathe everybody! What we’re doing is working. We’ll adjust tactics as necessary. This will not be solved overnight.” Nope. Instead we hear meaningless statements like, “Strategy not fully settled!”
Felicia*, please…
- Not directed at you specifically, Adaher. Just a general sentiment for everyone to stop hyperventilating on the subject.
Not really. The strategy should support the goal. Can you articulate what the goal is, and what strategy is being used to accomplish that goal?