Isn't "killing our way out" kind of the traditional way to win a war?

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 17 Feb 2015 18:50:02 -0500

Regarding this idea that we need to address the "root causes" of terrorism, first, even if the State Department's notions of what those are were not laughable (Bin Laden-Engineer, Zawahiri-MD, al-Baghdadi--PhD...), and even if the idea that we could adequately address those was not equally risible (US poverty levels have remained remarkably stable at about 13% since 1966), and even if doing so would actually prevent or slow recruiting to Daesh's cause, we SHOULD NOT WANT TO.

There must exist in these people some defect that allows them to justify the kind of evil that Daesh perpetrates. We should want that defect to manifest through the overt act of joining this Jihad. In this way we can know, unambiguously, who to kill.

And in this way we absolutely can "kill our way out of this war."

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 17 at 2015 9:39 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 17 Feb 2015 21:39:56 -0500

1SG Private RallyPoint Member I don't think killing them is the right way. We should develop a technology like the one in Matrix and harvest them while they live the rest of their natural life. Renewable and sustainable energy. Yes!

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Feb 17 at 2015 9:46 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Tue, 17 Feb 2015 21:46:12 -0500

The way you win a war is "nation building." As CPT Michael Barden alludes to in his post. But we're no longer willing to do that as a nation. We don't have the political will to do that.

The way we "won" WWII (Germany, Japan) was Nation Building. The reason (South) Korea isn't a problem is Nation Building. If you look at countries where Nation Building didn't take place... you'll see where we have problems, and where we'll continue to have problems.

There is only 1 way we are going to win in the Middle East. Let "them" fight their own #$%^# war, with us assisting. It's "their" problem. I hate to phrase it like this, but the Middle East is like an Alcoholic Uncle. Unless he realizes he has a problem and "asks" for help, nothing will ever change. We can take him to rehab (Gulf 1, gulf 2, ISIS aka Gulf 3) as many times as needed, but he won't ever get better.

Now, King A. of Jordan and now Egypt, and the growing support from the Arab nations is a good sign. A really good sign. To expand the metaphor, they're no longer quietly ignoring the uncle. They're talking about him.

But they have to be in charge of this. It has to be their initiative. It can't be us. We can help. A lot. But if these roaches are going to be stomped for good, it has to be stomped by the Arab world, not by the Western world.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 18 at 2015 12:46 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Feb 2015 00:46:12 -0500

This war requires some killing. There are many other key things we need to do to win other than killing, but killing is definitely on the to do list. We can't go and bail out every failed economy because they threaten us. Honestly I think the president accidently did something right by standing back. Jordan is now in the ring swinging away. I think our biggest mistake in Iraq was the lack of a middle eastern presence in the reconstruction. We looked like conquerors. I love the idea of conquering, actually I love it. But if you are trying to play the hearts and minds stuff it doesn't look good to have an army from a completely different continent hanging out and beating in doors for a decade. At some point we need to learn that the army is great for kicking someone's a**, we've never lost militarily in a war. Crazy story though, we suck as diplomats. Who would have thought a bunch of testosterone ridden alpha males would be the wrong ones to shake hands and kiss babies?

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 18 at 2015 1:19 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Feb 2015 01:19:17 -0500

Nobody wants to say it, but the majority of the problems over there are caused by islam. Whether they misinterpret or intentionally distort the words of Mohammed, all the various groups committing violent acts do so in the name of islam. Until that issue is addressed no amount of nation building will fix this issue. The big problem at the moment is ISIS. They need to be killed. We need to use whatever force is needed to do the killing no matter how unpopular it is. Militarily we’ve taken half measures in every conflict after WW2. We have the most powerful military in the world. We’ve the best trained and best equipped. We took out the Nazis and we can’t stop 20K-30K terrorists? Bullshit. Take the gloves off, stop all this touchy feely crap and get our hands dirty like we did in WW2. The rest of the world will respect us when we show the resolve to get the job done. If they don’t respect us then fearing us will do.

Once ISIS is taken care of, or their numbers greatly reduced, then the issue of radical islam needs to be addressed. The leftist news is always spouting off on “the war on women” yet we continue to do business with countries that oppress women like Saudi Arabia. Once these countries start addressing the real root of the problem this will never go away. Unfortunately I don’t see it happening soon when the POTUS refuses to use the term radical islam. He wouldn’t even acknowledge the 21 Christians beheaded as Christians. He referred to them only as Egyptian citizens.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Feb 18 at 2015 12:28 PM

LTC Paul Labrador — Wed, 18 Feb 2015 12:28:24 -0500

Kinda. If you are a follower of Clausewitz, then the act of war is meant to serve a political endstate. That is, killing your enemy merely sets up the conditions to pursue the full gamut of political tools to get what you want. We dont' kill for the sake of killing. If you look at war overall, defeating the enemy on the battlefield was a means to bring them to the negotiating table. Very rarely do we see wars of genocide where killing is the ONLY way of achieving our stated goals and agenda.

Now a war with ISIS may very well fall into the latter category in that there is no political solution and that killing ALL of them is the only way to achieve success.

Response by MSG Brad Sand made Feb 18 at 2015 3:39 PM

MSG Brad Sand — Wed, 18 Feb 2015 15:39:28 -0500

Robert, I like the way you think...take their genes out of the pool.

Response by SGT Tyler G. made Feb 19 at 2015 10:37 PM

SGT Tyler G. — Thu, 19 Feb 2015 22:37:34 -0500

You win a conventional war by making another nation-state submit through overwhelming force, yes. This tactic doesn't work in asymmetric warfare however. ISIS is a little easier to fight in a conventional sense because they're actually trying to hold land, but at best that makes this equivocal to Vietnam with a mixture of conventional and non-conventional issues to address. The fact of the matter is that we cannot win with brute force. Even if we were to crush ISIS militarily, it wouldn't be long before another group popped up in its place, and support would be higher as opinions of the U.S. dwindled. We will have to defeat them, but we must do so in a way that we gain the support of the populace in order to cut off their ability to move, hide, and recruit.

TLDR: We can't be forgetting the lessons of COIN so soon. Short-sightedness gets us into these messes, thinking about long term second and third order effects of our actions and how we address problems like this will get us out.