Reminds me of the Hasidic Jewish community in NYC. There are a few stories a year it seems from their “patrols” screaming at women who wear skirts/dresses they deem to be inappropriate, do anything that disagrees with their special little snowflake view of the world as well. Religion is fine, but why does every religion have a small segment of straight up brainwashed nutjobs?
^cant disagree
these ppl need to be stopped asap
Take the fight to them before the fight comes to us. Just my opinion. What do you all think about the refugees? Would you mind having some syrians move in next door not knowing what kind of immigration measures they went through or if they were able to be properly vetted?
Do you think we are not fighting ISIS currently? Or do you possess a novel strategy our national security staff has not considered? As for Syrians moving in next door, don’t care one way or the other.
here is a novel strategy for you. Top military Brass have said that “boots on the ground.” is needed to defeat ISIS for quite some time now if you had not noticed.
Marine Corps General James Mattis: “To fight ISIS boots on the ground needs to be an option”
I suggest you read a little bit of that. Its good stuff.
Perhaps after Paris our NATO allies realize that this is their fight as well. This is a much larger issue and the US is not currently leading the fight. If you think bombing will win against ISIS you are wrong. ISIS is filling a vaccuum in the middle east which needs stability. Bombs dont provide stability.
To eliminate ISIS, boots on the ground is necessary.
In terms of taking control of the land area and dismantling any aspect of ISIS that resembles being a State, there is no doubt that the US is capable of doing that, and casualties are likely to be relatively light, or at least grossly assymetrical to the US’ advantage.
That objective is probalby not hard to achieve, and could be done by France invoking NATO’s mutual defense compact.
The problem is what to do once the region is taken. Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan have served as spectacular examples of our ability to do nation-state building. A permanent or long-term occupation presence is desired by exactly nobody except those terrorist networks in need of recruitment propaganda and rationales.
If we can figure out what to do once ISIS is eliminated, then it would seem that sending in a military force is a sensible option. But that second step is really a quagmire, and has people believing that air wars or economic strangulation is likely to be a viable alternative.
Your strategy isn’t novel, and it has been debated ad nauseum for ages. What exactly do you think is going to happen after your boots are done defeating ISIS? Despite sending boots to Afghanistan for over a decade, the same terrorist group we tried to remove is just waiting for a good opportunity to reemerge. Are we to send in boots every two years after a new terrorist group emerges? Do you think the public has any desire for another decade of permanent warfare?
I think Obama is on the right track. U.S. should focus on building up the capabilities of allies. Embedding SF operators to develop indigenous forces is the way to go.
Bchad is correct. Defeating ISIS militarily is not the problem, rather what comes next.
I don’t think the US should be the only nation sending troops there but I do believe that in order to pool together the rest of our allies we need to have skin in the game.
stability needs to come from elections, infrastructure, schools, jobs and most importantly security. We have left bases in almost every country we have fought a war. Resources need to be dedicated and it cannot be the US fitting the whole bill. Its time other countries started contributing. At least Russia has taken an interest and the French have stepped up.
Here is how I see our options:
-
let ISIS run rampant (not committing troops is allowing this)
-
Bolster a ruthless dictator who is willing to fight the terrorists but will also use the power to rule his people with an Iron fist.
-
Boots on the ground. Coalition forces. An enduring presence that brings change to the region.
How has that worked out so far?
I also do do not see a plan for what to do after ISIS has been defeated. Anyways what makes you think no boots on the ground is letting ISIS run wild? I bet Russia, Iran, and France would crush ISIS pretty easily. Not to mention the mass of indigenous forces the U.S. could assemble.
Whatever it takes to stop ideologies from spreading that allow for the indiscriminate murder of innocent people and that stand in the way of freedom and progress.
Agree with Palantir. Change to the region? You’re talking about the Middle East here.
Another option is that we withdraw from the Middle East entirely and let the rest of the world deal with it. If the honest goal of groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS is that we leave them alone, let them have their wish. Although the US is not energy independent yet, we’re getting there and redirecting the billions of dollars we spend every year in the ME to advancing renewable energy technology would certainly help. We should certainly honor our NATO obligations, but I’m sure we can find creative ways to take care of that that don’t put US soldiers in harm’s way and don’t give terrorists justification for continuing to hate us. If they decide that they still want to target us after we pull out of the region, we nuke them.
ISIS’s need to create a caliphate, their constant labeling as apostates, and desire to fight “Rome” will no doubt be the demise of them. Their hostile nature towards pratically everyone will lead to a unification of countries. I believe China just declared war, there’s a standing army of 1mm foot soldiers right there.
Perhaps we should adopt an Isolationist strategy like it seems you are suggesting. It’s funny that you criticize the boots on the ground strategy. I bet you voted for the guy who withdrew the troops. When did ISIS start to really expand? Here is a hint.
Maybe you are right maybe we can’t bring change to the region. I guarantee you it won’t work with half baked ideas and pussy foot politics that strangle resources. And politicians who have no clue about warfighting telling military leaders how many troops it takes to get the job done. It really is a mess but I don’t think the answer is not to do anything about it.
Are you seious? Were you around for any of the terrorist attacks of the last few decades? They hate you because you are an infidel who does not worship their God or follow their laws. They want to murder you and your family and see all of the western world burn.
I thought I was coming off as a hawk here but you want to drop a nuke where women and children live?
Idk who you’re referring to, but I’m not advocating isolationism, but thinking a lot more carefully before using military force. I know when ISIS began to expand, but surely you realize that US presence there was not permanent?
Anybody who thinks or even advocates that the U.S. gets out of the Middle East…should be posting these thoughts in the Feedback Forum.
That’s Al-Qaeda, not ISIS.