ISIS-- let's lay it on the line

Better to deal with it there than on our soil.

 

ISIS is going down, period. IMO, they're really dumb, the whole region is against them.

Iran will do what it takes to fight ISIS

Jordan's Army Preps For A Bigger Role Against ISIS

Saudi Arabia and Isis

U.S. is prepping for something big from here; my nephew, a veteran of Afghanistan with certain special skills, left for Kuwait 2 days ago:

Kuwait and ISIS

 

I wonder if ISIS has something up their sleeve? Or are they THAT dumb? Enough is enough: rid the planet of them.

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk

 

I think we have first hand evidence that a flood of US Soldiers on the ground isn't going to do anything but force them back into a counterinsurgency. I mean, we have 10 years of evidence to support this. Robust targeting from the SF community targeting key leadership with close air support to eliminate wide open hard targets. It's going to take a global sharing of intelligence and domestic security to watch suspected sympathizers and catch them before they defect. (especially the funding) I'm in hurry to put an exhausted and jaded ground force back into another decade long slog across middle easter soil just to get mortared and suicide bombed while doing presence patrols.

 

This isn't the first time I've heard someone complain about restrictions. I have yet to see anyone outline what specific "restrictions" hindered the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't think you are all that informed on operations in the middle east salty. A World War II reference isn't particularly helpful in this situation.

 

I may be wrong, but I believe this reference is more to:
1) Let the military do their job WITHOUT micromanaging from DC , :sleeping_2: and
2) Don't commit our troops UNLESS they are sent there to WIN!! :thumbsup:

Correct me if I'm wrong Salty!!!!

 

Those are whimsical statements without specifics. World War II was open fighting against uniformed Soldiers. The rebuilding process was left to the Germans. The actual war effort in toppling Saddam's regime was over in a few weeks. The years spent after was not so much a war as it was an occupation. A lot more detailed and intricate than just shooting Nazi's.

1) In fact I would say to your first point that it was Washington who unfairly put the burden of nation building on the military without micromanaging. Micromanaging is exactly what was needed. The problem is that the Bush administration had no concrete plan for this. The military is trained to fight and win wars but the requisite training and expertise required to stand up a country is asking a bit much. Security and counterinsurgency should have been the name of the game. State Department should have carried more of the load on the daunting task of fixing middle eastern countries. My personal opinion was that Iraq was a colossal waste of lives and resources with little return on the investment.

2) The troops did go over their and "win." After ten years and countless detentions what exactly are we supposed to win? It's like my old CO said, "there is always going to be some #$%%&$ who plants a bomb on the side of the road. We'll be here forever if that's what we are trying to fix."

 

Care to elaborate?

 

I'd be happy with a Constitutional declaration of war.

If we're not going to do that, I'm not interested.