Posted on Feb 20, 2015
An interesting take on the "war" with ISIS. What do you think? Is this something that can be solved militarily?
2.5K
5
11
1
1
0
Personally, I agree with the excerpt that Mr. Fallows publishes here. Mr. Bowers take is certainly more nuanced with respect to cultural and religious issues in the Middle East than most I have read.
I am very curious as to what everyone here thinks regarding the possibility of a military defeat of ISIS, the repercussions and long term effects of such action, and whether they can be defeated politically.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/on-the-impossibility-of-fighting-isis/385530/
I am very curious as to what everyone here thinks regarding the possibility of a military defeat of ISIS, the repercussions and long term effects of such action, and whether they can be defeated politically.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/on-the-impossibility-of-fighting-isis/385530/
Posted in these groups: 
Foreign Policy
ISIS
Foreign Policy ISIS
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 3
1
1
0
I generally agree with Brower's take on the situation. Re-defining the borders to match the Sunni/Shiite split makes sense to me. We're never going to change that division, so if we try to do that by bombing ISIS into oblivion, we're only going to alienate Sunnis and embolden Shiites.
(1)
(0)
Capt Whitney Davis
My thoughts exactly. Do you think, though, that we have some moral responsibility to prevent atrocities or to answer the execution of innocents?
(0)
(0)
CW5 (Join to see)
Good question, sir. I actually woke up today thinking about this question. I think we do have a moral responsibility to address the atrocities being carried out. We stand for what's right in the world, so we need to stand up against this very serious wrong.
(2)
(0)
Capt Whitney Davis
I struggle with that question. I tend to agree with you, but I believe that morality needs to be balanced against the cost incurred with intervening.
The trouble is finding that line.
The trouble is finding that line.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Anything can be solved with force. Or without it. It's all about costs and benefits. The pure force solution to a problem like this means lots and lots and LOTS of death. And it would cost a lot. A mix of kinetic and non kinetic is usually selected. I think the big debate is over what the mix should be.
(1)
(0)
Capt Whitney Davis
That is true, force solving anything eventually. You're also correct about the general argument here. What do you think?
Mr Bowers' thinks, and I agree, we should understand and respect the factors that lead to ISIS. In doing so, and not before we do, we can effectively combat them. That method, likely much less kinetic, will be more effective than simply bombing and shooting them until we feel better.
Mr Bowers' thinks, and I agree, we should understand and respect the factors that lead to ISIS. In doing so, and not before we do, we can effectively combat them. That method, likely much less kinetic, will be more effective than simply bombing and shooting them until we feel better.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Capt Whitney Davis. There is a lot of supposition in this article and seemingly misplaced ideas and concepts. There are the two statements below for example. It is clear we have no strategy and it is clear that air power will not win the day. Anyone with an ounce of military historical perspective knows that. The only exception to air power completely conquering an enemy might be nuclear and we all know that will never happen.
"I simply do not understand our strategy, assuming we really have one. If our goal is defeating ISIS's ideology and its support of international terrorism this cannot be done by indirect fire, PERIOD!"
"The use of air power is our only feasible military option"
Then there is this one:
"Terrorism is murder, whether it is in Paris, Copenhagen, or any U.S. town."
Terrorism is not necessarily murder. They are acts (which can include murder) designed to have a political/social effect. That is, to change the course of events to the terrorists ways and to create instability in the people they terrorize.
Then this one. The reality is we do not have the political leadership/desire to dispatch ISIS. We do have the military technology and capability. We should not confuse the two. We are where we are in Iraq because of failed political leadership here and in Iraq.
"Worse, the so-called hawks push for deeper involvement irrespective of military reality. They live in a fantasy world of U.S. military exceptionalism."
My opinion on the article, another rambling commentary.
"I simply do not understand our strategy, assuming we really have one. If our goal is defeating ISIS's ideology and its support of international terrorism this cannot be done by indirect fire, PERIOD!"
"The use of air power is our only feasible military option"
Then there is this one:
"Terrorism is murder, whether it is in Paris, Copenhagen, or any U.S. town."
Terrorism is not necessarily murder. They are acts (which can include murder) designed to have a political/social effect. That is, to change the course of events to the terrorists ways and to create instability in the people they terrorize.
Then this one. The reality is we do not have the political leadership/desire to dispatch ISIS. We do have the military technology and capability. We should not confuse the two. We are where we are in Iraq because of failed political leadership here and in Iraq.
"Worse, the so-called hawks push for deeper involvement irrespective of military reality. They live in a fantasy world of U.S. military exceptionalism."
My opinion on the article, another rambling commentary.
(0)
(0)
Capt Whitney Davis
It can be rambling, and you do a good chop of representing that. Nonetheless, the supposition that we cannot win any conflict in the Middle East solely with military force is a strong one.
The first Gulf War, ineffective in stabilizing the region. Iraq 2003, actually seems to have destabilized the region. Libya, destabilized. Yemen, destabilized. What will be gained, beyond revenge, with another invasion?
Did we incapacitate Al Qaeda? Yes, we did. Only to see similar organisations (like ISIS) take their place. Indirect fire (to include air power) will not solve this. Neither will invasion. Well, that is, invasion without a many decade 500,000+ troop commitment. I'm not going to support that.
Let's try a different approach and empower the local governments to handle it. Jordan, Iran, Syria, Iraq, Turkey, Lebanon ... These are the countries that must solve this.
The first Gulf War, ineffective in stabilizing the region. Iraq 2003, actually seems to have destabilized the region. Libya, destabilized. Yemen, destabilized. What will be gained, beyond revenge, with another invasion?
Did we incapacitate Al Qaeda? Yes, we did. Only to see similar organisations (like ISIS) take their place. Indirect fire (to include air power) will not solve this. Neither will invasion. Well, that is, invasion without a many decade 500,000+ troop commitment. I'm not going to support that.
Let's try a different approach and empower the local governments to handle it. Jordan, Iran, Syria, Iraq, Turkey, Lebanon ... These are the countries that must solve this.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
Our mission (with ISIS) should not be to nation build or stabilize these countries. It doesn't work. Our mission, in my opinion, should be to make the price of killing Americans or coming after America so high they will not want to pay it. We should go in, obliterate command and control, kill as many fighters as possible with air power, spec ops, light infantry (Marines, Rangers etc), airborne infantry etc, then exit swiftly and see if they want to go again. These raids can be days, weeks or months, enough to bloody them up good and hurt them. We should not shy away from going after their leaders assets, family or other prized possessions. The gloves should have come off after the first beheading. They want to send messages, we should send some back.
(0)
(0)
Capt Whitney Davis
Cpl Jeff N.: Okay, I see where you're at with this. The question I have, is where does that end? Do we conduct raids in Iran when they jail American citizens on trumped up charges? Should we invade Mexico when they jail our citizens? What about North Korea?
To be clear, I don't necessarily disagree with you. I just want to have a very clearly defined purpose, and a uniform set of rules for conducting these sort of military interventions. Otherwise we should err on the side avoiding spending money, time, and lives in these areas.
To be clear, I don't necessarily disagree with you. I just want to have a very clearly defined purpose, and a uniform set of rules for conducting these sort of military interventions. Otherwise we should err on the side avoiding spending money, time, and lives in these areas.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
When a nation (or organization) presents an aggressive and clearly dangerous posture toward us we should be willing to act. Broadly speaking, nation states don't do too much of this as they can be hit by sanctions, boycotts, embargo's and other sorts of economic items.
I don't think NK or Iran (or Mexico) have crossed that line yet. NK and Iran are very close with their nuclear ambition. We have stated (as have others) that a nuclear Iran or NK is not acceptable. Well, that really leaves you few options.
I think if we became more unpredictable and aggressive in some areas we could keep some of our enemies off balance. We color in the lines, they are all over the page.
I don't think NK or Iran (or Mexico) have crossed that line yet. NK and Iran are very close with their nuclear ambition. We have stated (as have others) that a nuclear Iran or NK is not acceptable. Well, that really leaves you few options.
I think if we became more unpredictable and aggressive in some areas we could keep some of our enemies off balance. We color in the lines, they are all over the page.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google