If you were the President of the United States how would you deal with ISIS?

2014-06-17T12:12:09-04:00

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/08/opinions/bergen-isis-boko-haram/index.html

ISIS has taken over media in a way unprecedented by terrorist groups. Now other terrorist groups are claiming support for ISIS. Should Congress declare war on ISIS? Can you even declare a state of war against an ideology? If you were President how would you stop the spread of ISIS?

ISIS goes global - CNN.com

ISIS has seeded itself in some dozen countries around the globe. Now the Nigerian terrorist group Boko Haram has pledged its "allegiance" to ISIS' leader.

Response by 1SG Chris Brown made Jun 17 at 2014 2:19 PM

2014-06-17T14:19:25-04:00

I'm not sure how it we couldn't easily track a large group that is able to overrun cities, force trained Iraqi soldiers to flee, and make their way toward Baghdad unoppsed. This isn't just 2 or 3 cars full of dudes driving down a congested highway. How hard would it really be for a drone to at least slow these guys down with a few Hellfires? If the President wanted to help, wouldn't we be able to watch these guys over sattelite and then just drop some Cruise missiles on them? I don't want any of our troops back in Iraq, but this isn't something we have to go door-to-door on; these guys are out in the open moving from one city to the next. How hard could it be to take large groups of them out permanently?

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 17 at 2014 3:08 PM

2014-06-17T15:08:25-04:00

I have been waiting on someone to ask me this question.

"Mr. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, this is President Lamb. I'll make you a deal. You stay on your side of the planet, I'll stay on mine, and we can play nice and co-exist. But be advised: if any thing remotely resembling a terrorist attack happens on US soil or against US interests, I'm going to blame you whether you did it or not, and then I'm going to glass your entire Islamic state."

This is, most likely, the best reason I will never be POTUS.

A buddy of mine said it better, and more professionally: "When we go back, we need to make certain we never have to go back again."

Response by SFC Stephen Carden made Jun 18 at 2014 10:41 AM

2014-06-18T10:41:11-04:00

I say let 'em kill each other all they want, but the minute they look like they want to think about touching the American Embassy......bombs away!

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 22 at 2014 5:15 PM

2014-06-22T17:15:52-04:00

To the members of ISIS this is President Eashman.

My message to you is simple. I will not intervene in your so called civil war, however, as soon as you step foot on the grounds of the US Embassy in Baghdad, I will wipe you off the face of the earth. Thank you and God Bless the United States of America

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made Jun 22 at 2014 5:32 PM

2014-06-22T17:32:56-04:00

Sir, I would cut off their supplies.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Jun 22 at 2014 7:17 PM

2014-06-22T19:17:48-04:00

He does love using the Military Intelligence and Special Forces community. Which I love. I suspect he will continue in that line and I think that is a great Idea. I would probably be a little more conservative and less likely to put our guys in any danger. I would probably do the drones with hellfires that seems like an effective technique to me.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Jun 22 at 2014 7:56 PM

2014-06-22T19:56:26-04:00

We tried troops, so hows'bout we go the "glass parking lot" route this time

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 22 at 2014 9:05 PM

2014-06-22T21:05:19-04:00

Blame them for Global Warming and have the IRS audit them. These seem to be the two most lethal COAs of the current administration.

Response by Sgt Packy Flickinger made Jul 16 at 2014 3:33 AM

2014-07-16T03:33:11-04:00

The president now? If I were the president, we wouldn't be in this situation in the first place. I know where my priorities and backbone is.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 16 at 2014 6:59 PM

2014-07-16T18:59:54-04:00

At $110K each, the AGM-114 Hellfire is not a cost effective way to dispatch a few guys with a pickup truck mounted weapon, etc. I may be a bit out of date, but, for my money, Spooky, Spectre, Snake, Nape, and Willy Pete would be far more cost effective against any combatants, vehicles, artillery, command, supply lines/dumps, and/or emplacements in the desert. The last I checked, Mark 82 ran about $2K for each 200 pounds of HE on target.

The Hellfire's 18 pound shaped charge was designed to take out Armor - not pickup trucks.

While I like Glass - Spooky / Snake / Nape / MOAB are just as impressive at far lower cost.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 16 at 2014 8:33 PM

2014-07-16T20:33:37-04:00

Bombs. Lost of them. Guided, unguided, incendiary, non-incendiary.. drop it all.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 16 at 2014 9:31 PM

2014-07-16T21:31:33-04:00

ISIS is being supported by Saudi Arabia as a hedge against Iran Hegemony in the area. Unfortunately, this complicates the geopolitical structure in the area and simply attacking ISIS directly won't solve the problem as much as I would like to simplify things and just say bomb them into oblivion. Iran and Saudi Arabia are the real problems in the Middle East that need to be death with. I think it's time we re-start from there. Immediately after 9-11-01 we had the fortitude to do that but soon lost that fortitude....we need to find it again and take them on and stop playing around with them

Response by Cpl Dennis F. made Aug 22 at 2014 3:30 PM

2014-08-22T15:30:53-04:00

King for a day, huh?
Considering that the CINC is pretty much doing what ever he pleases without input from the electorate:
1) I would remove as many non-combatants as humanly possible from the field to safer countries.
2) I would Nuke their ass to oblivion with low yield tactical weapons.
3) I would follow up with small unit SpecOps to eliminate or try for war crimes any, anywhere in the world who managed to escape #2
4) I would institute a massive PR campaign to point out that this would be our sole future response to this type of evil unleased upon the innocent.
5) I would turn off the volume on any world, third party, backlash and whining.
6) I'd sit back and have a beer.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 22 at 2014 10:58 PM

2014-08-22T22:58:51-04:00

CPT Private RallyPoint Member - First I want one of those boats (My brother in Navy) and two, do they have that in a Mercury inboard/outboard??

ISIS has even Hagel a bit terse and no wonder.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 23 at 2014 12:14 AM

2014-08-23T00:14:13-04:00

To many mindless, spineless, bleeding heart liberals to properly eradicate these scumbag radical jihadist.

Response by Cpl Dennis F. made Sep 7 at 2014 10:11 PM

2014-09-07T22:11:45-04:00

http://youngcons.com/kurds-are-sending-all-female-units-to-fight-isis-the-reason-why-is-awesome/

Here is a great idea.

Kurds are sending all-female units to fight ISIS, the reason why is AWESOME - Young Conservatives...

Jihadists believe that if they are killed by a woman then they will not go to heaven. From theWSJ: Battle-hardened after two years fighting Islamic State and other Islamist rebel groups in the multi-sided Syrian civil war, Kurdish guerrillas linked to the PKK have in recent weeks made a series of military gains that have …

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 18 at 2014 3:50 PM

2014-09-18T15:50:19-04:00

This enemy will not be defeated with precision weaponry, one HIGHLY expensive missile at a time. If we were talking about thermobaric large scale bombs that would be different. If I were president, and Lord help us...we would be mobilizing a Corps and its subordinates. We would be preparing to conduct an "operational raid" from Turkey to Baghdad...and we would be conducting a massive campaign to inform the world that we were about to take care of a problem in biblical fashion. We aren't going to take care of this problem with bombs. We aren't going to solve it with mercenary armies paid for by the American people. The nations of the middle east certainly aren't going to take care of it.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Ralph-Peters-ISIS-Iraq-death-cult/2014/08/13/id/588526/

Lt. Col. Ralph Peters: ISIS Is 'Brutal, a 'Death Cult'

The terrorist group ISIS — the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria — which continues to gain territory through brutal attacks, resembles a "death cult" unlike anything the world has seen in modern times, said retired U.S. Army Lt. Col. Ralph Peters.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 9 at 2014 6:32 AM

2014-12-09T06:32:30-05:00

I'm a quid pro quo kinda guy. You want them gone? Whatcha gonna do for my country? If I'm gonna put troops and money into the fight, your gonna have to scratch my back.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 4 at 2015 3:50 AM

2015-02-04T03:50:27-05:00

It would a nice start by our senior leadership if they even showed some emotion, called a spade a spade, and got angry for a change. As for declaring war or not, that hasn't seemed to stop our administration from doing as they've seen fit in recent years.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 4 at 2015 3:57 AM

2015-02-04T03:57:00-05:00

Even though we will eventually be over there in some shape form or fashion. Its just a matter of time

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 4 at 2015 4:15 AM

2015-02-04T04:15:03-05:00

It's hard to declare a war on something that doesn't foundationally exist. ISIS has no country that is directly related to it. It's a bunch of animals with very skewed sociopathic morals. Going to war with ISIS is like going to war on terrorism, an idea. We're already at war with that right now.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 4 at 2015 7:58 AM

2015-02-04T07:58:09-05:00

I think we should declare war against ISIS. I'm with Senator Rand Paul on this one.

https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/declaration-of-war-against-isis-good-idea-or-political-stunt

Declaration of War Against ISIS - Good Idea or Political Stunt? | RallyPoint

Saying President Obama does not have the authority to wage a war against the so-called Islamic State, Sen. Rand Paul, a Republican from Kentucky, introduced a measure declaring war against the Sunni militant group. Read all about it at the link. What are your thoughts on this? Good idea? Political stunt? Something else? http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/12/03/368246758/sen-rand-paul-introduces-declaration-of-war-against-isis

Response by SPC Keith Baker made Feb 4 at 2015 8:00 AM

2015-02-04T08:00:39-05:00

we and our sister nations need to put an end to Isis, but its impossible to decade war on an idea.

Response by COL Jean (John) F. B. made Feb 4 at 2015 8:02 AM

2015-02-04T08:02:51-05:00

Although some refuse to admit or believe that ISIS is an entity, they think they are (and so do I) and, as such, I think Congress should declare war on them and bring everything we have to bear to destroy them. It is obvious that the President will continue to play lip-service to the ISIS threat and that Congress will need to stand up and take the action necessary to end this reign of terror. The longer we wait, the stronger and more emboldened they get.

Response by SGT Jim Z. made Feb 4 at 2015 8:04 AM

2015-02-04T08:04:39-05:00

Please consult the United States Constitution Article 1 Section 8 Clause 11 for the criteria for the United States to declare war. By they way good luck getting Congress to agree on anything.

Response by Lt Col Fred Marheine, PMP made Feb 4 at 2015 8:14 AM

2015-02-04T08:14:41-05:00

First, great question / topic PFC Eric Minchey. I'm really torn on this.

Constitutionally, I believe the answer is yes - a declaration of war from the Congress is necessary / appropriate, both to gain the endorsement of the "people's representatives" and to put the rest of the world on notice: those nation-states who give material support to this enemy will be considered their allies and be subject to our retribution. I think it might also help communicate to the public the gravity of this situation in a way I don't think the majority understand. It may also result in a decision to NOT declare war - which I think would be enormously important in bringing to a head the ongoing abuses of Constitutional authorities and violations of the checks and balances between the branches of government.

Operationally, I agree with others that declaring a state of war against a bunch of barbarians without borders espousing their version of "ideas" has no immediate effect. I also am extremely troubled at investing the Executive branch - and especially this administration - with war powers / decision-making. I simply don't trust them to not use theses authorities against their political opponents under the cloak of "fighting ISIS, wherever they exist."

Ultimately, I come down on the side of following the Constitution: if we intend to prosecute an extended, overt military campaign, Congress should declare a state of war. I would want Congress to demand regular oversight / updates and to hold the executive accountable for successfully prosecuting the campaign - pipe-dreams, I fear. Nevertheless, I think it is the correct approach. For the record, I believe Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan (to name the most obvious) all fall into this bucket as well.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Feb 4 at 2015 8:37 AM

2015-02-04T08:37:37-05:00

This gets really tricky.

Lt Col Fred Marheine, PMP brings up some great points.

I'm going to approach it from a different angle.

Only Congress can Declare War. However, once war is declared, there is no formal mechanism in the Constitution to "Un-declare war." The best we have is Surrender Treaties.

The act of Declaring War, grants the President huge amounts of additional powers in his capacity as Commander in Chief.

The AUMF model adds a Check & Balance for "expeditionary operations" which I think are needed. If this were a National Defense issue, I'd be 100% for declaring outright war. If this were an actual State/Nation invading other states, I'd probably be at the 85% mark. But being a "stateless organization" and not directly related to our own National Defense, I thin the AUMF makes the most sense.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 4 at 2015 8:38 AM

2015-02-04T08:38:13-05:00

The world should declare war on ISIS.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 4 at 2015 8:42 AM

2015-02-04T08:42:15-05:00

Is it actually (legally) possible to declare war on an NGO (non-government organization)?

Response by Cpl Anthony Pearson made Feb 4 at 2015 9:36 AM

2015-02-04T09:36:39-05:00

If I were Commander in Chief, based on what I know about the threat and my limited understanding of all the moving parts pertaining to that region, I would roll up my sleeves and inform the world that the full might and power of the U.S. would be unleashed upon our enemies who torture and kill our people (and allies, and innocents, and civilians, etc.).

I would fully enable our special forces to gather intel, target, and annihilate the enemy. Period. No rules of engagement. No nice-nice. No kiddie gloves.

I would also work hand in hand with other allied nations to support THEIR efforts to battle this threat. Joint operations. Sharing intel.

This enemy does not respond to words.

They respond to power. Might. Fear.

And I'd give it to them.

Response by SFC Steven Harvey made Feb 4 at 2015 10:05 AM

2015-02-04T10:05:16-05:00

The U.S. Has not declared war in half a century. I personally don't think we should be involved with the ME at all at this point.

You can't win a war against an ideology when you're actions would inadvertently support their cause.

That said I would go again of caked on.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 4 at 2015 10:05 AM

2015-02-04T10:05:20-05:00

No this validates ISIS in my opinion.

Response by SGT Howard Badillo made Feb 4 at 2015 10:49 AM

2015-02-04T10:49:31-05:00

War should always be the very last option. We've seen the aftermath of OEF and OIF. Well, all wars in general- casualties, mental health issues, expense, civilians being displaced from their own homes, etc.

Since ISIS has no official nation, I think it's best to take them out from their roots. It has been said that ISIS is the most richest terriost network, therefore, crippling their finance would help slow them down (lots of Intel). Also, getting rid of ISIS top leadership would help in spreading their ideas. US involvement and as well as other nations is crucial in making this happen. A "mini war" where other nations are involved because their helping pull some of the weight
would help minimize a "major war" footprint. I'll quote President Obama- this isn't just US problem but the world's problem.

The root cause is really ISIS's idea- how do you get to the root cause?

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Feb 4 at 2015 11:36 AM

2015-02-04T11:36:32-05:00

The genie has to be put back in the bottle. To do this we have to step back away from the rhetoric and propaganda, forget politics and ideology, and get honest.

First, we have to name the enemy. Nothing will be accomplished by averting our eyes and being "diplomatic". ISIS is a terrorist organization. They are Islamic. Take their word for it. And they are very extreme in their attitudes. They do not fear death. Rattling sabers in their direction without any intent of using them is a futile exercise. They welcome death. Thus, they must be destroyed. Totally annihilated.

Second, who must do the deed? If not men of good will, then who? Sadly, most of the world has functionally disarmed preferring to save their treasure while America spends its to protect them. Many would be hard put to muster enough troops to put on a decent parade. I believe it was two years ago that Britain sent its whole Army on Christmas leave to save a few Pounds. Their navy, once the rulers of the seas, now possesses just 19 surface warships and 10 submarines. Is that enough to protect the English Channel? Maybe, but hardly enough to project power anywhere else in the world. How about the UN? Yeah, right. That's why, I suppose, the world is waiting with bated breath to see what we will do.

Third, how should we accomplish it if we accept the mission, not just to subjugate ISIS, but rather to destroy it completely. (Leave but one iota of this cancer and it will grow back.) Airstrikes? Drone strikes? Are there any who yet defend strategic air power as the complete answer? If we don't have the will to commit totally, then we should do nothing. There is no sense in wasting lives and treasure on another half-hearted mission. We've already have had enough of those to understand that we only leave a festering sore that infects the world with even worse terror.

Four, who is with us? I'm sure there will be some. Jordan sounds ready. However, most will abstain. I don't think there's much we can do about that. However, any nation that interferes must be considered an ally of ISIS and treated as a hostile. Otherwise, they will provide a safe haven where the remnants of ISIS may once again rise.

Five, do we have the leadership for this mission? Obviously the answer is no. That is why I do not expect any good result.

Response by LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow made Feb 4 at 2015 8:07 PM

2015-02-04T20:07:27-05:00

ISIS is not a country; they are a Terrorist organization. War can only be declared on a country...

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 12 at 2015 9:53 PM

2015-02-12T21:53:00-05:00

I think we hear the answer to your question about why the USA is not doing more just about every day, 1SG Mark Rudolph: It's that we're a war-weary nation. The President says that all the time ... and I agree with that assessment.

I think we should equip and advise the folks in that region who should be taking it to ISIS, and not allow ourselves to get dragged into another war. But by all means, equip and advise the Arab countries over there to snuff out ISIS.

Response by MSgt Keith Hebert made Feb 12 at 2015 10:13 PM

2015-02-12T22:13:54-05:00

I honestly believe that we as a country or as a world will ever be able to defeat the likes of ISIS(or any radical group).
The reason I say this is when you a fighting an ideology where fanaticism is the norm and not the exception, where asking questions of your leaders could lead to death, I think you get my point.
In order to change and win against the likes of radicals you have to change the minds and hearts of the younger generation and this would take decades, and a total change in philosophy in the minds of the older generation.
So IMHO we can destroy them militarily but that would only last for a short season.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 13 at 2015 6:36 AM

2015-02-13T06:36:04-05:00

Seems like it might fall under the Global War on Terrorism heading. There's a medal for that.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 17 at 2015 5:01 PM

2015-02-17T17:01:37-05:00

This is worthwhile reading on this topic

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

Response by MSgt Richey Leamer made Feb 18 at 2015 12:46 PM

2015-02-18T12:46:22-05:00

I think our term as the world police has run it's course. Surrounding countries, UN, NATO, could take the reigns and run with it. While the atrocities are heinous, this is a religion based fight. Not a country with a dictator. It's about time these countries start police their own...

Response by LTC Jason Strickland made Feb 19 at 2015 8:07 AM

2015-02-19T08:07:28-05:00

Well, the State Dept. says to get 'em jobs! Hey, maybe we should have an ISIS RallyPoint Command Post page so they can all have meaningful employment?
Just saying'...

Response by LCpl Mark Lefler made Feb 19 at 2015 8:16 AM

2015-02-19T08:16:57-05:00

I guess your meme forgot we're also using airstrikes and really that meme is just inflammatory and untrue.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 20 at 2015 10:19 AM

2015-02-20T10:19:52-05:00

1SG: This problem is very deep. If we militarily go in and just knock off ISIS (assuming it's that simple), then in 5-10 years, if that long, another group will rise to fill the void. Most likely Shi'ite militants backed by Iran. If we really want to fix this, we must understand the history. The west (read as Europe) imposed the modern state boundries in that region after the fall of the last caliphate, the Ottoman Empire, at the end of WWI. Since President Obama in his infinite wisdom has seen it prudent to toss the dictators, ISIS emerged to re-establish the caliphate. Iran would like to do something similar, either under the guise of a caliphate or re-establishing the late great Persian Empire.

That said, how do we deal with the current threat. Well, we must militarily defeat them, and realize that true democracies in that part of the world will likely never work. They don't understand them, and the corruption and the power the warlords have is too much for a fledging democracy to weather especially when the US military backing and protection is pulled long before full stability is reached. So, we will likely need to install strong men to once again rule these countries. It may be advisable to take the opportunity to reexamine the map, and perhaps divide some of these countries along religous lines so as to attempt encourage peace. A Kurdish state in Northern Iraq. Perhaps a Sunni and Shi'ite subdivisions of Iraq as well.

But ultimately, from a political perspective you will need a strong man, or perhaps a constitutional monarchy - where you have the dictator that is bound to some degree by a parliament. Unfortunately, this answer is not something most in this country see as reasonable because of our bias towards democratic governance. However, I don't see a democracy working over there anytime soon.

Response by PFC Timothy Ahern made Feb 25 at 2015 11:05 AM

2015-02-25T11:05:44-05:00

I say screw it hit them with a couple of MOAB'S and let Allah and the god's of pork worry about it from there!!!!! Or just start bombing them with pork filled bomb's

Response by PV2 Violet Case made Mar 5 at 2015 7:37 PM

2015-03-05T19:37:14-05:00

I just read this and watched the news clip and am wondering why the president won't tell where they are or support the way to stop it. This concerns me that our men may be going into something they should not. I will be praying for our men and women in battles these days.
http://xtribune.com/2015/02/obama-protecting-isis-new-shocking-report-raises-serious-questions-treason/

maybe hold the president accountable and stop being afraid.

Response by SGT Tyler G. made Mar 5 at 2015 8:11 PM

2015-03-05T20:11:12-05:00

I've gone in depth on what I think we should do in another post, but I'll summarize the key points here.

-The retaliation towards ISIS has to come from Iraq (or at least appear to) in order to strengthen their legitimacy in the eyes of the people.
-The U.S. should utilize our overwhelming logistical strength instead of our force in order to assist Iraq in their counter-offensive.
-U.S. Special Forces should be utilized to augment the Iraqi forces.
-Airstrikes should be reigned back and utilized only for actual confirmed targets to minimalize infrastructure damage and civilian casualties in order to limit ISIS propaganda and build support for the Iraqi government.

There was more, with lots of explanation towards each point, but this should give you the gist of it. If you have a question about something I said or would like me to go more in depth on any of the points just ask, I'd be happy to clarify.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 5 at 2015 8:19 PM

2015-03-05T20:19:32-05:00

ISIS is nuttier than squirrel turds! Crazy bunch of radicals, who need to be beat the hell up! The U.S. steps up and makes history when it needs to be made! Cut the body of the snake and it still lives, cut the head off and kill it dead!!!

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 10 at 2015 1:11 PM

2015-03-10T13:11:45-04:00

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/08/opinions/bergen-isis-boko-haram/index.html

The most recent ISIS article about Boko Haram pledging itself to ISIS.

I think the news companies are just stirring up trouble. ISIS hasn't even accepted Boko Haram's pledge of loyalty yet. Boko Haram just wanted to get the focus off of their loses to the Nigerian Forces. Their ideals are not the same as ISIS and since ISIS is pretty focused on accepting only their beliefs and rejecting others I do not think this is as big a deal as everyone makes of it.

ISIS goes global - CNN.com

ISIS has seeded itself in some dozen countries around the globe. Now the Nigerian terrorist group Boko Haram has pledged its "allegiance" to ISIS' leader.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 10 at 2015 3:09 PM

2015-03-10T15:09:46-04:00

There are few of life's problems that cannot be solved with the appropriate amount and placement of high explosives.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 10 at 2015 3:24 PM

2015-03-10T15:24:20-04:00

Worked in Baqubah (FOB War Horse) for a time... 2005-2006

If I were President for a day, I would deal with ISIS harshly and without remorse... Guess that's why I am not the Commander in Chief?

Response by PO2 David Hagwood made Mar 10 at 2015 4:57 PM

2015-03-10T16:57:54-04:00

I don't know, but they must not have learned about ISIS until it was first reported on the news; and we must be making a big deal out of nothing. *rolls eyes*

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 10 at 2015 5:37 PM

2015-03-10T17:37:51-04:00

Response by LCpl Steve Wininger made Mar 17 at 2015 3:54 PM

2015-03-17T15:54:00-04:00

Since they proclaim themselves to be a state, and they are taking over territory in other states (Syria, Iraq), absolutely yes. It is their intentions to have their own state. They have formally declared war on us, and many other countries, yes their should be war declared, and anyone caught offering support to them should be treated as a traitor.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 17 at 2015 4:28 PM

2015-03-17T16:28:54-04:00

It is not an available option to declare war on a non-nation state. The President can say something akin to it, but the Congress has to deal state to state when declaring war, because it has diplomatic requirements...thus the matter of declaring it before we just start bombing someone. First we would have to recognize ISIS as a sovereign state and then we'd have to attack it. If we took the first step it would bolster that entity's standing in the international community of miscreants, and would cause all sorts of other problems with the states that they actually reside in (since we will be attacking inside of their territorial borders). Not a simple issue. Until it is truly a state and recognized as such, we can't take it to war. We can fight, but we can't declare war. That sort of change to the way we do business would allow us to wage war in the future against any sort of non-state actor...like the KKK or the black-panther party...they aren't a state, but at some point they may become a threat the US doesn't want to deal with anymore. Slippery slope argument, but I'll lay it out there.

Response by LCpl Ian Bowen made Mar 17 at 2015 5:12 PM

2015-03-17T17:12:32-04:00

No because to formally declare war on them legally necessarily requires that we recognize them as a state power, when they are not.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 14 at 2015 9:54 PM

2015-04-14T21:54:01-04:00

Yes.

No. It did allow it to grow and expand far faster than it might have.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 14 at 2015 10:03 PM

2015-04-14T22:03:17-04:00

Yes.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Apr 15 at 2015 10:49 AM

2015-04-15T10:49:02-04:00

In accordance with a declaration of war by Congress, as required by the Constitution.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 15 at 2015 11:16 AM

2015-04-15T11:16:53-04:00

In our rush to vacate we allow for this and then with reduced money to prosecute wars,

Response by PFC Stephen Eric Serati made Apr 15 at 2015 1:15 PM

2015-04-15T13:15:52-04:00

I would continue bombing isis led by the US,and if I were Iraq,I would air mobile troops to the west to help troops on the ground advance East,then launch an attack from the east of Ramadi into isis forces,I would then attack from the South,closing the gap in the middle and air bomb the northern positions while isis retreats.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Apr 15 at 2015 1:39 PM

2015-04-15T13:39:10-04:00

I lost my dearest brother in that.............place. 11 years ago and I remember it like it was yesterday. We paid a very high price in blood, sweat, and tears over the years fighting for that turf and giving it back to the Iraqi people. It is a shame if it falls to a different group of jackholes, but it doesn't mean my brother died for nothing. He gave his life for Iraq to have a chance to forge their own destiny. If they prefer to have their entire army run away and cower at the first sign of trouble, what will us going back again change?

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Apr 15 at 2015 1:49 PM

2015-04-15T13:49:05-04:00

We need to attack ISIS when they are in the desert and discernible targets in the city. The open desert should be our ally. We can help create a corridor from Baghdad to Ramadi for reinforcement, equipment, and supplies, and possibly a corridor for the Sunnis to escape Ramadi. We can assist them on how to best defend the city. If ISIS captures Ramadi, I think we will see genocide.

Response by COL Ted Mc made Apr 15 at 2015 2:44 PM

2015-04-15T14:44:41-04:00

Knowing what "should" be done, what "could" be done, and what "can" be done are two different things.

What "should" be done is to have an Iraqi government which doesn't treat its Sunni minority as third class citizens which the majority Shi'ites are at liberty to kill if they feel like it.

What "should" be done is to have a competent and honest Iraqi government that the Iraqi people can see is actually attempting to better the conditions of all Iraqis.

What "could" be done is to re-mobilize the US military, go back to Iraq, and blow the crap out of every place which anyone thinks might possibly be harbouring anyone who could possibly be a theoretical ally of anyone that the US government doesn't like.

What "can" be done by the US military is "none of the above" - the first two because that simply isn't the job of the US military and the third because the American people simply won't stand for it and that means that any political party which advocates it is going to lose the next election.

The third option is also the least likely to succeed.

Let's just say that the situation in Iraq is like trying to make bricks without straw while using peat moss for mud (and trying to do so outdoors in the pouring rain).

Response by TSgt Tim (lj) Littlejohn made Apr 16 at 2015 4:52 PM

2015-04-16T16:52:17-04:00

Not a damn thing, from the air protect the minorities, Christians, Kurds etc. Let this , that, and the other Muslim have at it, as they have for over 1,000 years!!!

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Apr 19 at 2015 12:04 PM

2015-04-19T12:04:52-04:00

We left Iraq because the Status of Forces Agreement claimed Iraq hade judicial jurisdiction which became a sticking point.

We destabilized Syria by backing the Free Syrian Army. The other two factions were the governmental forces, and ISIS.

Our war paradigm for success is creating a democratic government, training, and equipping the military. Then we say goodbye and leave.

I will now endeavor to paint the picture of what happened. Carl Von Clausewitz developed his paradigm of war call the Trinity: Passion of the people, Rational approach of the government, and the Military Genius. Lets use this to define Iraq.

1. Passion of the people is hatred between the Sunnis, Shia, and the government. Currently ISIS occupy Sunni controlled cities as a safe have.
2. Rational approach of the government failed as it was corrupt and it discriminated against the Sunnis.
3. The genius of the military never was. It was fraught with corruption, poor leadership, fake soldier accounts to siphon money, and the general lack of understanding that equipment, vehicles, and weapons systems need maintenance.

Given these factors, the Iraqis were unable to defend against a fast moving army of 30,000. It did not help that we failed to implement a strategy. An example of this ineptness are the Kurds who fought ISIS with a few hundred people and asked us for weapons. They were on their last breath until we armed them several weeks after the ISIS invasion. Now they have several thousand fighters.

I think the next phase is to create a giant noose around Mosul to trap ISIS, however, I don't know who will do the grunt work in Mosul.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 20 at 2015 7:48 PM

2015-04-20T19:48:06-04:00

This question makes me glad I was too stupid and unambitious for politics.

Response by 1SG Randy Ford made Apr 20 at 2015 8:02 PM

2015-04-20T20:02:21-04:00

Hey ISIS you want to terrorize innocent people who just want to live their life and feed their families, well I have some folk that want to have a word with you!
USASOC, 1st,5th,7th,3rd,10th,19th20th Group, 2nd and 3rd Ranger Bat , 82nd AB, 101st AB and 10th Mtn , SEAL Teams 1-6, CCT's, PJ's, A10's, F-22's....

ROE - Call for a ride when you have neutralized the problem: no tied hands, Move on and Destroy the enemy. God Bless America.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 20 at 2015 8:12 PM

2015-04-20T20:12:30-04:00

They are doing the damned best to commit genocide. Something must be done....but what?

We have allies in the region that would likely support an expanded and coordinated air campaign. We just need to use more "dumb bombs" to keep the cost down. A $200k+ JDAM on a $100 tent or $3000 Toyota just doesn't cut it. Jordan hates them, Saudi certainly doesn't like them either. So get back into your jets, pilots...and start killing them any way you can. Strafe them if you feel up to it.

Then a ground campaign must happen. However, we need to let the US friendly allies in the region lead the fight. We just provide the power to overmatch our enemies. Once done, we can go home for the most part. Let the allied Arab countries handle the COIN/Stability fight. We can just keep certain assets in the area to ensure they maintain control.

Now for both campaigns to work, ISIS controlled territory MUST be declared a free fire zone. Leave them with as little to hide in as possible. At this point, anything down range is either a collaborator, or passive supporter. "If you want strawberry's, don't plant onions."

Last...and absolutely last option....Nuke the [bleep] out of them. But to do that, we will need Russia and China to understand the we aren't aiming at them. Otherwise, it's gonna get really warm outside for everybody.

Response by Maj Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 20 at 2015 8:18 PM

2015-04-20T20:18:17-04:00

I am very tempted to take this position: If the residents of the middle east cannot get their own s*** together and put ISIS in their place, then they can live under the rule of those angry teenagers. The Kurds seem to have their s*** in a sock, so I don't see much reason why other groups can't also have their s*** in a proverbial sock. I am not inclined to send young Americans to suffer and die for the ineptitude of those on the other side of the world.

Out of empathy, I do wish to support those resisting ISIS, particularly those with great potential to succeed and who have also demonstrated trustworthiness (Kurds come to mind). I also feel further empathy when I consider that ISIS would likely not exist if we had not invaded Iraq in 2003 (thereby inviting Al Qaida to Iraq, from which ISIS spawned). From that last perspective, ISIS is indeed our responsibility to take care of. But overall, the situation is extremely convoluted, and the middle east itself is very convoluted. I think inserting ourselves into the conflict is to step back into a clusterf*** that will not be resolved by external actors. Middle eastern people need to solve middle eastern problems, no one is better suited to that cause, and no one has a better chance at ultimately succeeding.

We could theoretically destroy ISIS, but who knows what middle easterners will let replace them. You can provide someone with food, but you cannot make them eat it. We make them too dependent upon us for stability, which is their responsibility.

I guess I've ended up forming my opinion rather than outlining a temptation...

Response by SPC Steve Skaggs made Apr 20 at 2015 8:57 PM

2015-04-20T20:57:06-04:00

Tough question. But to answer, I must ask a question is return... Are we the World Police or Earth's Defender's of Freedom? If yes to either, we should be in Syria... and The Ukraine, and Somalia, and Nigeria, and Yemen, and...

If not, should we be an isolationist state or only delve into conflicts in which we, as a nation, have a national interest? If we are not isolationists, could there be a conflict in which we do not have an interest?

Keeps getting more complicated as we peel the onion. A great question to ask yourself is, "do we have a vested interest in The Ukraine?" I would say yes. Could the unlawful expansion of the Russian Federation encroach on the interests of NATO? If you say yes, then we are morally, ethically, and legally obligated to stand with them as an "affront to one is an affront to all" under the NATO charter.

As for Yemen, they are located at the mouth of the Persian Gulf and we all know what the Gulf means to our national interests.

As for Somalia and Nigeria, is it not our belief that any terrorist organization allowed to flourish is a perceived threat to America and her citizens?

In my heart I would love to revert our country to that of the early 1900's. Those times required a "direct treat" (e.g., Pearl Harbor) to our nation or sovereign land.

We have moved beyond those times and we have accepted the role Freedom Police since the Korean conflict. We have also became an all volunteer military since Vietnam. We have a surplus of hero's who value the beliefs and concepts of freedom beyond our geographical borders or national origin.

I am honored to have been one. I also believe that freedom is an objective worth sacrificing for regardless of location.

Strengthen the budget for our military and those who serve. Commit the needed funds for their care and wellbeing upon their return. And ease the transition to civilian life when they are ready as opposed to when they are no longer needed.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 21 at 2015 1:17 AM

2015-04-21T01:17:58-04:00

If it were up to me we would drop the entire 82nd Airborne division on top of them, followed by a mechanized assault by our armor divisions. Wipe every last one of those worthless SOBs off the map. Perhaps impractical, but it would get the job done.

On a more serious note, I agree that we need a joint force to reclaim the country and eliminate ISIS. Our bombing campaign, in my opinion, is simply a half-hearted effort to show that we're doing "something." We need boots on the ground in cooperation with our Arab allies to bring the fight to ISIS for a change.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made May 4 at 2015 9:34 PM

2015-05-04T21:34:37-04:00

I just read "Clash of Civilizations" by Sam Huntington and it explains and predicts modern and future conflicts around the globe.