The Military is notifying and warning serviceman to take precautions.
The same ABC article reports that Special Forces are being pulled from Yemen because its too dangerous. CNN has the same report.
ISIS just continues to grow and get more far reaching.
Just as a factual matter, ISIL has nothing to do with the problems in Yemen.
Yes, certainly when I’m looking for a cogent discussion of military strategy, the first person I turn to is an over-the-hill musician.
Well, they sure are trying whatever they can to push our buttons. They are practically sending is engraved invitations. Real life Americans to fight would be a pretty big victory for them.
I’m not sure what the best way to deal with them is, but I hope we think strategically rather than letting them manipulate us.
Good luck with that.
They can bring in mobile homes on any level needed. Not much of a logistical problem. but again, good luck with that.
My family and I visited the base on Ft. Leavenworth last week. We went to see the museum and some other sites.
Security is TIGHT. My wife and I and anyone in the car over age 16 had to show ID and go thru a background check. Also title and insurance for the car.
The one loophole, if anyone in the car has a military id, even ifs a 70 year old veteran, the whole car gets in no questions asked.
That is ridiculous. Such is war. To expect an enemy not to act like an enemy is inane.
ISIS probably has no real plan to attack the US Servicemen in their homes. Their purpose here is to spread fear. In that (as this thread and the quoted post demonstrate) they have succeeded. Increased security hassels in bases, causing disruption in family life and worry for deployed individuals, thats quite bad enough.
The IRA used to do something similar.
Apparently, Americans still think you can defeat insurgencies by bombing the shit out of everything. Hence, all the chest-thumping in this thread. :rolleyes:
Could you link me to this “screed” that is “all over the net”? Any evidence at all of a whole lot of US citizens actively wanting or trying to help ISIS?
I haven’t seen a hint of any of this.
I wonder which list more more accurate: the ISIS list or the drone targeting lists the US has been using for the last decade or so?
Their purpose is to get us to start a ground war. They’ve been begging us for a while with all the YouTube antics.
I’m more worried about the ground war that is suddenly popular in Congress.
He’s bombing the crap out of them, and organizing Arab opposition.
As the father of three draft-age children (all boys, FWIW), I think that’s plenty. ISIS is not an existential threat to the US.
The neo-cons notwithstanding, there is no reason (currently) for the US to commit ground troops. And the murder of some subset of the listed names wouldn’t change that.
ISIS is advancing and still holds cities and towns. Other mass-murdering, terrorist groups are claiming allegiance to ISIS.
If Obama were truly bombing the crap out of them, ISIS would hold less territory. You might want to tell Obama to increase the number of sorties, and cruise missile launches.
Is the Arab opposition actually following Obama’s leadership?
I love how folks with nothing to lose and likely no experience in uniform casually suggest we invade a sizable chunk of the middle east again. We just spent $1,700,000,000,000 and lost over 6,700 service members in a war we certainly didn’t win. The actions we took as a country have made us and the rest of the world less secure because they destabilized the region and left the area with a massive power vacuum. That vacuum is being filed by ISIL. The problem is that to address this issue with force will be been seen by many as a war on Islam. This would all but insure that hundreds of thousands if not millions of men and women in the area would join ISIL if only to stand with other Muslims against “the armies of Rome”. The Atlantic published a solid primer on ISIL.
In order to win this war we would need to invade and wage war in a way we have been unable to perfect because this would turn into another insurgency war. ISIL wouldn’t’ stand toe to toe but for the first few engagements. And we would be back in the same place we were in Afghanistan only over a much larger area. Lets not forget that sections of other countries may also be under ISIL control. And what of the possibility that entire Muslim countries may stand with ISIL as fellow Muslims. What if Saudi Arabia or Turkey (a nuclear power) see a massive invasion as a war on Islam. How would Russia react to a massive NATO presence so close to it’s boarders. They just threatened Finland. There is small possibility this could grow.
So we over come all this, invade, win and quell the insurgency. Then what? We can’t just leave again. We stayed in Afghanistan and Irag for nearly a decade and didn’t leave them with any kind of stable government. So knowing we can’t just instantly install a democracy we would set up a puppet government that had the military might to ruthlessly keep control of the area. It would likely fall out on clan or sect lines as it has. The party in power all but completely subjugating groups, sects or clans. We’ve done this in the past. It works until there is a revolution or coup or the man at the top is assassinated. It would be a testament to irony. We invaded a dictators lands deposed him only to return 20 years later to install a dictator to keep the area in control. This plan is short sighted and stupid and really doesn’t have a very high chance of success in addition to the fact that we’d be partners in would could be genocide.
The other alternative is to occupy the area for at least a generation. ISIL and it’s objectives need to pass from living memory. We would need to institute an 50-80 year occupation plan that takes control of the entire area. Over the course of the occupation, the natural resources of the area would need to harvested to pay for the cost of the occupation and the rest would be re-invested into the area to create a thriving economy and modern structure with roads, schools, infrastructure. Forgien investment would need to be courted. Gradually democratic elections would be introduced along with societal reforms that support equality between men and women and a government of law not religion. Reading this I think that 80 years could be a bit optimistic.
Over the short term, it would be nice if the US got over its hard-on for Assad, arm him and let him retake his country. He could theoretically institute some reforms we like, once things are stable.
It didn’t work all the other times, but I think we’re due.
These people are probably in more danger whenever they get into the car to drive to the store than a proxy ISIS attack.
As are everyone. Examples like this thread are pretty strong evidence that people have a really hard time accurately assessing risk.
So, are you implying that Charlie Daniels didn’t think things through?