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

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49128248]how will you know when you've reached the "end"?[/QUOTE] Remember when McCain said that we might have troops in Iraq for 100 years during his run for the presidency and people mocked him for it? Yeah, he said that because he knew what it would take and he remembered the historical precedent. We STILL have troops in Japan and Germany. Obviously not in order to keep those countries in check, but we did keep them there throughout the entire restructuring period.

I say we work with our coalition forces, and put boots on the ground and working with local forces to quickly destroy ISIS in as little as a few years or so. Is there anything wrong with this?

[QUOTE=Toyokunari;49128683]I say we work with our coalition forces, and put boots on the ground and working with local forces to quickly destroy ISIS in as little as a few years or so. Is there anything wrong with this?[/QUOTE] Surely it's not that simple

[QUOTE=DropDeadTed;49128692]Surely it's not that simple[/QUOTE] Obviously its not that simple, but the general idea is using our technological might, such as heavy weaponry to put a swift end to ISIS. This will involve lots of heavy military vehicles like tanks and boots on the ground though. By having boots on the ground and tanks for example, we can also aid our local forces directly instead of taking a supportive role. After removing ISIS, we can work into rebuilding Syria with coalition and local partners. That said, I do know the risk is high, a lot of coalition soldiers would risk their lives and we might incur heavy loss. Its a very difficult choice to make, but a choice none-the less. Its either pro-longing the war and many people displaced and suffering, or ending it swiftly but risky and potentially political suicide. But I say we should heavily consider it.

Gotta love it when people call for war but aren't willing to go fight it themselves. The US should have learned from experience that intervening in the name of democracy isn't a good idea. Democracy at this point is incompatible with these fractured states divided on ethnic lines.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;49127861]No. No we wouldn't. Because we're not prepared to fight the kind of war it takes to win against ISIS. You can't just "kick their ass with air strikes", that's not going to work, and we're proving YET AGAIN that it isn't working. [/QUOTE] The reason they have escalated attacks to stuff like paris is because they are actually losing. We don't need to go into open conflict with these people because they are already getting their asses kicked, what we are currently doing is [URL="http://www.bbc.com/news/34806556"]causing[/URL] [URL="http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-11-13/isis-loses-key-iraqi-town-sinjar"]them to retreat[/URL] [URL="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32299602"]This has been the case since April.[/URL] Rebels are doing the work, Airstrikes are doing the work. They aren't worth it to go into open conflict with, it's a waste.

Well here is my mini - plan: Work on our nation's weaknesses. Get those debts into surpluses. Fix our nations altogether. I am not going to list what every western nations needs to fix. Thats another idea. Change the economy to war based one (like WW2). Recall the draft. Yes it will be needed. Get middle eastern experts in as advisers. During The Cold War, America has people who studied Russia for a living. Why not here? Commit to a very long term plan of war. Stick to it. Work with nations surrounding the area that want to work with The West (America included). An example would be Somalia. Get them developed and prevent them being used as incubation stations for jihadis. Use these client states as a new home for refugees. See if refugees can be recruited to fight. Be a mediator. Do not pick a side. America should work on having Saudi Arabia, and Iran work as partners. Work on climate change. Yes, this is part of the problem. Stay out of it till the cluster-mess that it is now clears up and a winner emerges. Go in and take over. Its a rough draft, but I think it a lot better then what is pondered upon now.

if Baghdadi was captured, not killed, it would be a crushing blow to the morale of IS

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;49127913]Don't try to pretend that humans aren't a savage race anyway really. If you look at the entire history of armed conflict it's a pretty fucked up thing from the get go. And if you look at our efforts to "civilize" it, the rules get tossed out the window once shit really hits the fan. In short: If you're not willing to do option "B" then be prepared for option "A": A 20-30 year conflict where NATO has a continuous presence in the middle east, and hopefully at the end of it they don't descend back into a shit hole. Because otherwise you're just going to keep having to go back every 3-5 years when another extremist group rears its ugly head, and put it down, and then leave, and then rinse and repeat.. again.. and again.. and again.. forever.. Don't get me wrong, i'm not in favor of either in particular, i'm merely in favor of doing a PERMANENT solution, instead of continuous bullshit bandaids that we keep putting on. (like oh hey, we're going to keep putting supplies down for x group "oh shit x group hates us now")[/QUOTE] This. ISIS should have been tackled by the West as soon as they appeared. I said this from the beginning, because the fact is that the longer we waited around, the worse the situation got over there. The result is that it's gotten out of control. The Middle East is yet again engaged in another great war as a "genocidal, suicidal death cult" (to quote another user) occupies huge swathes of it-- destroying infrastructure and world heritage landmarks, indiscriminately murdering civilians, and destabilizing the entire region. Our policy should have been intervention from the outset, if not with the goal in mind of just general military victory then containment. We failed to intervene as we should have. We resorted to aerial attacks, special operations attacks, and other limited functions. These were feel-good measures that were not completely ineffectual against ISIS (we have undeniably hurt them as a terrorist organization), but the fact of the matter is they were never anything more. And they certainly were never going to be sufficient to achieve victory. Beyond that, we also need to actually stick around this time for the cleanup. For however long is necessary. Because, like Corn has said here, the end result will just be that this will happen all over again with somebody else eventually if we don't. The United States, nevermind the rest of NATO, is great at waging war; it's the peacetime operations that we suck at: rebuilding, re-engineering (socially especially; and this includes re-educating), re-creating stability and loyal/capable native defense forces (a lack of loyalty and willingness to fight severely hurt Iraq against ISIS), etc.

Why not just use our extensively well-trained, equipped, and supported special forces units (like SEALs, Delta Force, Rangers, etc.) to assassinate the core leadership of ISIS and cut the head off the snake? I mean, look how well that worked with killing Bin Laden, who actually was HIDING. We know where Al-Baghdadi is (or at least, where he has his "capital city" for ISIS), and that's literally half the challenge involved in killing him. The rest is just calling in the hit, and having the mission get carried out.

*President throws up hands* "I don't fucking know man, you guys figure this shit out, I'm done."

[QUOTE=JohhnyCarson;49128739]Well here is my mini - plan: Work on our nation's weaknesses. Get those debts into surpluses. Fix our nations altogether. I am not going to list what every western nations needs to fix. Thats another idea. Change the economy to war based one (like WW2). Recall the draft. Yes it will be needed. Get middle eastern experts in as advisers. During The Cold War, America has people who studied Russia for a living. Why not here? Commit to a very long term plan of war. Stick to it. Work with nations surrounding the area that want to work with The West (America included). An example would be Somalia. Get them developed and prevent them being used as incubation stations for jihadis. Use these client states as a new home for refugees. See if refugees can be recruited to fight. Be a mediator. Do not pick a side. America should work on having Saudi Arabia, and Iran work as partners. Work on climate change. Yes, this is part of the problem. Stay out of it till the cluster-mess that it is now clears up and a winner emerges. Go in and take over. Its a rough draft, but I think it a lot better then what is pondered upon now.[/QUOTE] Why would a draft ever be needed? Last time we fought a conventional military (Saddam) we didn't even need a draft.

He's got to do something. His job is to do things, not to just sit around. Fire rains from the sky just an ocean over, but that's alright because it's not falling on him there. Nobody's saying that you should just charge headlong and shoot shit, hopingl the problem solves itself, but you have to do something. What's it gonna take for people to step in and stop these terrorists? Another 11/13? Another 9/11?

[QUOTE=MrHeadHopper;49129546]He's got to do something. His job is to do things, not to just sit around. Fire rains from the sky just an ocean over, but that's alright because it's not falling on him there. Nobody's saying that you should just charge headlong and shoot shit, hopingl the problem solves itself, but you have to do something. What's it gonna take for people to step in and stop these terrorists? Another 11/13? Another 9/11?[/QUOTE] He's had the US intervening against ISIS for years...

[QUOTE=sgman91;49128397]Remember when McCain said that we might have troops in Iraq for 100 years during his run for the presidency and people mocked him for it? Yeah, he said that because he knew what it would take and he remembered the historical precedent. We STILL have troops in Japan and Germany. Obviously not in order to keep those countries in check, but we did keep them there throughout the entire restructuring period.[/QUOTE] I mean just look at the reconstruction era in the US after the Civil War. 1865-1877, and it was half-assed and a failure. Shit like that takes time, and that's the real costly part of war now a days. It's the building up after the destruction. If we are going to actually fight ISIS, we need to be able to commit to rebuilding the Middle East afterwards, and do it right this time. Iraq was a mess for a lot of reasons, the people who knew how to help rebuild the country were rarely listened to, and people like Cheney and Rumsfeld were listened to instead. And it can't just be the US throwing this weight around, our Allies need to help with both the war and the reconstruction.

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49129518]Why would a draft ever be needed? Last time we fought a conventional military (Saddam) we didn't even need a draft.[/QUOTE] Seriously. We have such a surplus of unneeded military personnel that we turn down a ton of people who come in wanting to join. Draft is not needed.

[QUOTE=Ajacks;49128113]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] Do you really think that these guys just want a nice stable economy, a good job, and a house with a white picket fence? These are religious zealots to the core, they destroy history to install a caliphate, worldly wealth and possessions are the last things on their mind. You can kill their leader but their ideology will remain and leaders can be replaced.

[QUOTE=Fort83;49128218]Yeah you half-assed the job instead of following through until the end.[/QUOTE] That's the problem, there was no end. We could stay there forever and ever, or we could just leave and hope what we left would stay put (it didn't). What else are we supposed to do? Organize a monumental invasion force and restructure the entire region including new borders and governments?

I respect Obama for saying that. It's like people forgot what happened a decade ago. People hate America for being the world police, but then go to them when the world actually gets in trouble.

To be fair to him, although ISIS can cause misery and shock to the West, they cannot destroy us. A protracted ground campaign which would cause economic ruin and indirectly drive poverty and misery for the lower class in the US, is not really desirable for the reward. The only major threat probably considered unacceptable and warranting a response by Obama would be a 9/11-style attack on their own soil, or a CBRN threat. Which, to be honest, is in some ways credible, since ISIS have now had years of planning and building time. The fear definitely nags at the edge of my mind. A lot of people myself included are desperate for the satisfaction and sense of justice that comes from watching our best rip ISIS to pieces in man-on-man combat. Unfortunately that's not the full picture, and as the immediate furore dies down, we're coming to see that. Rash action a la 2001 would cause nightmares further down the line. There's going to be a lot of deliberating and brain storming ahead for the powers involved.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;49129625]That's the problem, there was no end. We could stay there forever and ever, or we could just leave and hope what we left would stay put (it didn't). What else are we supposed to do? Organize a monumental invasion force and restructure the entire region including new borders and governments?[/QUOTE] Nation building only works in nations. Countries like Iraq and Syria are hardly nations bound by one identity. America is taking forever to learn this.

Good. Last thing we need is another Middle Eastern conflict that will take 10 years to end, when it should be the countries of the middle east sending men in. But, like a user has already said, it's imperative we ramp up airstrikes, arm the Kurds and assist the Russians with tactical information.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49129742]Nation building only works in nations. Countries like Iraq and Syria are hardly nations bound by one identity. America is taking forever to learn this.[/QUOTE] That's why I mentioned restructuring the entire region. Which isn't feasible in the modern world. You'd never get the American people to go along with that, let alone the Russians and Chinese, let alone the middle-eastern nations we'd be tearing down. Remaking borders and governments based off ethnic and religious groups would ideally fix many problems. But it'd come at a high cost of lives, and nobody wants to pay that price, myself included. And even if we did, what if it doesn't work? Then we've just decimated and rebuild an entire region for nothing at all. Thousands of lives lost and trillions of dollars spent just for the status quo. That's why we're doing "nothing", because we've already done the things that were feasible, now we're just left with the extreme.

It's amazing to see all the amount of people completely ignorant of what war means for the individual. I mean, its' ok, I understan you are angry at the fact that some fanatics came in and blew up the place, but wanting to send your soldiers, to a fucked up place again, to fight a war that doesn't belong to them -because let's face it otherwise just send them in blue helmet missions- and that would empower again contratists... ON KILLING should be mandatory lecture in high school for all students. I can't conceive someone wanting to wish sending men to war after reading the testimonies and studies about killing in war. Obama handled this like a pro. And the justification he gave, was not emotional, was completely rational. Because he also understood soldiers aren't machines that don't feel any kind of psychological pain after coming from war.

[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;49129932]It's amazing to see all the amount of people completely ignorant of what war means for the individual. I mean, its' ok, I understan you are angry at the fact that some fanatics came in and blew up the place, but wanting to send your soldiers, to a fucked up place again, to fight a war that doesn't belong to them -because let's face it otherwise just send them in blue helmet missions- and that would empower again contratists... ON KILLING should be mandatory lecture in high school for all students. I can't conceive someone wanting to wish sending men to war after reading the testimonies and studies about killing in war. Obama handled this like a pro. And the justification he gave, was not emotional, was completely rational. Because he also understood soldiers aren't machines that don't feel any kind of psychological pain after coming from war.[/QUOTE] The republicans are fanatics and warhawks, they criticize for any percieved loosing fight such as the Iraq and Afghanistan occupation, and they criticize against action in places they don't care about, and they beat the drums whenever they get riled up to go places they thought they didn't care about This whole right wing reaction is just another symptom of the polarized politics we have today

I don't see how inaction is the moral right, here. [editline]16th November 2015[/editline] And I believe that for all humanitarian crisis around the world. Not trying to help those in need with humanitarian, diplomatic, and even military aid is the geopolitical equivalent of the bystander effect and watching a homeless man die of a stab wound on the streets.

They should at least share intel with the people actually fighting ISIS.

[url]http://www.vox.com/world/2015/11/16/9744490/paris-attacks-isis-losing[/url] Obligatory read on the matter [editline]17th November 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=OvB;49130368]I don't see how inaction is the moral right, here. [editline]16th November 2015[/editline] And I believe that for all humanitarian crisis around the world. Not trying to help those in need with humanitarian, diplomatic, and even military aid is the geopolitical equivalent of the bystander effect and watching a homeless man die of a stab wound on the streets.[/QUOTE] WOw, seems like the Paris attack has made everyone fall into a dichotomy Now the options are: We either bomb and invade the fuck out of IS or We do nothing. there are, literally, one thousand options that have lesser costs in human and financial terms when compared to invading or sending a task force. Your analogy fails completely because it's not the same logic for the situation.

we must build warbots to patrol the streets of conflict zones

I haven't said anything about an invasion? Doing more doesn't automatically mean total invasion. Though I can see how that's implied given the thread. I just don't believe the west is doing enough. It should've never gotten to this point in the first place because the response to ISIS should've been swift and united before they could gain so much control and influence. I'm hypercritical of our collective apathy for something we had a large part in creating. The Middle East as a whole requires global help and I'm not seeing it.