1
1
0
Now that Ramadi is in the hands of The Islamic State, what should America's stance be? Do we withdraw the "3,000" troops and call it quits, do we send boots on the ground or do we seek a diplomatic solution? What are we to do?
ISIS
Soldiers
War on Terror
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 20
4
4
0
If we do anything we should do it all out. Enough of this we will be nice and slap you fingers.
(4)
(0)
SPC Charles Brown
I am one of those who admits when I am wrong. I take correction as anything that can help me see things the right way. I knew more about the Vietnam war than I did about the way the Korean was was handled or mishandled by the powers that be.
(0)
(0)
SGT Mike Marino
we also have to get politicians and elect presidents with balls .That have a pair. They are so worried about their fin legacy how things will look. I have to say I'm not to impressed with what Harvard or Yale is producing these days. A bunch of liberal wussbags that are afraid to act and because of a lack of , will run while we defend if the sht hits the fan. They through stones at our enemy and then turn and run .
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
Honestly, I do not think we should commit more "boots on the ground" to that hell hole.
(4)
(0)
Capt Phil Williams
Because it is politicians playing war I am against sending troops. POTUS does not want to win and he does not know how to use the command and control tools he has. It would be a waste of American blood.
(3)
(0)
LTC Michael Hrycak
I agree with SSG Kye White. I was there as part of a Transition Team in 2006-2007, and I mostly helped get their Soldiers lined up, registered, and sent for military schooling. Since I an only guess what happened in Ramadi, I also agree with Capt Phil Williams, that we need to have the politicians back off and let the military operate as needed to contain, destroy and eradicate the threat. The Iraqis are capable of providing for their security, but they need a command and control structure that allows them to centralize more, just as their logistics people fought us the whole year I was there, they just didn't want centralized logistics. On the other hand, we could do better as well. We would give them brand new generators to run their border forts, with a backup generator as well. But they would only run one part time because of fuel, and the other would be used for parts. Here we are delivering medical supplies, but we never totally confirmed if they went down to battalion level, or did their division headquarters hold onto them?
(3)
(0)
(0)
(0)
Sgt Arturo Gallegos
We have too many problems here at home to be sending our people to the other side of the planet. We were their we did what we could to help and as soon as we left it all went right back to how it was. What's to say if we go back again fix the Isis problem leave and some other group takes over. Like I said we have our own problems let's fix those first here at home.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
First, we have to stop asking the question what should we do about ISIS or what should we do about Al Qeada or what should we do about Boko Haram etc. That question needs to be replaced by what should we do about the spread of radical Islamic movements that aim to attack America and our strategic partners. The answer to me is easy -- degrade them to a point where they do not pose a serious threat to the US, our strategic interest, or our partners.
Second, we have to realize that we are the only major power in the world that can do anything on a global scale to fight a global movement. This does't mean we do it alone, but it does mean we are the framework and the foundation that links a global coalition together.
Third, our leaders have to explain to the American people that we are in a war that is going to take a generation, will continually put American service members in harms way, in many countries, and on several continents. We cannot have a gigantic debate about intervention every time a terrorist organization builds momentum -- they must be swiftly degraded.
Fourth, we cannot confuse degrading terrorist organizations with nation building. Just because we go into an area overthrow a terrorist safe safehaven because they want to attack the homeland does't mean we own every problem in that country and have to turn it into a bright and shiny democracy.
In a nut shell we need a strategy that deals with this over the long term rather than continuously evaluating each terrorist organization or rise to prominence separately.
Second, we have to realize that we are the only major power in the world that can do anything on a global scale to fight a global movement. This does't mean we do it alone, but it does mean we are the framework and the foundation that links a global coalition together.
Third, our leaders have to explain to the American people that we are in a war that is going to take a generation, will continually put American service members in harms way, in many countries, and on several continents. We cannot have a gigantic debate about intervention every time a terrorist organization builds momentum -- they must be swiftly degraded.
Fourth, we cannot confuse degrading terrorist organizations with nation building. Just because we go into an area overthrow a terrorist safe safehaven because they want to attack the homeland does't mean we own every problem in that country and have to turn it into a bright and shiny democracy.
In a nut shell we need a strategy that deals with this over the long term rather than continuously evaluating each terrorist organization or rise to prominence separately.
(2)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
CW3 (Join to see) This is exactly correct. It's time to stop reacting to the next threat and start being proactive towards the next.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google