Obama rules out Syria ground invasion, asks critics to explain what their next step would be after t - Polidicks

[QUOTE=GunFox;49127793]If they retreat into hiding in the civilian population, you simply slaughter the lot of them.[/QUOTE] We're not Russia, this isn't Grozny. We will not go on a campaign of total war against ISIS like we did with the Nazis or the Japanese, we just have to accept that. Am I saying we should sit with our thumbs up our asses? No. But I'm also not going to play armchair general and suggest anything past an anti-infrastructure campaign with local assistance as I do not have a grasp on the situation like NATO governments (should) have.

[QUOTE=Ajacks;49127956]All members of ISIS fight for is a better state, which simply equates to a nicer life. We're going against a group of men willing to fight because they feel like they have no future, no ability to provide and raise a family in a traditional sense. That's because of the awful economy and constant conflict in the middle east for the last decade. They fight because it's their only chance to get what every human wants, security and a sense of place and belonging. Just because their religious doesn't mean they won't ever give up, or be able to change their course. If we present a better, safer way for them to live and be able to be succeed and not feel oppressed then they will support us. The religious rhetoric is just people using it as an excuse to motivate these young hopeless men to better their own means. It just happens to be that presenting a better, safer environment comes at the cost of making being a member of ISIS a very fruitless and dangerous endeavor.[/QUOTE] except that plenty of members came from cushy lives in the west they don't care about their state. it's not like germany or japan, they have no real allegiance to their "nation" or their leader. they fight and die so they can get eternal happiness in the afterlife you can kill a person or crush a nation, but how would you kill an idea?

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49127985]If they wanted a better state, they wouldn't be blowing up their own national landmarks and actively be trying to invite attack from the strongest military powers on the planet. They're fighting in the name of religious ideology. They don't care about death, they don't care about the wellbeing of their countrymen, and they don't care about their country. They are a suicidal genocidal death cult. They are motivated by what they believe to be divine righteousness. No mistake can be made about this.[/QUOTE] They only care about death because feel like, and are being told, that they have nothing to live for and the best thing they could do for their cause is fight and die. They are blowing up national landmarks because that's what the group that is promising a better life is saying needs to be done. The leaders of ISIS who are manipulating these men and women are the root, but the individual doesn't really want to die. Someone only wants to die if they feel like they've got nothing to live for. What's your best case scenario for this situation then? Let ISIS play it's game till it gets tuckered out and then goes home for dinner? Let the middle east tear itself apart while sparratically taking pot shots at the west?

[QUOTE=Fort83;49127838]It shouldn't just be US doing all the heavy lifting though. All NATO countries and Russia need to be involved in this. What's happening now just isn't enough.[/QUOTE] see this is the problem, there is already a force that is all nato and russia, its called the UN, and the security council has the power, but not the permission to do it

[QUOTE=Ajacks;49128018]They only care about death because feel like, and are being told, that they have nothing to live for and the best thing they could do for their cause is fight and die. They are blowing up national landmarks because that's what the group that is promising a better life is saying needs to be done. The leaders of ISIS who are manipulating these men and women are the root, but the individual doesn't really want to die. Someone only wants to die if they feel like they've got nothing to live for. What's your best case scenario for this situation then? Let ISIS play it's game till it gets tuckered out and then goes home for dinner? Let the middle east tear itself apart while sparratically taking pot shots at the west?[/QUOTE] We have killed their leaders enough times to learn with complete certainty that they are not the source of these beliefs. They are not being manipulated by con men, they are all equal in their self destructive delusion. I am not trying to present a plan, I am trying to explain the problems with the ones that have been presented. Even if the "kill everyone" plan is still the best one at the end of the day, surely you'd rather know if it'll fail and why beforehand?

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49127945]Again, Japan and Germany were nationalist forces. They cared about their country, so when their country faced utter annihilation, they backed down. ISIS aren't nationalist, they're religious. There is nothing that they care about that we can threaten, and even if we do annihilate them along with every civilian in the immediate area, we'll only invite reprisal from the surrounding countries. Their goal is not to destroy the west, their goal is to inspire other Muslims to destroy the west. And while I doubt that goal will ever come to pass, there are plenty of Muslims left to inspire to take up arms all over the globe.[/QUOTE] The nationalism of ISIS is interesting. When you look at countries like Germany or Japan you can clearly see a culture, race, and geography based nationalism. Germany thought of themselves as 'Germans' and Japan thought of themselves as 'Japanese.' Even after being defeated they had a piece of land that obviously had belonged to those people groups that they wanted to preserve. ISIS is interesting because they also think of themselves as a nationalistic group, but the group is 'Muslims.' They claim leadership over all Muslims across the globe instead of a certain area of land or a certain cultural group. This leads to problems. We can defeat ISIS, but there's no land area that naturally stays with them. So the question becomes... what do we do with it after they're gone? There's no easy answer, but I feel that we're going to have to come up with one soon.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49128036]We have killed their leaders enough times to learn with complete certainty that they are not the source of these beliefs. They are not being manipulated by con men, they are all equal in their self destructive delusion. I am not trying to present a plan, I am trying to explain the problems with the ones that have been presented. Even if the "kill everyone" plan is still the best one at the end of the day, surely you'd rather know if it'll fail and why beforehand?[/QUOTE] You're literally advocating either a do nothing approach, or a kill everyone approach. I'm saying they are only fighting because they want a better life, you're implying they are beyond repair because of their beliefs which means you can only live with them, or kill them. They are just people, following the leader who they think can provide them, and their country with the best life. Just happens to be a leader in a Mosque rather than the Capital Building.

[QUOTE=sgman91;49128057]The nationalism of ISIS is interesting. When you look at countries like Germany or Japan you can clearly see a culture, race, and geography based nationalism. Germany thought of themselves as 'Germans' and Japan thought of themselves as 'Japanese.' Even after defeated they had a piece of land that obviously had belonged to those people groups. ISIS is interesting because they also think of themselves as a nationalistic group, but the group is 'Muslims.' They claim leadership over all Muslims across the globe instead of a certain area of land or a certain cultural group. This leads to problems. We can defeat ISIS, but there's no land area that naturally stays with them. So the question becomes... what do we do with it after they're gone? There's no easy answer, but I feel that we're going to have to come up with one soon.[/QUOTE] welcome to the main problem of religious ideology someone who's solely and completely devoted to a fucking magical spirit that doesn't exist can't be reasoned with or intimidated, they believe what they believe and they'll do what they want to do and there's absolutely nothing that anyone can do to stop them short of killing them

I agree 100% with not "shooting first and aiming later". This is a very complex situation and we cant get emotional and let ourselves get ringed in to another 11 year conflict with no clear plan for the future. The last time that we did that is how we got into this situation in the first place.

[QUOTE=Ajacks;49128064]You're literally advocating either a do nothing approach, or a kill everyone approach. I'm saying they are only fighting because they want a better life, you're implying they are beyond repair because of their beliefs which means you can only live with them, or kill them. They are just people, following the leader who they think can provide them, and their country with the best life. Just happens to be a leader in a Mosque rather than the Capital Building.[/QUOTE] I don't think that that's what the available evidence indicates. While that would be an easier situation to deal with, I don't think it's the reality. If we just want to pretend that everything's easy and simple and do things that won't work based off of those incorrect assumptions, then by all means, go ahead.

[QUOTE=OvB;49127543]ISIS has been murdering for years at this point and the West has been bombing them here and there will next to no real effort to destroy them as a look were doing things feel-good-measure with minimal results. ISIS is still bombing civilians in Lebanon and France and we're still sitting here saying "hey let's not jump the gun!" As if this is a new and unexpected event.[/QUOTE]We really shouldn't be doing more than that though, the moment we commit ground forces is the moment we have engaged in an unwinnable war of attrition against an opponent who [B]actually wants to die[/B] for a variety of reasons, all of the religious. Airstrikes not only kill them but do so with [I]dishonor[/I] which is still a big fucking deal in Middle Eastern cultures.

[QUOTE=Ajacks;49128064]You're literally advocating either a do nothing approach, or a kill everyone approach. I'm saying they are only fighting because they want a better life, you're implying they are beyond repair because of their beliefs which means you can only live with them, or kill them.[/QUOTE] the problem is that they don't want a better life, they want a better afterlife if they fight and kill they believe they'll be rewarded, regardless of whether they die fighting or if they survive and die naturally 50 years later

[QUOTE=GunFox;49127934] I prefer to back the local authority and let them restore order.[/QUOTE] Are there any local authorities that aren't corrupt? When my dad worked in Afghanistan for 7 years he would tell me there was always this feeling that we'd be fighting the current "allied" flavor of the month tribal leader next. Corruption is rampant. The whole situation is fucked to the nth degree. It's hard to see a solution that doesn't make more problems. But the same goes for inaction.

Getting PR points for the democrats by being patriotic and committing to a poorly conceived ground invasion is not fucking worth its long term consequences.

[QUOTE=Ajacks;49128018]They only care about death because feel like, and are being told, that they have nothing to live for and the best thing they could do for their cause is fight and die. They are blowing up national landmarks because that's what the group that is promising a better life is saying needs to be done. The leaders of ISIS who are manipulating these men and women are the root, but the individual doesn't really want to die. Someone only wants to die if they feel like they've got nothing to live for. What's your best case scenario for this situation then? Let ISIS play it's game till it gets tuckered out and then goes home for dinner? Let the middle east tear itself apart while sparratically taking pot shots at the west?[/QUOTE] what is your plan for dealing with people who want to wage war with us but aren't concerned with an economic victory?

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49128036]We have killed their leaders enough times to learn with complete certainty that they are not the source of these beliefs. They are not being manipulated by con men, they are all equal in their self destructive delusion. I am not trying to present a plan, I am trying to explain the problems with the ones that have been presented. Even if the "kill everyone" plan is still the best one at the end of the day, surely you'd rather know if it'll fail and why beforehand?[/QUOTE] We have not killed Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. The leaders we have killed are like taking out the Manager of one Walmart in Kansas and saying oh well I guess Walmart still exists. We're killing the employees of the month, not the Waltons. We need to capture or kill Al-Baghdadi.

[QUOTE=Duck M.;49128103]Getting PR points for the democrats by being patriotic and committing to a poorly conceived ground invasion is not fucking worth its long term consequences.[/QUOTE] dems are usually more adverse to going to war this isn't anything more than a political shot at the administration. even much of the right has been for pulling out in the past years, but it's okay to flip flop as long as it makes the pres look weak

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49128090]I don't think that that's what the available evidence indicates. While that would be an easier situation to deal with, I don't think it's the reality. If we just want to pretend that everything's easy and simple and do things that won't work based off of those incorrect assumptions, then by all means, go ahead.[/QUOTE] Of course it's an incredibly complex situation with no simple solution, and that also is why you can't just label them all as fanatics who care about nothing but dying for their religion and the only cure is to speed up their process of getting to their promise land. People turn to religion when their economic standing and future is bad. You have to deal with the fanatics and the men who convince the fanatics to go off and die, but you need to address the problem that drove them to fanatic religious ideology in the first place. It's not some kind of incurable curse on their faith.

[QUOTE=Ajacks;49128064]You're literally advocating either a do nothing approach, or a kill everyone approach. I'm saying they are only fighting because they want a better life, you're implying they are beyond repair because of their beliefs which means you can only live with them, or kill them. They are just people, following the leader who they think can provide them, and their country with the best life. Just happens to be a leader in a Mosque rather than the Capital Building.[/QUOTE] yeah but you're wrong about the concept of them "Just wanting a better life" that isn't it. Apparently, pointing out the fallaciousness of that argument isn't helping you understand why that's not the case.

[QUOTE=OvB;49128109]We have not killed Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. The leaders we have killed are like taking out the Manager of one Walmart in Kansas and saying oh well I guess Walmart still exists. We're killing the employees of the month, not the Waltons. We need to capture or kill Al-Baghdadi.[/QUOTE] it's not germany or japan. they do not have a fanatical devotion to al-baghdadi even if he dies they can still get what they want when [I]they[/I] die

[QUOTE]And maybe part of the reason is that every few months I go to Walter Reed [military hospital] and I see a 25-year-old kid who is paralysed or has lost his limbs. And some of those are people who I have ordered into battle. So I can’t afford to play some of the political games that others play.”[/QUOTE] Spoken like a true leader. Obama got just super mega fucking awesome.

[QUOTE=OvB;49128109]We have not killed Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. The leaders we have killed are like taking out the Manager of one Walmart in Kansas and saying oh well I guess Walmart still exists. We're killing the employees of the month, not the Waltons. We need to capture or kill Al-Baghdadi.[/QUOTE] He would not be the first, and he would not be the last. There is no Hitler or emperor of Islamic extremism.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49128107]what is your plan for dealing with people who want to wage war with us but aren't concerned with an economic victory?[/QUOTE] You kill them. I am not advocating some peaceful utopia. You need to go in and completely dismantle ISIS and the institutions like it, and then with a joint control of the region by the west, help with a concerted effort to rebuild their economies and give the people something to live for while providing peace for the masses, at the cost of those who want to wage a holy war against the forces looking out for those who want peace.

[QUOTE=OvB;49127591]If Obama's military advisors don't have 150 different unique plans to defeat isis that's a complete lack and breakdown of leadership on his part. We shouldve been prepared for every situation with isis since the day they took Falujah. There should be a folder tilted "In case of massive ISIS attack on NATO ally: plans A-Z" in the Pentagon. We've had years to deal with these people, we should be prepared for every scenario. If we're not then we have weak leadership, and it's showing.[/QUOTE] They do war gaming for every country and a a whole lot of scenarios, I'm certain someone at the Pentagon or a War College has done war gaming on ISIS and how to destroy them.

[QUOTE=Ajacks;49128139]You kill them. I am not advocating some peaceful utopia. You need to go in and completely dismantle ISIS and the institutions like it, and then with a joint control of the region by the west, help with a concerted effort to rebuild their economies and give the people something to live for while providing peace for the masses, at the cost of those who want to wage a holy war against the forces looking out for those who want peace.[/QUOTE] remember what happened the last time we tried to invade the middle east and "kill the bad guys"? and the time before that?

[QUOTE=Jund;49128124]it's not germany or japan. they do not have a fanatical devotion to al-baghdadi even if he dies they can still get what they want when [I]they[/I] die[/QUOTE] Al-Baghdadi is their respected leader. People pledge allegiance to him. He's got connections and friends that fund them, he orders people around, and is essentially their president. ISIS will lose a lot of organizational capabilities if you take out their true leaders. We're not talking about cave dwelling extremists. They have actively occupied cities and dictate their rule and laws on the population. You [I]don't[/I] have that much capability if you don't have a respected and understood ruler. There is most definitely a strong managerial hierarchy in ISIS. If you take them out, they will be filled by less experienced, skilled, and respected subordinates. The management of ISIS will begin to collapse and there might even be infighting. Then you let the local rebels to act as the cleanup crew with the low-rung ISIS soldiers. No, they're not Germany, but they're not a band of hiding thugs.

[QUOTE=Fort83;49128218]Yeah you half-assed the job instead of following through until the end.[/QUOTE] Without it being a joint effort of NATO with a shared responsibility for the outcome.

[QUOTE=Fort83;49128134]The longer we wait the harder it will be to get rid of ISIS. The more we wait around the more stronger they get the more opportunities they get to kill people. There's been plenty of time to create a plan for the future.[/QUOTE] Them being stronger isnt gonna be a problem for a long time. Once again, the main issue with these conflicts is that they're not short term conflicts. I dont blame Obama in the least for not wanting to go into another endless shitfest like the one we were in for a little more than a decade.

[QUOTE=Fort83;49128218]Yeah you half-assed the job instead of following through until the end.[/QUOTE] how will you know when you've reached the "end"? [editline]16th November 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=OvB;49128190]Al-Baghdadi is their respected leader. People pledge allegiance to him. He's got connections and friends that fund them, he orders people around, and is essentially their president. ISIS will lose a lot of organizational capabilities if you take out their true leaders. We're not talking about cave dwelling extremists. They have actively occupied cities and dictate their rule and laws on the population. You [I]don't[/I] have that much capability if you don't have a respected and understood ruler. There is most definitely a strong managerial hierarchy in ISIS. If you take them out, they will be filled by less experienced, skilled, and respected subordinates. The management of ISIS will begin to collapse and there might even be infighting. Then you let the local rebels to act as the cleanup crew with the low-rung ISIS soldiers. No, they're not Germany, but they're not a band of hiding thugs.[/QUOTE] Again, these are the exact same things that were said at the start of the Iraq war. ISIS was born directly from the group we spent a decade fighting. A decade of killing their leaders didn't seem to make the group that came immediately after them any less ruthless or deadly. So again I ask, what makes you think this time will be different?

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49128248]how will you know when you've reached the "end"? [editline]16th November 2015[/editline] Again, these are the exact same things that were said at the start of the Iraq war. ISIS was born directly from the group we spent a decade fighting. A decade of killing their leaders didn't seem to make the group that came immediately after them any less ruthless or deadly. So again I ask, what makes you think this time will be different?[/QUOTE] The decade of war left Al Qaeda and the Taliban in shambles. Their abilities were largely hindered. They weren't completely destroyed but they were less-capable than when it started. You beat extremism by crushing it at its source and providing the population with education and an alternative. We failed to do the last bit because we pulled out, and the power vacuum immediately collapsed and gave ISIL/AQI the ability to come out of hibernation. Then we did nothing. And continued to do nothing. Then they flooded into Syria during the unrest there, and we drew fake red lines and did nothing when they were crossed. The occupation should've never happened at all, or been permanent. There are no half measures or minimum responses in this. There should be a permanent US/NATO base in Iraq. Doesn't need to be an occupied thing with daily door kicks and street patrols, but a permanent presence would not allow the power vacuum to come down so hard. Then you provide an environment where the younger generations can learn. And eventually, over many bloody decades, there will be no more constituents for the extremists to exploit. [editline]16th November 2015[/editline] Or we could do nothing and pretend this problem we have a hand in starting is not our responsibility. Might as well give every Syrian a home in the West then because the situation is not going to get better if nothing is done about it. NATO and the UN need to take this on together. It's a humanitarian crisis that's going to last for centuries.