Should the President (or the PE when he takes over) tell the US mil to stop "taking a knee" and get after ISIS?
Iraq and ISIS Discussion
- Thread starter Kraut783
- Start date
Red Flag 1
Verified Military
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2010
- Messages
- 7,580
Should the President (or the PE when he takes over) tell the US mil to stop "taking a knee" and get after ISIS?
This could start a ten-page rant.
Should the President (or the PE when he takes over) tell the US mil to stop "taking a knee" and get after ISIS?
Not just the US but the whole Western World needs to man the fuck up and destroy every last one of those savages.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 4,304
I could see two divisions, reinforced, from the US--maybe one Army and one Marine--with regimental contributions from NATO, putting an end to these sadistic fucks pretty quickly. We've gone to war for lesser reasons, without any direct provocation, to stop the spread of communism, to depose Saddam, to depose Noriega, to protect US interests in Grenada, etc.
What does it take? How atrocious, how outrageous do the acts of ISIS have to be before "the whole Western World" mans the fuck up and mobilizes a force with crushing power? Another 9/11 apparently.
I'm glad we're not more involved on the ground in Syria or Iraq.
I'll be honest and say the only reason I care at all about Iraqis and Syrians getting killed in Iraq and Syria is because of the potential spillage over into US interests. We're not willing to do the kinds of things it would take to end the fighting in either location, which would include massive civilian casualties, a tremendous expenditure of money (that we do't have), and an occupation of large swathes of foreign land by US troops (which the whole world would give us shit over). At the end of the day it's not a question of capability, it's a question of will. We can't want it more than they do. Millions of military-aged men fled Syria and Iraq and went to Europe, Turkey, and other locations across the globe. We've offered to train them and send them back. How many did we get, at last count? Something like literally six? They don't want to fight for their country, why should I go fight for it, especially when the alternative (radical Sunnis in charge in Syria) is worse than the status quo?
I'm tired of my countrymen fighting, and dying in, other peoples' civil wars... and the whole world giving us crap about it. Don't weep for SOMEONE (i.e. America) to DO SOMETHING (i.e. send in troops) and then get all pissy when it's not all sunshine and roses.
Intervening now, before one side falters, just ensures a protracted conflict. Let them fight it out, provide support and containment, and take it slow.
I'll be honest and say the only reason I care at all about Iraqis and Syrians getting killed in Iraq and Syria is because of the potential spillage over into US interests. We're not willing to do the kinds of things it would take to end the fighting in either location, which would include massive civilian casualties, a tremendous expenditure of money (that we do't have), and an occupation of large swathes of foreign land by US troops (which the whole world would give us shit over). At the end of the day it's not a question of capability, it's a question of will. We can't want it more than they do. Millions of military-aged men fled Syria and Iraq and went to Europe, Turkey, and other locations across the globe. We've offered to train them and send them back. How many did we get, at last count? Something like literally six? They don't want to fight for their country, why should I go fight for it, especially when the alternative (radical Sunnis in charge in Syria) is worse than the status quo?
I'm tired of my countrymen fighting, and dying in, other peoples' civil wars... and the whole world giving us crap about it. Don't weep for SOMEONE (i.e. America) to DO SOMETHING (i.e. send in troops) and then get all pissy when it's not all sunshine and roses.
Intervening now, before one side falters, just ensures a protracted conflict. Let them fight it out, provide support and containment, and take it slow.
That's what your mom... oh we're being serious.
Yeah brother I agree. I think you have more time on the ground in "those kind" of conflict areas than any of the rest of us. We're not going "all in," and we're losing big because of it.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 4,304
My view is that of the one where we bomb them all.:-"
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2010
- Messages
- 2,186
We don't have a desired endstate for the Middle East, period.
The State Dept needs to outline some sort of country strategy for Syria that doesn't look like the failures of Iraq and Afghanistan, then maybe we should talk about committing to the ISIS fight.
eta- Or the epic failures in Egypt or Libya.
The State Dept needs to outline some sort of country strategy for Syria that doesn't look like the failures of Iraq and Afghanistan, then maybe we should talk about committing to the ISIS fight.
eta- Or the epic failures in Egypt or Libya.
...but not Tunisia & the Ennahda Party which the entire world seems to have missed, due to its success. (It doesn't fit the general narrative).
The trend, nay strategy of allowing the locals to do it themselves is prudent, backed by western training and it looks to be working.
After the shooting war is over what then? Nation building takes a lot longer and is a slower process. After a nation has been engaged in some fracas or other as an occupying or humanitarian force, it's not enough for the assisting force or nation to throw a new administration the keys & say, "All yours, have a nice day!" It may well be the lasting lesson learnt as a hegemon for if there's no structure to build on, democratic or similar flavour, it isn't really going to work, there's the distinct possibility of a repeat performance.
Syria to me is interesting as Assad is really for me the only one who put up a fight, most leaders in the Arab Spring cut & ran. If there was an insurrection in your own country wouldn't you be obliged to suppress it? Rebels opposing the regime...they're Islamists for the most part not the outnumbered Star Wars good guys. Assad has played a deft hand (or is it his brother, the general), not going after ISIS, leaving that one to others as it makes him look like the answer.
The trend, nay strategy of allowing the locals to do it themselves is prudent, backed by western training and it looks to be working.
After the shooting war is over what then? Nation building takes a lot longer and is a slower process. After a nation has been engaged in some fracas or other as an occupying or humanitarian force, it's not enough for the assisting force or nation to throw a new administration the keys & say, "All yours, have a nice day!" It may well be the lasting lesson learnt as a hegemon for if there's no structure to build on, democratic or similar flavour, it isn't really going to work, there's the distinct possibility of a repeat performance.
Syria to me is interesting as Assad is really for me the only one who put up a fight, most leaders in the Arab Spring cut & ran. If there was an insurrection in your own country wouldn't you be obliged to suppress it? Rebels opposing the regime...they're Islamists for the most part not the outnumbered Star Wars good guys. Assad has played a deft hand (or is it his brother, the general), not going after ISIS, leaving that one to others as it makes him look like the answer.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2010
- Messages
- 2,186
We do seem to blinded support the revolutionaries, in every country EXCEPT IRAN- which is where we should've supported them before they were suppressed.
We have the beatnik/Aulinsky/radicals in office who seem to think revolution=good, government=bad. Hope and change I guess.
Eta- Additionally, we rally behind thug governments like in South Sudan and paint them to be the noble little people who have been picked on by the big bullies (Shia govt in Iraq!).
Last edited:
Agreed on the rebel issue. On reflection an NGO reporting on deaths & injury by whatever means muddies the waters, as it's a body count which was an issue in Vietnam & gave an incorrect picture of what was occurring.
If it's reported that there's deaths in east Alleppo, the rebel area, it's emotive, that isn't to say it isn't accurate or valuable information but it can muddy the waters, and the finger pointing commences in the public sphere.
Similar reporting occurs regarding failing or failed states & a mea culpa here, I was corrected some time ago by brother Mara on an East African issue which I then looked into a little more thoroughly.
If it's reported that there's deaths in east Alleppo, the rebel area, it's emotive, that isn't to say it isn't accurate or valuable information but it can muddy the waters, and the finger pointing commences in the public sphere.
Similar reporting occurs regarding failing or failed states & a mea culpa here, I was corrected some time ago by brother Mara on an East African issue which I then looked into a little more thoroughly.
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2010
- Messages
- 2,186
^This. Establishing a new system capable of governing itself is incredibly messy in the best of circumstances. Imagine if today's technology were available just after the Revolutionary War. We were weak as hell, and our first system failed in less than 6 years. Luckily transportation across the Atlantic in that time was a logistical nightmare, or we would have been easy pickings. Then, we were steadily in conflict for the next century until we eventually had our own Civil War, and then we fought in even more conflicts while dealing with strikes, depressions, hippies etc. Today, quite a few militaries are capable of traveling across the world to deliver a shitload of firepower in a matter of hours rendering that fortuitous sort of isolation impossible and exploiting even the smallest conflict that much more possible.
Domestically, we've had a laundry list of problems that could have been exploited throughout the years like many large protests and internal movements or even turn in the Civil War. Hell, we had Congressman beat a Senator within an inch of his life on the Senate floor. Just search parliamentary fights on youtube and you get enough to make you wonder if we're the exception or we just have pussy representatives. This from supposedly established states recognized in the international system for decades or even centuries. To think that establishing a new system, which has proven to be a titanic feat, in a region that has a culture so fundamentally different from ours and is unbelievably wrought with conflict won't take a lifetime is the very epitome of hubris and ignorance.
I am drunk and this is an amazing post. Nicely done. People have no idea of how fragile we were for decades and decades.
I'd have to agree, one of my lecturers, an ex-officer was given the job of explaining and teaching democratic principles to a mob of ME folks. They all were a little incredulous as how it worked.
The US system of electoral colleges is different to ours, which is a first past the post system but both a democratic: welcome to the big league, there's no one definite solution or finite model to government.
LMFAO I am reading through this thread while eating breakfast and read your post as soon as I hit that part of the video spit my coffee out all over my screen
I wish I could like this post a thousand times. My opinion doesn't matter
but this is exactly how I feel right now after reading through this thread.
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2010
- Messages
- 2,186
To roughly quote Rush Limbaugh-
The US military is the best in the world at killing people and breaking things, you can't ask for its help then be upset when it kills people and breaks things.
Similar threads
