Feasibility of the US strategy against ISIS - Polidicks

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0G4nUFfvR9A[/media] [QUOTE]Back in the month of September the American President, Barack Obama, said that the US intends to destroy the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS for short. Obama managed to assemble an impressive coalition against ISIS, including countries such as France, Germany, the UK and even Saudi Arabia. But at the same time the coalition lacks certain key players. Notably Iran and Turkey. Furthermore the coalition’s military interventions are limited to airstrikes. So just how feasible is the military intervention against ISIS. And what will put an end to the transnational jihadist threat.[/QUOTE] [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Not news." - Swebonny))[/highlight]

It's not feasible. We could literally start carpet bombing entire towns with white phosphorus, napalm, cluster bombs, all sorts of nasty shit, and yet it'll do jackshit to ISIS outside of make them far more radicalized. The only method to win this type of campaign is search and destroy with a troop surge. Finally, after we manage to shatter ISIS, send all the captured members to Gitmo or some other military facility across the globe, never let them out, and from there go about a full-on occupation of Iraq and control it's government entirely.

A major problem with the video is that it assumes that Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria and other regional powers will work together. Another is that this would result in genocide against the Kurds.

Pretty much containment is all that's going to be accomplished while Obama is in office and the republicans are in congress, neither one wants to put troops or more stuff in, the president reitterates on how its a regional problem but now they've escaped into libya which is like the sequel to Syria except they got rid of their dictator

I don't think that ISIS is really something you can eradicate, it's got too much of a base in radical ideology, and we all know how well it's gone the last time America tried to fight an ideology.

Turkey is working in this regardless of whether they are rubber stamping the coalition, we are using their police to stem the flow of fighters into Syria while also using them to funnel supplies and weapons to the peshmerga, the Saud's don't really have a stake in this, Iran is already involved but what they want is another shia theocracy or at the very least shia totalitarian state next to them, not what the people of Iraq need,

This isn't news, it's some random youtuber's opinion on an ongoing situation.

[QUOTE=Sableye;46524237]Pretty much containment is all that's going to be accomplished while Obama is in office and the republicans are in congress, neither one wants to put troops or more stuff in, the president reitterates on how its a regional problem but now they've escaped into libya which is like the sequel to Syria except they got rid of their dictator[/QUOTE] I wouldn't say containment for sure, the Iraqi army got the Bajj refinery back and are making significant gains in Iraq. I don't see them lasting in Iraq for too much longer, most likely they'll pull back and consolidate in Syria which would be a problem.

[QUOTE=MattSif;46524348]I wouldn't say containment for sure, the Iraqi army got the Bajj refinery back and are making significant gains in Iraq. I don't see them lasting in Iraq for too much longer, most likely they'll pull back and consolidate in Syria which would be a problem.[/QUOTE] The sad thing is that probably the only thing that can halt/slow down ISIS at this point beyond simply bombing them to pieces is for excessively vigorous vigilantism from the Iraqis.

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;46524459]The sad thing is that probably the only thing that can halt/slow down ISIS at this point beyond simply bombing them to pieces is for excessively vigorous vigilantism from the Iraqis.[/QUOTE] It's the Middle East, there's no such thing as a guarantee anymore. If they go back to Syria and it gets worse for the people in the cities that are left who knows what will happen. The fight or flight instinct with humans is frightening.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;46524222]It's not feasible. We could literally start carpet bombing entire towns with white phosphorus, napalm, cluster bombs, all sorts of nasty shit, and yet it'll do jackshit to ISIS outside of make them far more radicalized. The only method to win this type of campaign is search and destroy with a troop surge. Finally, after we manage to shatter ISIS, send all the captured members to Gitmo or some other military facility across the globe, never let them out, and from there go about a full-on occupation of Iraq and control it's government entirely.[/QUOTE] Talk about progress...

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;46524222]It's not feasible. We could literally start carpet bombing entire towns with white phosphorus, napalm, cluster bombs, all sorts of nasty shit, and yet it'll do jackshit to ISIS outside of make them far more radicalized. The only method to win this type of campaign is search and destroy with a troop surge. Finally, after we manage to shatter ISIS, send all the captured members to Gitmo or some other military facility across the globe, never let them out, and from there go about a full-on occupation of Iraq and control it's government entirely.[/QUOTE] What about those who see you as foreign invaders coming to destroy their secluded way of life? Remember a lot of people who live in Iraq live in villages scattered across the country whom has local relations With each other but rarely venture far out of their safe zone. You could potentially create another problem by stamping on them, destroying ISIS but in the process radicalizing people who weren't terrorists in the first place. It's an evil circle of life.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;46524222]It's not feasible. We could literally start carpet bombing entire towns with white phosphorus, napalm, cluster bombs, all sorts of nasty shit, and yet it'll do jackshit to ISIS outside of make them far more radicalized. The only method to win this type of campaign is search and destroy with a troop surge. Finally, after we manage to shatter ISIS, send all the captured members to Gitmo or some other military facility across the globe, never let them out, and from there go about a full-on occupation of Iraq and control it's government entirely.[/QUOTE] Is this a sincere solution?

[QUOTE=Black;46524731]What about those who see you as foreign invaders coming to destroy their secluded way of life? Remember a lot of people who live in Iraq live in villages scattered across the country whom has local relations With each other but rarely venture far out of their safe zone. You could potentially create another problem by stamping on them, destroying ISIS but in the process radicalizing people who weren't terrorists in the first place. It's an evil circle of life.[/QUOTE] As cruel as it sounds the natural order of things should have been allowed to take place, sure some pushing was going to happen but a full scale invasion was not what the Doctor ordered for easing regional tensions.

The problem with getting Turks into this is that after Turks wipe out ISIS they will just occupy the liberated territories and claim that "iraq turks" lived there and ethnically belong to Turkey (they even have a special name for iraq turks, just like they call kurds "mountain turks", and as far as I remember they call azerbaijan people caspian turks). And Iran just has no interest in the whole affair. I am pretty sure Iran is actually supporting ISIS in one way or another because such a pain in the ass for USA is their wet dream, they also could profit from it easily and get away with it.

[QUOTE=MuffinZerg;46524891]The problem with getting Turks into this is that after Turks wipe out ISIS they will just occupy the liberated territories and claim that "iraq turks" lived there and ethnically belong to Turkey (they even have a special name for iraq turks, just like they call kurds "mountain turks", and as far as I remember they call azerbaijan people caspian turks). And Iran just has no interest in the whole affair. I am pretty sure Iran is actually supporting ISIS in one way or another because such a pain in the ass for USA is their wet dream, they also could profit from it easily and get away with it.[/QUOTE] Iran is Shia, ISIS is Sunni. I am absolutely certain Iran is not supporting ISIS.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;46524899]Iran is Shia, ISIS is Sunni. I am absolutely certain Iran is not supporting ISIS.[/QUOTE] Oh wait, ISIS is Sunni? From the extremism and anarchy I believed them to be Shia. Then Iran isn't supporting ISIS, but I don't think they would help US destroy ISIS either.

[QUOTE=MuffinZerg;46524908]Oh wait, ISIS is Sunni? From the extremism and anarchy I believed them to be Shia. Then Iran isn't supporting ISIS, but I don't think they would help US destroy ISIS either.[/QUOTE] Iran is supplying Assad with troops. Its a matter of if IS gets into Iranian territory then the US occupy against IS its the perfect back door into Iran.

[QUOTE=MuffinZerg;46524908]Oh wait, ISIS is Sunni? From the extremism and anarchy I believed them to be Shia. Then Iran isn't supporting ISIS, but I don't think they would help US destroy ISIS either.[/QUOTE] If you study Islamic history they fit the Kharijite Islam criteria better IMO.

[QUOTE=MuffinZerg;46524908]Oh wait, ISIS is Sunni? From the extremism and anarchy I believed them to be Shia. Then Iran isn't supporting ISIS, but I don't think they would help US destroy ISIS either.[/QUOTE] iran literally is fighting isis with their own troops

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;46525071] They officially are salafists IIRC[/QUOTE] Self proclaimed, but if you were to go after the tenants of Khawarjitism it fits ISIS more.