Posted on May 20, 2015
SGT Signals Nco
6.74K
33
40
1
1
0
Image
Now that Ramadi is in the hands of The Islamic State, what should America's stance be? Do we withdraw the "3,000" troops and call it quits, do we send boots on the ground or do we seek a diplomatic solution? What are we to do?
Posted in these groups: Isis logo ISISAmerican flag soldiers Soldiers100 War on Terror
Avatar feed
Responses: 19
SGT Mike Marino
0
0
0
Like in the picture above showing a group of Isis. There should be a B17 taking them out. Opportunity missed. Our president is an f in girl.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SGT Mike Marino
0
0
0
Let all our troops leave and come back to the United States. Send message through code somehow to have the troops loyal to U.S leave by a certain time and day. Then drop a Nuk on that sht hole right ontop of populated Isis members. A neutron bomb to keep buildings worth keeping intact and then just send in Bulldozers. Turn that part of the region into a huge piece of glass. Then send the United States back in to take the land plant the flag and start pumping oil for our country. Repopulate the country.
(0)
Comment
(0)
SGT Mike Marino
SGT Mike Marino
>1 y
I truly mean my last post. We should have did that fro the beginning. It would have saved lives and resources. We have the technology but we don't use it.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SPC Indirect Fire Infantryman (Mortarman)
0
0
0
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SPC Indirect Fire Infantryman (Mortarman)
0
0
0
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
CPT Aaron Kletzing
0
0
0
Putting a ton of conventional boots on the ground would be a very bad idea at this point, in my opinion.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SSG John Jensen
0
0
0
send books, lots of books - i don't know which books are appropriate, but send them anyway.

we could have prevented the taliban from forming, but when russia left afghanistan, we abandoned the place, if we put in a little money to rebuild and get people out of refugee camps, the taliban wouldn't have happened
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SPC Ray Starling
0
0
0
Due to the very nature of ISIS, a diplomatic response would not be possible. Their are 4 major factions of Islam, of which ISIS is just one of them. The last that I checked, a table needs only 3 legs to stand, so our policies need to be geared towards supporting the various factions against ISIS to eliminate them. Quality initiatives do not work in un-ethical environments, and as such, ISIS has sown the seeds of their own ultimate destruction. However, our President has placed global warming over ISIS as the greater threat. So lets send in Greenpeace (who already has nukes) to deal with the issue. We can put it on pay-per-view and use the funds generated to support the global green initiatives proposed to solve the global warming problem. Understandably, this may not garner enough popular support to be effective. But if we go with popular opinion, sending in John Kerry to work out a "diplomatic solution" with ISIS, would only boost the hits that the terrorist organizations receive on their web-sites at his beheading. President Lincoln said "A house divided cannot stand". This is the crux of the whole problem, and until the world comes together and makes a stand against ISIS, they will continue to exist and propagate their terrorist demands.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
MAJ Commander
0
0
0
Bolster our presence in Kuwait by two brigades to secure the northern Kuwaiti border, bring the IP, ING, ISF, and IA to a secure location (perhaps within Kuwait itself), train their army with conventional US Forces (officers and NCOs alike), stand up entire units from these locations, keep a large SF presence in the country only to advise the Iraqi forces, embed more CA and PSYOP personnel to conduct large inform and influence operations with the population by trying to dissuade against jihad and Iranian influence, increase dialogue between FF Coalition, Iraqi militia groups, Sunni and Shia clerics, local tribal leaders, and larger political figures, omitting Iranian representation. Integrate Iraqi combat equipment available into TTPs (technical vehicles), etc., maximize Iraqi combat power outside of cities with the focus of keeping an outer cordon around them allowing for IP and ISF to control the inner cities and effectively forcing ISIS to fight in less urban terrain. Develop plans to allow ISIS no safe havens, loosen restrictions of Coalition CAS/CCA and push for more Iraqi CAS and CCA. Bolster Iraqi ADA assets and indirect fires with an arms agreement, attempt to refurbish old Iraqi Soviet type equipment that may be salvageable from scrapyards scattered throughout Iraq (ie. Taji boneyard). In regards to retaking Ramadi or other cities lost, Iraq needs to secure what they hold already, contain and/or isolate the threat, then completely destroy the threat. ISIS in Syria is another nutroll in and of itself.

All of these things are being done already for the most part (minus the additional two brigades in Kuwait). The main objective is to do more to allow the Iraqi people to take their country back and prevent sectarian violence and keep conventional US combat forces out of the fight unless we reach that major decision point where Iraq can no longer handle anything (which they may be close to). The other two options are to do nothing else than what we are doing and allow the nation to implode and fall, or full scale US combat operations which will not be good for the US at home or abroad. We have spent enough blood and treasure for the Iraqis and it's time that they take the responsibility for the security of their nation.
(0)
Comment
(0)
SFC Special Forces Assistant Operations & Intelligence Sergeant
SFC (Join to see)
>1 y
MAJ (Join to see) Sir, I second MAJ Tristan M. 's point, the main effort of your plan has been attempted, some of which are ongoing. For me, the major sticking point of your plan is attempting to marginalize both radical Sunni ISIL and Shia Iran influence. We would need one to complete the task of marginalization of the other. There is no "moderate" or "middle ground" entity that has the influence needed. The situation in Iraq is nearly a textbook unconventional warfare scenario. In my opinion, we need the Iranian influence to continue to keep the underground political support at bay. If we were to marginalize Iranian influence, we would see ISIL political support move from the underground and into full power. The enemy that you know is friendlier than the enemy that you don't know.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SGT Signals Nco
0
0
0
Ending the war with a bang. Operation Human Glowstick.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close