Does ISIS' attempt at chemical weapons prelude an all-out US war with ISIS in Syria?

2015-11-19T10:49:07-05:00

BAGHDAD (AP) — Iraqi and U.S. intelligence officials say the Islamic State group is aggressively pursuing development of chemical weapons, setting up a branch dedicated to research and experiments with the help of scientists from Iraq, Syria and elsewhere in the region.

The American officials tell The Associated Press they do not believe IS has the capability to develop sophisticated weapons like nerve gas that are most suited for a terrorist attack. So far the group is believed to have used mustard gas on the battlefield in Iraq and Syria. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the intelligence on the IS program.

In the wake of the Paris attacks claimed by IS, France's prime minister on Thursday warned of the potential for an attack by chemical or biological weapons.

Does this discovery, combined with the heightened agressiveness of ISIS on Western soil, act as a prelude to US engaging in full on war with ISIS? It almost seems ISIS wants war. They ask for it with every terrorist act and with every slick video. Is a boots-on-the-ground all-out war with ISIS in Syria inevitable? Or is there a different response we will choose? What say you?

U.S. Officials: ISIS Aggressively Pursuing Chemical Weapons

BAGHDAD (AP) -- The Islamic State group is aggressively pursuing development of chemical weapons, setting up a branch dedicated to research and experiments with the help of scientists from Iraq, Syria

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Nov 19 at 2015 10:59 AM

2015-11-19T10:59:47-05:00

Boots on the ground (as well as providing them to those already there) are essential to defeating ISIS/ISIL in that region. As I recall Wesley Clarke got fired by Clinton for saying that we can not win with air power along. The make-up of those boots is the real question. Will we be accompanied by a willing coalition, or as in the past do the heavy lifting with minimal support of the surrounding Muslim countries and European Union members? And the stupidity of it all is that with this threat, the Russians, Chinese, Iranians and N. Korea, we continue with the drawdown of the military. Hope France has a few white flags left to loan us when the arrive on our doorstep.

Response by MAJ Alvin B. made Nov 19 at 2015 11:06 AM

2015-11-19T11:06:02-05:00

In my opinion, no. We did not go for an "all-Out" war with Syria once the UN confirmed chemical weapons use. I also recall threats of US force if Syria crossed a "bright red line."

Intentions do not equal capabilities, and capabilities do not always equate with intent to use. Given what I have seen and read, I believe ISIS will attempt to obtain, and eventually use, any weapon they perceive to give them an advantage. The threat of retaliation and/or escalation by the West, or by any local group opposed to them, seems to be of little concern.

If/when ISIS develops, buys, builds, or steals chemical weapons for use, said use is likely to be limited to areas they control in the middle east. I would postulate that it is easier to obtain and use the "original" chemical weapon (Chorine) in other places, if that is their intent.

[Difficulties in manufacture, transport, deployment persistence, etc.. are topics for another day].

Response by SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 19 at 2015 11:29 AM

2015-11-19T11:29:00-05:00

We will not be involved in any type of "war" with Obama in office because it is too close to the end of his run and his legacy is more important than national security. Once Hillary is elected (its bound to happen) it would be another several years before we got involved because part of her campaign promise will be no war. So, short answer is that it will take an attack on our own soil before we wake up as a country.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 19 at 2015 12:06 PM

2015-11-19T12:06:45-05:00

The WMDs that they have are poor remnants from regional stockpiles that have been largely destroyed. I don't believe they have the large-scale deployment capabilites needed to be considered a real deterrent.

CBRN threat did not stop actions taken during Desert Storm in the early 1990s. No reason this lesser threat should be a factor.

It does mean that awareness is important and unit CBRN training should be taken just a little more seriously though

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 19 at 2015 12:15 PM

2015-11-19T12:15:56-05:00

I think that if they were foolish enough to use chemical munitions in a terrorist attack, that all hell would come from the nation they attacked. That's the kind of thing that even the most mealy-mouthed leader would have to be roused to anger from.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 19 at 2015 12:48 PM

2015-11-19T12:48:05-05:00

What is "all-out" war?
If you mean total war, there is no chance that this will force us into a total war construct. That would mean that the American public would be affected more than just a #hastag fight.

Response by SPC Byron Skinner made Nov 20 at 2015 5:53 PM

2015-11-20T17:53:57-05:00

Sp4 Byron Skinner, Here we go again another story about the Islamic State using chemical agents. To be clear the Islamic State already has the binary chemicals to make Sarin nerve gas and Mustard agent alone with several thousand 152mm empty binary artillery shells. They acquired this material in June 2014 when they raided an old weapons Depot from the Saddam era the US neglected to find. The Islamic State has also acquired Mustard agent for Syrian weapons cashes. THe only verified use of militarized chemical agents if demo the Assad Government in Homs and in the city of Damascus. AS for biological agents I really doubt if the IS is interested. Biological agents such as Smallpox or Bubonic Plague are as old as western warfare itself and alway have come back to bite the user.