Posted on Mar 4, 2015
Should we put boots on the ground to combat ISIS?
4.06K
6
11
0
0
0
The president said we will not be in a full out war with ISIS and he said only special operations units will be on the ground. My question is, should we go in an all out war with ISIS?
ISIS
Warfare
Combat
Special Operations
Troops
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 4
2
2
0
Young man, I am very secure in my assessment that ISIS will wither and die of it's own accord. Consider:
-It is an ideological movement that is morally bankrupt.
-Unlike other groups that have formed and operated in the area, ISIS has managed to piss off just about every government in the area. Without a sponsor, they have only the resources they can pillage or scavenge to use for operations. The area they own (aside from Mosul) is just about devoid of things of value.
-They rape, pillage, enslave, defile, and destroy. Good luck trying to govern a "state" that way. Regular folks like the lights to come on and potholes filled. Something tells me Al-Baghdadi has not formed a decent municipal plan.
-They have managed to make an enemy out of Jordan, Syria, Turkey (sort of), Kurdistan, Iran, Qatar, UAE, Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, and the USA. Not too many times I can think of that group agreeing on ANYTHING.
The Islamic State will collapse. Probably not because of military considerations, but maybe. Most likely, their inability to forge any kind of policy aside from conquest will lead to their downfall. Basically, they are a modern day Golden Horde without a tactical innovation. We just need to put some stress on them, and watch them fold.
I think it is imperitive that the "boots on the ground" for the most part come from local stakeholders. For too long, the region has relied on outsiders to face down troublemakers while they talk out of both sides of their mouth to keep power. Frankly, it is sickening. I have had just about enough of middle-eastern doublespeak. Put up or shut up. President Healy would look after US interests and US interests only. My ground forces, if employed, would have very specific targets in mind, identify and eliminate them, and then stand by somewhere nearby for the next mission. Preferably off shore.
-It is an ideological movement that is morally bankrupt.
-Unlike other groups that have formed and operated in the area, ISIS has managed to piss off just about every government in the area. Without a sponsor, they have only the resources they can pillage or scavenge to use for operations. The area they own (aside from Mosul) is just about devoid of things of value.
-They rape, pillage, enslave, defile, and destroy. Good luck trying to govern a "state" that way. Regular folks like the lights to come on and potholes filled. Something tells me Al-Baghdadi has not formed a decent municipal plan.
-They have managed to make an enemy out of Jordan, Syria, Turkey (sort of), Kurdistan, Iran, Qatar, UAE, Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, and the USA. Not too many times I can think of that group agreeing on ANYTHING.
The Islamic State will collapse. Probably not because of military considerations, but maybe. Most likely, their inability to forge any kind of policy aside from conquest will lead to their downfall. Basically, they are a modern day Golden Horde without a tactical innovation. We just need to put some stress on them, and watch them fold.
I think it is imperitive that the "boots on the ground" for the most part come from local stakeholders. For too long, the region has relied on outsiders to face down troublemakers while they talk out of both sides of their mouth to keep power. Frankly, it is sickening. I have had just about enough of middle-eastern doublespeak. Put up or shut up. President Healy would look after US interests and US interests only. My ground forces, if employed, would have very specific targets in mind, identify and eliminate them, and then stand by somewhere nearby for the next mission. Preferably off shore.
(2)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
1SG, I agree that the Islamic State will "wither and die by its own accord," as you said. However, it will most certainly not be from financial burden as they, at one point, we're making upwards of $3 million a day from oil profits in the region. Also, they were loosely sponsored by Syria. I believe that the collapse will be caused by ideological differences among the higher echelons of their "leadership." For example, I believe some will be solely devoted to their jihad on western civilization (Christians etc) and others will be more interested in the money they have made in oil/other monetary ventures. ISIS became a "business" very quickly. Due to human nature, greed amongst the leaders will trump the jihad to some of those men and create discention. I believe that will be the undoing of the ISIS, but the world will still be facing a radical group hellbent on ethnicly and religious cleansing of the Middle East. Which begs the aforementioned question, "should the U.S. put boots on the ground?" The only answer to that question is a resounding YES. As we stand now, it is reminiscent of Germany circa 1938. We have taken notice, but everyone is still scared to call it what it is: a problem! We must correct that problem with direct action.
(1)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
SGT Robert Chestney, I have read the Qur'an, cover to cover. Much like the bible, there is plenty in it to admire, and plenty to question.
About your assertion on the number of radical muslims, I do not know where you acquired that figure.
Personally, I could care less how people think. I am not the thought police, or even the speech police. It is what they DO that makes them a problem. Right now, ISIS numbers around 25,000 fighters. A regional problem, but not a strategic one. They are doing quite a number on the regions they occupy. Us declaring war on them is exactly what they want. It gives them legitimacy with their recruiting base. Mohammed had a plan when he launched the Arab conquest. These jokers are very little removed from barbarians. They can not govern, and thus they will fall. Mark my words.
About your assertion on the number of radical muslims, I do not know where you acquired that figure.
Personally, I could care less how people think. I am not the thought police, or even the speech police. It is what they DO that makes them a problem. Right now, ISIS numbers around 25,000 fighters. A regional problem, but not a strategic one. They are doing quite a number on the regions they occupy. Us declaring war on them is exactly what they want. It gives them legitimacy with their recruiting base. Mohammed had a plan when he launched the Arab conquest. These jokers are very little removed from barbarians. They can not govern, and thus they will fall. Mark my words.
(0)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
SSG (Join to see), I would question that $3 million/day oil revenue figure. I am very aware of the production capability of the area. Without Beiji and the refinery there, they have next to nothing. Even with it, it would not trouble the GoI to shut off the pipelines feeding the refinery. $3 million/ day translates to over 70,000 barrels a day at market prices, which they surely wouldn't get. That is a boatload of tanker trucks. Sounds like a target. Oh, and all those tanker truck have to go somewhere in order to make it to market. Realistically, that can only be Turkey. I am quite sure that the Turks, like many, like to make a buck, but would be very disinterested to see their complicity made public.
I personally think ISIS is very vulnerable to economic pressure, and as their infrastructure crumbles, the misery level in the area will skyrocket. Angry locals would be a threat much more serious to ISIS than the 8 F-16s Qatar throws at them.
I personally think ISIS is very vulnerable to economic pressure, and as their infrastructure crumbles, the misery level in the area will skyrocket. Angry locals would be a threat much more serious to ISIS than the 8 F-16s Qatar throws at them.
(0)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
SGT Robert Chestney, an error range between 7 and 36% does not equal a statistic. If the USG says the stat is 10-15%, that would equate to approximately half of the numbers you threw out there.
Having said that, quibbling about numbers will get us nowhere. The threat is individuals willing to commit to action, and the folks who train and organize them into something that is a credible threat. That number is much, much smaller.
However, playing whack-a-mole with jihadis has proven ineffective. All you do is expend a small fortune in ordinance to kill small groups of these muldoons. I submit they are simply not worth the ordinance we are shooting at them. A few are worthy of well-aimed sniper fire. That's it. Let them eat their own for a while. The locals will regulate on them soon enough. They will meet a far more appropriate end at the hands of a vengeful local population.
Having said that, quibbling about numbers will get us nowhere. The threat is individuals willing to commit to action, and the folks who train and organize them into something that is a credible threat. That number is much, much smaller.
However, playing whack-a-mole with jihadis has proven ineffective. All you do is expend a small fortune in ordinance to kill small groups of these muldoons. I submit they are simply not worth the ordinance we are shooting at them. A few are worthy of well-aimed sniper fire. That's it. Let them eat their own for a while. The locals will regulate on them soon enough. They will meet a far more appropriate end at the hands of a vengeful local population.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I think we need to allow the Arab world to take care of this problem. The US should support legitimate units that are actually winning the war. YPG/YPJ units in Northern Iraq and Syria are doing an awesome job at turning back ISIS. However, they need support in the form of heavy weaponry and training to use such weapons.
I think US foreign policy is doing more to destabilize than help and needs to be reviewed. (Preferably by someone competent)
I think US foreign policy is doing more to destabilize than help and needs to be reviewed. (Preferably by someone competent)
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
When you say support of heavy weaponry, who would be operating said weaponry? The guys we're helping or us?
(0)
(0)
LCpl Steve Wininger
The ones we are helping. They aren't asking for troops, just some support. The are a group of women, men, and citizens who got sick of being pushed around. They are the only group who has been successful against ISIS.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I don't think so. We have made far too many cuts to our defense, and I think we could spread ourselves too thin very quickly.
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
That could happen but if we aren't doing enough to stop these animals, who else is going to stop the senseless beheadings of innocent men, women and children?
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google