What political changes are necessary to achieve the mission to destroy ISIS?

SSG Thomas Brousseau — Fri, 12 Jun 2015 14:03:24 -0400

Is control of the Congress and the White House by the Repulicans necessary to achieve the mission to destroy Isis? What are your thoughts?

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 12 at 2015 2:11 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 12 Jun 2015 14:11:01 -0400

Its the White House and Congress staying out of the kitchen that will be needed

Response by COL Jean (John) F. B. made Jun 12 at 2015 2:11 PM

COL Jean (John) F. B. — Fri, 12 Jun 2015 14:11:36 -0400

We have to get a President and Administration who are more interested in actually protecting the United States, its citizens and its allies more than winning elections or "fundamentally transforming" our country.

We have to get a Congress that truly wants to support the military and win the wars we fight.

We have to get the military leadership to do what it takes to win, to include having the moral courage to stand up to the civilian "leadership" when they know they are wrong.

We have to regain the trust and respect of our allies and enlist their help in this battle.

Response by SGT Jeremiah B. made Jun 12 at 2015 2:28 PM

SGT Jeremiah B. — Fri, 12 Jun 2015 14:28:02 -0400

The first political change that is necessary is the deep understanding that Daesh is not our problem to fix, that we cannot fix the Middle East and that violence does not solve the problems actually fueling the madness that is Islamic Extremism.

Essentially, we have to learn that we can no longer fix foreign threats by good Ol' American dick measuring.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 12 at 2015 2:30 PM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 12 Jun 2015 14:30:34 -0400

This assumes Republicans have a plan that will survive contact with ISIL, which we all know is a fallacy. It will take a concentrated effort on the part of all countries, especially since they are a non-state actor intent on establishing their rule of law which transcends borders. It won't matter what political party is in control of the White House & Congress; we either do it together or not at all.

Response by SSG Hank Ortega made Jun 12 at 2015 2:31 PM

SSG Hank Ortega — Fri, 12 Jun 2015 14:31:57 -0400

It would help if we didn't have a Muslim occupying the White House, who is an enemy of the State.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Jun 12 at 2015 2:32 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Fri, 12 Jun 2015 14:32:44 -0400

Actually declare war. Not "Authorize Use of Military Force." Declare War.

If "we" want to equivocally end a threat, we need to limit the number of hands that can influence the decision making process. Declaring War does that. It changes this from a Legislative Power into an Executive Power.

We can't have a "Board of Directors" second guessing the CEO every time public opinion sways. We can't have a constantly changing set of representatives (every 2 years) influencing that decision.

What war have we had that has taken less than 2 years? We can't even ramp up for a war in 2 years. Conflicts yes. War no. Wars are dirty nasty things that take TIME to resolve.

Having the Legislative branch involved in this is figuratively too many chefs in the kitchen.

Response by Cpl Anthony Pearson made Jun 12 at 2015 2:32 PM

Cpl Anthony Pearson — Fri, 12 Jun 2015 14:32:53 -0400

We need someone, Democrat-Republican-Libertarian-Whatever, who exudes strength, intelligence, and for the love of God, common sense. Someone who represents the actual needs of this country, and puts America FIRST before their bank accounts and other special interests.

Someone real.

We need someone who will be decisive and enable our military commanders and troops to actually perform their mission without DUMB-ASS-RESTRAINTS.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 12 at 2015 2:34 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 12 Jun 2015 14:34:40 -0400

No, we do not need GOP control of Congress. We just need Americans with clear thoughts and a field of view un-obscured by partisanship. So in other words, nothing useful will be done any time soon.

What needs to be done to destroy ISIL/Daesch is to partner up with locals that are willing to carry the fight. We are fixated on waiting for the "perfect ally" to emerge, a largely secular freedom group of pro-American rebels who are so pure their hearts beat unicorn blood. And like a unicorn, they don't exist. We'll have to work with groups we may not like, and accept the breakup of the nation known as Iraq, and be ready to negotiate carving out a Kurdistan and accepting an Arab Shia'a state in the Basra region.

One of the worst things we can do at this stage, unfortunately, is get too involved. Because anyone we openly team up with now instantly becomes tarnished as "puppets of the imperialist Western regime blah blah blah colonialism" and they end up marginalized and attacked by everyone. So we should work behind the scenes and let the locals find their own equilibrium.

Response by LTC Bink Romanick made Jun 12 at 2015 3:35 PM

LTC Bink Romanick — Fri, 12 Jun 2015 15:35:56 -0400

Yes one party rule worked so well in Germany and the USSR and in all the banana republics of the 3d world. That being said, I don't think that any changes in politics will mean anything in the fight against ISIS. We aren't going to put significant numbers of ground troops in , hopefully, because our Iraqi allies won't fight for themselves.

What we need to do is get the Turks , the Saudis and even the Iranians with the Shia militias to engage. That's how you'll defeat them on the ground.

Actually wasn't McCain all in favor of arming the Syrian Rebels, who became Daesh?

Response by TSgt David L. made Jun 12 at 2015 5:40 PM

TSgt David L. — Fri, 12 Jun 2015 17:40:22 -0400

Honestly, IMO we need to take the politics out of it altogether. Congress and POTUS need to give the military a rough outcome and general goals desired and then turn the operation over to the military (and "contractors") with the caveat that the political and monetary support will continue as long as milestones are met. IMO of course.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jun 12 at 2015 8:10 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Fri, 12 Jun 2015 20:10:41 -0400

We would need ground troops which the WH is refusing right now. It will be bloody urban warfare.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 12 at 2015 9:10 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 12 Jun 2015 21:10:15 -0400

Like LtCol Matthew Sutton said, the idea has been around for centuries and it's almost impossible to destroy an idea. I don't see a purely military solution to any problem in the middle east. There probably isn't.
All we can do militarily is move the organization down along the "spectrum of conflict". I think it's mentioned in a Army FM (3 series), I remember seeing it in the old counter intelligence FM. It starts with the "Idea" and as capabilities are gained the threat posed escalates. I imagine ISIS is somewhere above an insurgency but below full conventional warfare. At any point and time we can knock them down. That's never been a topic for debate. Hell, the Saudis, Jordanians, or Iranians, could do it.
In my opinion, the problem is the military is not the right tool to deal with conflicts smaller than an insurgency. Typically subversion, sedition, terrorism and low level guerrilla style conflicts are dealt with law enforcement and intelligence agencies. This is hindered on our end by the fact that this group operates outside our borders.
We can look at historical examples to see how other terror groups were taken down. That only shows two ways and only one has consistently worked in the long term. Occupation or targeted law enforcement coupled with engagement/dialogue with moderates. The British started with an occupation of northern Ireland and finally had to back off and resort to the second technique. Germany, in the eighties, did both at the same time. They convinced the moderate members of the red army faction to stay home and not cause any problems and set up checkpoints at every intersection in the country until they found the leaders. Italy and England actually ended up giving the moderate members/sympathizers political voice. Ecuador, in dealing with Sendero luminoso, shut down the country, suspended their constitution, and arrested thousands until the problem stopped. That worked, until you consider most of those arrested were never released and now, twenty years later, the group is making a comeback.
As for a solution, I think we should go back; Knock ISIS back down to a sub-insurgency. Then repeat what we did in Germany after world war 2. Establish a few large bases in key areas and secure the vicinity with smaller FOBs. Let the Iraqi military and police work out of annexes to our facilities where we can provide oversight, training, and support. Upgrade the infrastructure connecting our facilities and allow immediate families of the locals serving on the annexes to live nearby. Let them work on the bases, earn income. Then get the state department and USAID, peace corps to come in and build schools. Send some of the smarter citizens to America and send them to college, give them a good liberal arts education, then make them teach at the schools to pay us back. Involve some private businesses, build a McDonald's and Applebee's outside the gate. Maybe a hot topic and best buy express.
Make a little America in "enemy" territory. Hold it and keep it secure. Give the locals a safe place to live and operate from, give the locals a safe place to put their families and while they aren't looking, Amercanize the hell out of them. Let them have internet and TLC/MTV. Give them a double quarter pounder with cheese and keep them coming back with IPhones and tablets. Educate them to the point that something like ISIS will be seen as a step back, not a step forward.
The problem is it's gonna take time. A lot of time. Decades even. I don't see any political party able to do it. Although you could sell it to liberals as helping the poor/disenfranchised, maybe snub the Saudis by moving our base there and replace its functions in little America. Sell it to the hawks as positioning our forces closer to Iran.
Just my idea.

Response by LTC Kevin B. made Jun 12 at 2015 9:15 PM

LTC Kevin B. — Fri, 12 Jun 2015 21:15:29 -0400

I don't think the solution is a "Democrat or Republican issue. It's an Iraqi issue. All our politicians will do is to either a) mess it up a little or b) mess it up a lot. One party created this mess, and another party has failed to solve it. I see/hear nothing from either party that gives me any confidence that our various foreign policy advisors have an answer.

Response by PO1 Kerry French made Jun 13 at 2015 2:04 AM

PO1 Kerry French — Sat, 13 Jun 2015 02:04:16 -0400

There is a lot that can be done but the first thing that needs to be done is get the Ikwhan OUT of the White House. There are too many "advisors" who are bona fide Muslim Brotherhood and they have absolutely subverted any chance of following the first rule of war: KNOW THE ENEMY! When we can't name the enemy or say certain words for fear of offending the religion of perpetual outrage, we are doomed to fail.

We have to understand the ideology of fundamental, orthodox Islam and know their war doctrine. Reading the Qu'ran, Hadiths, Sira, Reliance of the Traveller (sic), Mile Stones by Sayeed Qtub and Inspire magazine, understand abrogation, taqiyya, kitman and stop hamstringing the military from knowing this is only a start.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 13 at 2015 7:41 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 13 Jun 2015 07:41:15 -0400

If the U.S. Government hadn't funded and trained them then we wouldn't have this situation. Political changes needed? I think all members of Congress and the president shold be veterans, foreign policy would be a lot different for sure.