The Dilemma: Commit troops to fighting ISIS or let them take over the entire Muslim world

It is a false dilemma in some ways because there ARE other alternatives, such as a propaganda war, but on the face of it a military response seems the most likely alternative to just throwing in the towel.

What do you think? Are we going to end up committing soldiers to fight ISIS and take their territory away from them.

And by "we," I don't necessarily mean the United States. ISIS is a lot more at Europe's and Asia's backdoor than the US's. 

Views: 377

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Drone tech. Embrace it before the likes of ISIS do.

We can see that wider scale wars with high collateral damage often destabilize territories for them to flourish.

That is the lose-lose scenario (aka "damned if you do, damned if you don't).

Hey Unseen, why not call up one of the largest armies in the world and one that has deep financial resources. If they are unwilling to die for the cause, or too cowardly to take part, then I guess it is on us again to sacrifice our young men and women. Moderate and left leaning Americans are extremely weary of fighting in the Middle East and rightfully so. What do we have to show for our past forays besides a lot of dead American soldiers and a trillion $ down the drain. I would hate to see the pampered royal family of Saudi Arabia have to suffer the indignity of taking the leadership role in a conflict in their own back yard.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp...

I've got an idea to build on that one. Let ISIS take over all of the Muslm world, bomb their oil wells and keep them bombed and force the world to buy American oil, since we are now the world's #1 producer.

Without drones? I envision a whole lot of oil burning and darkening skies, unless we could incapacitate oil production more surgically.

This makes me crazy. I'm taking a break...

Well, then it sounds like you prefer a military victory. Drones are a tool in a war, but ultimately it's soldiers who actually take and hold ground.

As a European, I cannot fathom what the hell we are waiting for. We should have eliminated them last year. The fact that ISIS is still a thing is really embarassing. Of course, Europe's got that beef with Russia on our doorstep, but when it comes to IS, there can be no hesitation. We should be all in. NOW.

Would it be ok to ask, no demand, Saudi Arabia take the lead role in this next foray?

Demand or what? It's not like letting ISIS run wild until it's swallowed up all the Muslim territory and sets its sights on the countries it'd like to convert. 

Russia has a stake in this and should be a part of it and probably would be a helluva lot more effective than the Saudis, whose troops are pretty much green when it comes to ground warfare. I understand they've been flying bombing runs against ISIS, but that's a lot different from taking territory and going door-to-door to weed ISIS out.

Iran, too, should play a role. 

It's time for the US to stand back and let forces in the region do the heavy lifting.

Well hell, if those Saudis are green and still "wet behind the neck" it's time they get their feet a little wet with some ground-based confrontation. They're never gonna get battle-hardened sitting on the sidelines. I'll make the popcorn.

I think it a bit of an overkill to commit large number of forces and resources to chase down around 25.000 suicide cultists with AKs, especially seeing how it is almost impossible for regular troops to fight against insurgents and terrorists without everything turning out to be a bloody mess. Involving the West into what is in essence a Middle Eastern civil war will only lead to further drain on the West's resources and more unpopularity on the Arab streets. I find the idea of letting this burn out by itself while imposing strict border controls, cancellation of humanitarian asylum, and tightening of surveillance and intelligence to be a better solution. 

Instead of pussyfooting around the religion of Islam it should be fought the same way the ideology of Communism: By containing it, root out home grown elements and fellow travelers, and (counter)propaganda. 

The way we fought "the ideology of Communism" allowed them to build a huge arsenal of nuclear weapons, but quite frankly I'd welcome letting the USSR rise again and hold the same arsenal if the alternative is letting ISIS become a nuclear power, which is a distinct possibility, especially if they were to overrun Israel.

Also, they are methodically destroying world heritage sites. Would we stand around if they overran Rome, Amsterdam, Paris, or London and started destroying the Pieta, Rembrandt's Night Watch, the Arch de Triomphe, or the Buckingham Palace? 

Is it a kind of racism that we don't give a flying fuck about what's currently going on in Palmyra and elsewhere simply because it's in the Muslim sphere?

RSS

© 2020   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service