What should we do about ISIS/ISIL ?

2015-05-20T13:13:50-04:00

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?

Response by GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad made May 20 at 2015 1:17 PM

2015-05-20T13:17:06-04:00

Honestly, I do not think we should commit more "boots on the ground" to that hell hole.

Response by SPC Charles Brown made May 20 at 2015 1:19 PM

2015-05-20T13:19:48-04:00

Shoot them in the dark then nuke them until they glow.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made May 20 at 2015 1:27 PM

2015-05-20T13:27:41-04:00

If we do anything we should do it all out. Enough of this we will be nice and slap you fingers.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made May 20 at 2015 1:32 PM

2015-05-20T13:32:53-04:00

Ending the war with a bang. Operation Human Glowstick.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made May 20 at 2015 1:33 PM

2015-05-20T13:33:28-04:00

Endinfthe war with a bang.
Operation Human Glowstick.

Response by SGT Jimmy Carpenter made May 20 at 2015 3:11 PM

2015-05-20T15:11:45-04:00

The easy answer is kill them, every last one of them. However, it's not that easy. We'd have to kill their beliefs as well and since there is only 1 Quran (as far as I know), we can't wipe out the entire religion.

We can keep killing known ISIS leaders but another will step up and take his place and so on. We could re-deploy ground units to Iraq and occupy the country again but that would be a commitment for eternity. I believe that the reason ISIS exists in the first place is because of our over-welcomed stay in that country.

I don't think we should stand by and watch this group of barbarians continue their atrocities but I also don't really know if we can come up with a solution to rid the world of them without creating more radical groups.

I think diplomacy is not an option since that group has no diplomats and recent history shows they don't care about negotiating. They only care about killing those who don't follow their radical beliefs.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made May 28 at 2015 1:59 PM

2015-05-28T13:59:27-04:00

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.

Response by SPC Ray Starling made May 28 at 2015 3:29 PM

2015-05-28T15:29:57-04:00

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.

Response by SSG John Jensen made May 29 at 2015 3:14 PM

2015-05-29T15:14:27-04:00

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

Response by PO3 John Clausen made May 29 at 2015 8:03 PM

2015-05-29T20:03:03-04:00

Don't forget, ISIS is an enemy of and is currently fighting the shia muslims of Iran. Iran is trying to control them by using proxies in Syria/Iraq, Hezbollah fighters from Lebanon and their own forces, but with limited results. The way I see it, heads we win, tails we win by not engaging... We should fully support defensive positions along Jordan and Israel's borders, but not get in too deep, not yet anyway... The complicating issue is what to do with the Christians suffering in the war zone?

Response by CPT Aaron Kletzing made May 29 at 2015 8:14 PM

2015-05-29T20:14:26-04:00

Putting a ton of conventional boots on the ground would be a very bad idea at this point, in my opinion.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made May 29 at 2015 8:31 PM

2015-05-29T20:31:50-04:00

https://youtu.be/zsTRxXvQY0s

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made May 29 at 2015 8:35 PM

2015-05-29T20:35:16-04:00

Either we take care of them on the ground or we build up a coalition which will be handicapped by the Iraq Army. They are paper tigers. It will be a bloody affair ISIS does what I expect, hunker down in population centers.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made May 29 at 2015 8:43 PM

2015-05-29T20:43:36-04:00

https://youtu.be/zsTRxXvQY0s

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made May 29 at 2015 10:24 PM

2015-05-29T22:24:10-04:00

First, we have to stop asking the question what should we do about ISIS or what should we do about Al Qeada or what should we do about Boko Haram etc. That question needs to be replaced by what should we do about the spread of radical Islamic movements that aim to attack America and our strategic partners. The answer to me is easy -- degrade them to a point where they do not pose a serious threat to the US, our strategic interest, or our partners.

Second, we have to realize that we are the only major power in the world that can do anything on a global scale to fight a global movement. This does't mean we do it alone, but it does mean we are the framework and the foundation that links a global coalition together.

Third, our leaders have to explain to the American people that we are in a war that is going to take a generation, will continually put American service members in harms way, in many countries, and on several continents. We cannot have a gigantic debate about intervention every time a terrorist organization builds momentum -- they must be swiftly degraded.

Fourth, we cannot confuse degrading terrorist organizations with nation building. Just because we go into an area overthrow a terrorist safe safehaven because they want to attack the homeland does't mean we own every problem in that country and have to turn it into a bright and shiny democracy.

In a nut shell we need a strategy that deals with this over the long term rather than continuously evaluating each terrorist organization or rise to prominence separately.

Response by SGT Mike Marino made May 30 at 2015 3:50 PM

2015-05-30T15:50:06-04:00

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.

Response by SGT Mike Marino made May 30 at 2015 4:09 PM

2015-05-30T16:09:15-04:00

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.

Response by SGT Mike Marino made May 31 at 2015 11:51 AM

2015-05-31T11:51:49-04:00

We need a President Like Theodore Roosevelt or Reagan. It would have been solved already. I think the U.N is a waste and alot f Bullshit .

Response by MAJ Alvin B. made Dec 19 at 2015 3:02 AM

2015-12-19T03:02:27-05:00

Interesting reading on this topic.

https://medium.com/the-bridge/what-would-clausewitz-do-66e22466422c#.zigu04951

What Would Clausewitz Do? — The Bridge

For a growing number of military officers, combatting ISIS is a test of national resolve

Response by Erin Nelson made Aug 20 at 2018 10:37 PM

2018-08-20T22:37:17-04:00

To fight or not to fight, this fact written in Revelations should be earnest attention paid
Mystery BABYLON, who is it that rides the beast and sits a QUEEN, bringing the 7 angels of Armageddon. Yea even the greatest of all Harlots, the Mother of Abomination. ISIS
Before ever there existed even the first of Kings upon the earth. Babylons first ruler and Only QUEEN, was Queen ISIS also known as ISIL (No ISIL does not mean ISIS ISLAMIC state of anything) its a direct reference to ISIS other best known name ISIL which means Goddess of Heaven.
a HARLOT or WHORE at the time of this writing had nothing to do with any sexual act, A HARLOT was someone causing another to commit the blasphemous act of idolatry, ISIS was the only deity to ever be unanimously worshiped by Egypt as a whole. The Mother of Horus and Grandmother of Seth, worshiped from the dawn of the first civilization through today. The last known temple or sanctuary built to ISIS was in London in 1969. Does this make her the greatest whore, perhaps not by itself, but the coup-de-gras, as it were, for ISIS is in, yet largely unspoken truth of Catholocism and Christianity both. There are no known images of Mary and the Christ child, Jesus Christ. Where then do the images come from, the form of Mary prayed before by catholics everywhere, the images of Baby Jesus in the manger or in his mothers arms. These images are in fact the images (Of which there are many) of ISIS and her baby Horus.