If you were given three options to deal with ISIS, which would you choose?

SPC Eddie "Nemo" Aiumu — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 00:55:41 -0400

Response by SFC William Farrell made Mar 25 at 2016 1:04 AM

SFC William Farrell — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 01:04:39 -0400

Annihilate, annihilate, annihilate!

Response by TSgt Melissa Post made Mar 25 at 2016 1:06 AM

TSgt Melissa Post — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 01:06:08 -0400

Diplomacy will not work in a situation like this. And why risk putting troops on the ground if we can take them out with drones. I prefer to keep as many of our people alive as possible.

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 25 at 2016 1:07 AM

SCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 01:07:27 -0400

Is nuking the sub-continent too radical???

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 25 at 2016 1:28 AM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 01:28:03 -0400

Diplomacy will not work with folks that want you dead. ISIS and other terrorist organizations have to be seen as a world problem and relentlessly pursued with all the means at our disposal.

Response by CPO Frank Coluccio made Mar 25 at 2016 4:26 AM

CPO Frank Coluccio — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 04:26:47 -0400

Diplomacy MUST always be our first choice!
But in order for diplomacy to work, you must have two sides that are willing to talk, to at least exchange ideas to end the violence.
Unfortunately, with ISIS, al-Qaeda and most of the terror groups, they have NO desire to talk, or even begin talking. They are ruled by a strict and perverted view of the Quran.
The issue is they look at the "long view" and are willing to commit to a prolonged conflict of attrition. We may have the advantage in every aspect of warfare over them, but we (the general public) don't have the will to use that advantage to its full extent.
We are limited by our humanity, something these people have no problem taking advantage of.

Response by SFC Marcus Belt made Mar 25 at 2016 5:05 AM

SFC Marcus Belt — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 05:05:57 -0400

The threat that Da'esh/ISIS/ISIL poses to the US Homeland...will boots on ground (BOG) solve it? Not really: the primary threat that they pose to our Homeland is through the radicalization of someone already living in North America.

Same question re: drone strikes? Same answer.

Diplomacy? Same answer.

Did everybody have SO much fun deploying every year to little or no effect that we're anxious to start that again?

It's a UW fight that will require a Whole of Government approach to defeat the problem, and to comprehensively defeat the problem, we must interrupt the radicalization process so that they don't make "reinforcements" in our own backyard. And no, restricting immigration based on religious preference is NOT the answer. How do you know someone's a Muslim? They'd have to tell you, there's no blood test. How do you know someone's a terrorist before they commit a crime? They'd have to tell you, there is no blood test. So why can't we just keep all the brown people from the Middle East out? Because we are charged with defending the "American Way of Life", and if we compromise our fundamental values in order to protect our fundamental values, we have failed fundamentally.

So everybody relax. They're not a significant threat to our Homeland, they ARE losing.

Response by 1stSgt Eugene Harless made Mar 25 at 2016 5:36 AM

1stSgt Eugene Harless — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 05:36:22 -0400

ISIS has given the West a prime opportunity in thatr they have established a Caliphate with Infrastructure, Economy and a Conventional Military. They must be destroyed by coneventional means. At the same time we must take measures to insure that the Millions of other Muslims arent caught in the middle. There are always going to be those who will follow the path of radicalism. We need to make that a chioce they dont need to make and one they realise will lead to nothing but death.

Response by SGM Mikel Dawson made Mar 25 at 2016 6:04 AM

SGM Mikel Dawson — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 06:04:31 -0400

1. There is no diplomacy with these people. They are radical, focused and have an agenda - convert the world to Islam or die trying, and they don't mind the latter.
2. History has proven time and again you can't control ground from the air. Enough on this subject.
3. The parts you forgot:
A. One has to get into their mentality. You have to understand your enemy. In order to do this you got to drop the politically correct BS. Profiling works, others have used it and found out it does work.
B. Understand our western style of government will never work in the middle eastern area because most of these people have no allegiance to a country. If you look back in their history, true country borders were made by Europeans, and that's part of the mess we are still reaping the sour fruit from.
C. These people have no respect for talk unless you first smack them across the head with a 2x4 (metaphorically speaking), then once you got their attention lay down the law.
D. Once you lay down the law (draw line in the sand), then don't back down, they have no respect for that.
E. You have to understand these people have no respect for life(theirs or yours) nor do they respect the way anyone else wants to live, so you better be prepared to deal with them on their own terms.
F. Just remember they don't have ROE, so you'd better review how you limit your own troops.

3. We all know boots on the ground is the only way to get the job done.

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Mar 25 at 2016 6:31 AM

SSG Warren Swan — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 06:31:20 -0400

None of the listed options would work. 15 years in and what have we gotten? If you can name ONE thing out of 15 years of playing wack a mole with terrorists, I'll chill. Killing UBL didn't change anything, killing or THINKING we killed ISIS leaders has done what again? Having a TON of suspected terrorists in GITMO has done what? Have we tried any of them in court or military tribunal? Giving Iraq and Afghanistan technology and materiel support...nope. You didn't mention dropping nukes all over the ME. But even that wouldn't work. Carpet bombing....wake me up when that works. I'm going to tweak this response a little. DIPLOMACY would stand a far better chance than war. You can kill the man, but you cannot kill the idea, so to "force" a change, go to the nation states around them and hold them responsible. Tell them through diplomatic means, we will begin an embargo and levy heavy sanctions on you for not making any substantial attempts to stem this tide. SA can see it, Iran, Iraq, Libya, every Nation over there, see's it. So if you make it next to impossible for them to make money, you will see a SWIFT turn in the number of folks running around with black flags in pickups. While they're doing everything possible to get their money back, we begin to focus our attention to the youth of the affected. We teach them through the use of moderate or centralist minded Imams, in Madrasas that can be localized to them. They are the future we don't need to fight if we make change now. Reading some of the comments, all folks want to do is kill, kill, bomb, and in the end, the IDEA survives another day and grows again. How many do we need to loose before we make change over there using the resources already in place? Put embargo's on oil, and you'll have SA's DIRECT ATTENTION. Without that money coming in, the ruling family better haul ass. Iraq and Iran are both in the same boat. Place heavy embargoes on other exported/imported materials they need and find a good chair and some popcorn and watch how fast what we used countless lives over 15 years to do gets done in less than 12 months.

Response by SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth made Mar 25 at 2016 6:37 AM

SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 06:37:57 -0400

Wipe the earth clean of these vermin.

Response by SFC David McMahon made Mar 25 at 2016 7:36 AM

SFC David McMahon — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 07:36:36 -0400

While I hate to quote TV...especially a show that doesn't necessarily cast a good light on the world situation, the last season of Homeland (believe the first episode) where the Joint Chiefs are being briefed by a field agent says a lot to what we have done and what we should do....

But I doubt this will ever happen and I question at this point if it would help.

Response by SFC David McMahon made Mar 25 at 2016 7:38 AM

SFC David McMahon — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 07:38:35 -0400

http://youtu.be/Ct3BsyF64gM

Quinn from Homeland Understands the Problem

Clip from Season 5, Episode 1. Quinn lays bare the ISIS threat and the only thing that can be done about it.

Response by Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth made Mar 25 at 2016 8:42 AM

Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 08:42:43 -0400

Nuke them till they glow and then use them for runway lights!!!
Seriously, it will take a myriad of options (talks, weapons, Intel etc) because everything is not a nail needing a hammer. We also need a President that has the gumption to use whatever option is required.

Response by LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow made Mar 25 at 2016 12:04 PM

LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 12:04:16 -0400

At this point I strongly believe that the US, EU/NATO need to do a full court press against them...

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 25 at 2016 12:26 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 12:26:32 -0400

To quote the movie "Dogma":

1) "He still digs humanity, but it bothers Him to see the shit that gets carried out in His name - wars, bigotry, televangelism. But especially the factioning of all the religions. He said humanity took a good idea and, like always, built a belief structure on it."

2) "I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier..."

How many people have died through the millennia because of religion and the die hard beliefs of each particular religion? How many Christians were killed by the Romans due to heresy? How many people were killed by Christians for the same thing? How many people died at the hands of Christians AND Muslims because of the heresy seen by both sides?

To piggyback what SSG Warren Swan said, show of force isn't working. In order to stop the killing, we (as a world) need to revamp our way of thinking and tactics to battle this world epidemic. Hitting countries in the wallet would certainly be a great start.......if it can be enforced. Getting the youth to sit and listen to why what they are doing is wrong is great too.........if they are willing to sit and listen. Getting the religious leaders to throw down some edicts that what they are doing is wrong is great too.........if they are willing to sit down and make those edicts and then ENFORCE those edicts.

While there is no one perfect solution, there are other solutions that can be tried.....we just have to find a way to get people to be willing to try those solutions. It will take all parties involved to try these other multiple solutions.

Response by SSG Carlos Madden made Mar 25 at 2016 3:03 PM

SSG Carlos Madden — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 15:03:06 -0400

7.62, Claymores, JDAM

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Mar 25 at 2016 5:16 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 17:16:47 -0400

There has to be troops on the ground to kill them. The Germans bombed Stalingrad over and over to kill the resistance, however, the buildings still gave the Russian Army protection. It was an urban jungle in the buildings.

Response by SrA Matthew Knight made Mar 25 at 2016 5:57 PM

SrA Matthew Knight — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 17:57:34 -0400

Diplomacy while the best option is not feasible when talking about terrorist groups. Unless we bow down and take their extremist laws as our own they will continue to attack us and our allies.

Troops on the ground I am very much against. I don't see anything really getting accomplished by putting more of our people in the line of fire.

So I went with drones although even manned aircraft will do. Basically raining down death from above where they don't even see it coming. Terrorize the terrorists and scare them back into their caves and basements where they still aren't safe from some of our munitions.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Mar 25 at 2016 9:36 PM

Capt Seid Waddell — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 21:36:35 -0400

Hit them like we mean it.

Response by SFC Dr. Joseph Finck, BS, MA, DSS made Mar 26 at 2016 1:14 PM

SFC Dr. Joseph Finck, BS, MA, DSS — Sat, 26 Mar 2016 13:14:38 -0400

SPC Eddie "Nemo" Aiumu I know my choice will not be popular, but ISIS must be eradicated. Strategically, bombings will not get the job done by themselves. Diplomacy has already failed and is a failed tactic with ISIS. Even though retired, call me, I will go so a younger SM does not have to. General of the Army Douglas MacArthur may have said it best "The soldier above all others prays for peace, for it is the soldier who must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war." While I hate war, I recognize the futility of diplomacy with ISIS. While drone strikes may injure and or kill a few, if we are to eradicate the ISIS threat, it will require a combination of BOG, Drone and Manned Air Strikes, and diplomacy insofar as we need to utilize our Southwest Asian allies to fight them along side American troops.

Response by Lt Col Jim Coe made Mar 26 at 2016 1:49 PM

Lt Col Jim Coe — Sat, 26 Mar 2016 13:49:27 -0400

Use troops on the ground to lead coalition defeating ISIS. Denying ISIS land for their califate requires ground forces. After ISIS is defeated, US forces withdraw. Let the diplomats sort out the political issues.

Response by SSG Melvin Nulph made Mar 27 at 2016 3:53 AM

SSG Melvin Nulph — Sun, 27 Mar 2016 03:53:11 -0400

I'd show them that the three choices was not enough and if you're going to do something, it's time to stop playing games, (that cost the service members and their families, & friends things that can not be replaced), do it right and do it now. Use all of your assets to do it right and get it done. So we can go back to making this country what its supposed to be...