Since Obama is specifically talking about American troops since he can't and doesn't control any other country's military, I'm pretty sure the person you're responding to was just specifically talking about the American troops since that was the context.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Obama: No ground troops against Islamic State
- Thread starter Malyse
- Start date
- Status
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
the agreement to leave was not extended by the prime minister of Iraq at the time -- Al Maliki. That guy was trying to make a power play and essentially become a dictator over there. he caused a lot of the strife in Iraq we are seeing now with lack of confidence in the Iraqi government.
i'm not supportive of occupying a country without their permission. we aren't in the business of imperialism, despite conservatives seemingly wanting us to be.
Vade
Member
Obama did not take out the troops on Bush time table. Bush wanted to hold a sizable presence for the next 20 years Chaney did not want another Afghanistan after he already botched the reasons for invading in the first place. Chaney wanted it to be similar to Japan.
Obama wanted to get out as that was one of his top campaign areas, but he respected the advice of the previous administration. However, the Iraqi government wanted the U.S. out as soon as possible partial because Iran does not like the Western Devil next door and because who wants to have your sovereignty diluted. Iraq gave him the perfect cop out and he took it.
Eighty Deuce
Banned
Let's not invoke skynet
Before someone shits on this argument here's a documentary proving your statement
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/losing-iraq/
Somewhat true.
US partly created this mess and Obamas foreign policy has been a joke whether it's Syria,Iraq, Ukraine or the NSA fallout.
I mean just thursday Obama said ISIS is contained and friday Paris happened.
ISIS leadership is mostly ex iraq military which went underground after the US invaded for shady reasons.
shinobi602
Member
Kurds alone aren't enough to stop all of ISIS. And I doubt they'll continue to advance into other ISIS strongholds beyond what's in their interest in their territory.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Largely due to circumstances out of his control. I think it's important to recognize that the Middle East is an unstable shitpile. I really want to know what you think he could have done to prevent this. Boots on the ground? Sure, worked great in Iraq and Afghanistan.
DeTaInSaMuRAi
Neo Member
Preach brother.
PdotMichael
Banned
Obama and Bush suffer the same problem. They have no concept for the endgame in that area, though that appears to be a general problem of the USA post-WWII.
torre_avenue
Banned
Obama is damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't.
If he does send in troops, he knows he'll be getting in a war and letting his successor do most of the heavy lifting. In addition, there'd be the issue of financing of the war and the loss of other funding if he goes through with it. He'd have to sacrifice immigration, Obamacare, planned parenthood and maybe more just to justify the financial cost of war. Then comes the issue of the killing of civilians which are bound to happen as Daesh uses Yazidis as human shields as well as bombing mistakes, drone mistakes, etc. Then, to top it all off, this is exactly what Daesh wants as it claims the end of the world will happen once the forces of the West meet it at Dabiq and Daesh supposedly routs it. With an invasion come the rise of people against the West who join ISIS solely for combat. In essence, it becomes an ever-larger shit-storm set off for revenge, with troops dying, innocents dying, global condemnation of America's "imperialist" aims, and so on and so forth.
If he doesn't, well, you see it here. Obama gets called a coward, and jingoism starts emerging in full force. It's a lose-lose for Obama, and he's picking the side where he loses least.
If he does send in troops, he knows he'll be getting in a war and letting his successor do most of the heavy lifting. In addition, there'd be the issue of financing of the war and the loss of other funding if he goes through with it. He'd have to sacrifice immigration, Obamacare, planned parenthood and maybe more just to justify the financial cost of war. Then comes the issue of the killing of civilians which are bound to happen as Daesh uses Yazidis as human shields as well as bombing mistakes, drone mistakes, etc. Then, to top it all off, this is exactly what Daesh wants as it claims the end of the world will happen once the forces of the West meet it at Dabiq and Daesh supposedly routs it. With an invasion come the rise of people against the West who join ISIS solely for combat. In essence, it becomes an ever-larger shit-storm set off for revenge, with troops dying, innocents dying, global condemnation of America's "imperialist" aims, and so on and so forth.
If he doesn't, well, you see it here. Obama gets called a coward, and jingoism starts emerging in full force. It's a lose-lose for Obama, and he's picking the side where he loses least.
Abinash117
Member
No it won't really. Obama has said no soldiers in Iraq many times now. What he means is actual frontline soldiers. There are already special forces and advisors on the ground and they have been there for awhile now . They are just using local forces to do to the frontline stuff.
WaffleTaco
Wants to outlaw technological innovation.
Imperialism might have been the best choice in the long run...if done properly. Unfortunately I do not think we would have done a good job of it.
The Lamonster
Member
Ideally they'd never hurt a fly, but this thread is about the American president, so that's why I specifically mentioned American troops.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Honestly, I think the best way to deal with this, and minimize the appearance of "occupying" is a good intelligence and targeted air attacks and special forces operations.
You can't do classical ground offensives in a Civil War situation.
JordanN
Banned
Ironically, wasn't the idea to create dictators who opposed the Soviets and were friendly to the West (in hopes they transition to democracy)?
Now 50 years later, the U.S is trying to remove said dictators and just hope for democracy (by arming "rebel" groups).
Yaphett Kotto
Member
The Kurds aren't the only ones fighting them, though.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
your definition of "leading" is quite tortured, it seems
yeah because Africa turned out great.
imperialism has never been done "properly" -- Rome is probably the only good example, and guess what happened to them? there's a reason why empires aren't around anymore
SomedayTheFire
Member
Good God no. That's what got the middle East into this mess.
IS is literally Al-Qaeda 2.0.
Nexus Zero
Member
I agree completely. First of all ISIS, like Al Quada before them, would love to see American embroiled in another shitty war. Don't give them that. Don't give them a face to the enemy. Surely the psychology of air strikes - any place, any time - is the equivalent to their techniques of terror over here? Good.
Second, as others have said the western governments have spent any goodwill or nerve westerners might have for another war in the middle east. I was against Iraq. I might've been for going after ISIS, guess I'll never know. I know I'm not, because at this point I honestly don't give a single shit about what happens in or to the middle east. When Syria was heating up, it was all "these guys are good, no those guys are good, and these guys are bad." Like, whoever we ended up supporting would be the better of two (three, four?) evils. It doesn't sound like there are any good guys over there other than the Kurds. I'm exhausted even trying to understand.
Let's just be us, enjoy our free society and keep on defending its freedom.
Second, as others have said the western governments have spent any goodwill or nerve westerners might have for another war in the middle east. I was against Iraq. I might've been for going after ISIS, guess I'll never know. I know I'm not, because at this point I honestly don't give a single shit about what happens in or to the middle east. When Syria was heating up, it was all "these guys are good, no those guys are good, and these guys are bad." Like, whoever we ended up supporting would be the better of two (three, four?) evils. It doesn't sound like there are any good guys over there other than the Kurds. I'm exhausted even trying to understand.
Let's just be us, enjoy our free society and keep on defending its freedom.
eot
Banned
I don't think troops on the ground are the answer, because even if you defeat ISIS in some sense you're at best left with something like post-war Iraq. You can't maintain a military presence there but if you leave things will just turn to shit. Bombing them isn't going to do much either. It's better than nothing but it won't solve the problem.
theincredibleone
Banned
Say we defeat ISIS today, some other group will just rise up and take their place tomorrow.
The mentality for the regions is still basically the same as it has been for the last 1000yrs and fights to resist change. Do people really expect a region to really change within 10yrs or 100yrs even if US or UN Troops troops are always present?
Sending in ground troops will result in permanent ground forces stationed there for the next couple decades if not longer. People forget that Iraq /Afghanistan still have not achieved some form of stability as of yet. The US cannot afford another war. We have already neglected our infrastructure and education system which could have been remedied probably 2x over with the cost of the past war on terror..(costs: Restocking/replensihing weapons munitions and equipment, $$ spent buying tribal loyalties, $$ sending troops, setting up bases, cost of lives and the greater cost of caring for the injured troops returning home and the reparation costs..aka you have to help them rebuild to help restabilize..)
All members of the un security council have waged geopolitical wars in those regions and in others that have destabilized areas further resulting in the creation of more extremists within said regions.
It's never ending battle. You put down ground troops and you are there for another 10 years. Amidst a whole bunch of civil war.
And Do people think Obama is just making decisions without consulting his generals and top military advisers? I'm positive they are giving him adequate advice and they are making decisions based on that.
You can't solve the islamic extremist issue in the middle east without addressing Saudi Arabia. No one wants to touch SA because of oil, but its time to figure out how. If that means a NATO/Russian Alliance to take over SA and share the oil so be it, but you have to stop the source of the finances and rhetoric that feeds the islamic extremist machine and ISIS like organizations will start to dry up on their own.
Yea in some form we'll get Assad and Russia on board with them probably doing the heavy lifting and us providing support.
diffusionx
Gold Member
It's really not. ISIS is like a combination of the Taliban (which primarily focused on internally building a state) with al-Qaeda. Except al-Qaeda and ISIS differ on key points w.r.t. terrorism, I remember hearing that one of the founders of the ISIS precursors was actually considered too radical for AQ back in the day.
The weird thing is if ISIS only cared about a state, the West would probably leave them alone as they did the Taliban. But by sending terrorism abroad they are jeopardizing their ability to build that state.
I don't think the US has ever been in the democracy business. Even in the height of Dubya-style purple fingers "democracy", it was only ever going to be a government friendly to US interests.
WaffleTaco
Wants to outlaw technological innovation.
I'm not suggesting just a US type of imperialism, but maybe a combined NA/EU power imperialist force.
Which is why we have to stay there.
sssstententen
Member
As someone in the military who has 3 more on his current contract and may reenlist after that, I've already resigned to the fact I'll probably be going over there soon.
That said, I really don't think its the right choice, and while I'd gladly go down fighting to take out those monsters, and something needs to be done, it scares me to think my friends and I may soon be over there.
I think we have enough issues at home personally. But my opinion isn't common among my peers.
That said, I really don't think its the right choice, and while I'd gladly go down fighting to take out those monsters, and something needs to be done, it scares me to think my friends and I may soon be over there.
I think we have enough issues at home personally. But my opinion isn't common among my peers.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
That gives me an idea! A Gas Tax to fight terrorism, and once we reduce our usage we can tell them to fuck off.
Some of the Gas tax should probably also be put towards other incentives to reduce usage.
At the very least, we could use it as leverage.
Edit: It's also incredibly passive, and good for long term growth.
Not a solution at all. They will always be able to sell it to other countries who will gladly buy.
Flying Toaster
Member
Let Russia send troops. provide air support, training and economic support.
Bolded above... The good news is that SA is going broke because of very low oil prices as they are taking substantial loses, essentially resulting im opec members are undercutting each other to try and secure contracts.
Flying Toaster
Member
They are loosing the ability to make bank, but far from broke.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Well, yeah. It's a global commodity. But it would give us more options.
cartoon_soldier
Member
People wanting ground troops for ISIS fight need to also talk about what happens after let's say ISIS is defeated. What's the plan afterwards?
Agreed. IS isn't al-Qaeda 2.0 because there's (at least one) core fundamental difference in their approach: al-Qaeda is content playing the role of market-state terrorist organization, whereas IS seeks to transcend that role and become a market-state itself, based on terror rather than consent. The result is they're some mutated form caught between the two: relying on the vast global infrastructure to export terror, but seeking to create its own territory to govern legitimately.
Perhaps there's a natural desire for progression that should have been expected from whatever market state terrorist organization arose after al-Qaeda's rise to prominence and the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and attempts to dismantle them, but the differences nevertheless exist and are crucially important to combating each organization.
I miss Phillip Bobbit's lectures.
DragonSworne
Banned
Send in the drones, the clones aren't ready yet. They still need a few more years.
Lamel
Banned
This is the right thing to do. If we go in again we will simply continue to perpetuate the cycle of violence. It is up to the arab/ME countries to take care of this mess themselves. We should support them, particularly in terms of providing resources for infrastructure/education along with the air strikes. However, boots on the ground is a knee-jerk response; a military solution is not a long-term one.
From a foreign policy standpoint, history doesn't look well on most presidents. International politics is fucking complicated, and something that very few politicians have a passable grasp on. Obama, Bush, and Clinton all promised sweeping changes that they ultimately reneged on, because they realized that many of these goals (ie, "Close Guantamao") would hamper long-standing foreign policy plans.
mcz117chief
Member
Word. Once the fighting is over and the dust settles you are stuck in a devastated wasteland with millions of people living below the line of poverty. Do you just leave them there to die or will you feed them for the next decade? These kinds of people have very little drive to restore the infrastructure that they lost and I doubt anybody would be willing to rebuild the Middle East.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Not to mention you're now stuck policing a civil war. IS is just one sect in the region.
DXLelouch153
Banned
just skip straight to gundams
lets see if ISIS wants to fight back after they see an army of robots attacking
your precious bombs and other shit wont save you then
Honestly if the situation in Syria is not enough to call for international military action then nothing ever will. You have a dictator who gassed children in their sleep in his own capital, versus an almost-comically evil group of terrorists that are performing and broadcasting barbaric acts day and night and have murdered roughly 500 civilians in three countries in just two weeks.
Can it really get that much worse because of intervention? I think it's just an excuse people use to not have to step up and act. The last three years have seen Syria become the most pressing humanitarian crisis and international security threat in the world.
Can it really get that much worse because of intervention? I think it's just an excuse people use to not have to step up and act. The last three years have seen Syria become the most pressing humanitarian crisis and international security threat in the world.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked