Support NeoGAF

[params7]

Say we defeat ISIS today, some other group will just rise up and take their place tomorrow.

Which is why it is doubly important we don't leave a power vacuum in Syria. Assad is the only major force holding ISIS back on the ground as we speak.

Russia is in the right for trying to prop Assad back up, and U.S. in the wrong for still trying to oust him with no real solution for the aftermath. Iraq (Libya) all over, and Syria will arguable be worse off with no government and extremist forces going at it post-Assad. Obama is committed, and Hillary along with most GoP candidates except Trump want to continue fueling the chaos in Syria.

 

[Coriolanus]

Yeah, I don't understand this either. Yes, there will always be extremist groups. Like there are always criminals. Does humanity not try to convict the criminals just because others will appear in the future?

One uses education and the police to combat crime.

One does not bomb criminals.

War is meant to remove actors, not fight ideologies.

 

[Abinash117]

It's nice that you find terrorism funny.



Yeah, I don't understand this either. Yes, there will always be extremist groups. Like there are always criminals. Does humanity not try to convict the criminals just because others will appear in the future?

Nah if you are part of the crowd I find you funny. I'm laughing all the people getting all worked up on what Obama said " He is poking ISIL with a stick" , or " We should stay out of it" or something like that. Yes it is really funny to see it.

 

[Nesotenso]

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.

I swear to God people should read the full fucking quote.

 

[ivysaur12]

Reuters Top News ‏@Reuters
BREAKING: 60 percent of Americans think U.S. should do more to attack IS, majority oppose sending troops to Iraq, Syria: Reuters/Ipsos poll

So, like, exactly what America wants.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

So, like, exactly what America wants.

Newsflash: Majority still remember how insanely fucked up Iraq and Afghanistan were and still are.

Didn't think it would be this number though

When asked about regular ground troops, the opposition grew stronger with 76 percent opposing deploying troops.

 

[~Devil Trigger~]

His speech today and Q/A what one of the best i've seen and heard.

Fuck all the war mongers with short ass memories and narrow ass perspectives

 

[Heartfyre]

While there are many great reasons not to start a land war, simply continuing air strikes is a half-measure that will surely never lead to any real conclusion. It's merely striking the heads off the hydra: it's not destroying their organisation. What could be ten years of foreign troops occupying Syria may instead be decades of drawn out non-combat and the threat of ISIS terror attacks internationally. I really hope an alternative presents itself, because that's just not good enough.

 

[JoseLopez]

I feel sorry for everyone who died in Paris but again we haven't forgotten Afghanistan and honestly why does everyone expect us to fight all wars?

 

[Antiwhippy]

While there are many great reasons not to start a land war, simply continuing air strikes is a half-measure that will surely never lead to any real conclusion. It's merely striking the heads off the hydra: it's not destroying their organisation. What could be ten years of foreign troops occupying Syria may instead be decades of drawn out non-combat and the threat of ISIS terror attacks internationally. I really hope an alternative presents itself, because that's just not good enough.

It's not like afghanistan where Americans are the majority in the forces fighting al queda. There are plenty of ground troops in that region fighting Isis already.

 

[Abinash117]

While there are many great reasons not to start a land war, simply continuing air strikes is a half-measure that will surely never lead to any real conclusion. It's merely striking the heads off the hydra: it's not destroying their organisation. What could be ten years of foreign troops occupying Syria may instead be decades of drawn out non-combat and the threat of ISIS terror attacks internationally. I really hope an alternative presents itself, because that's just not good enough.

They are not just doing airstrikes.

 

[ZZMitch]

Good. At least someone in our government has taken lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan. I shudder to think the position the U.S would be in a decade from now with boots on the ground in Syria and Iraq (3rd times the charm right?!).

If some European nation like France or a coalition of Middle Eastern nations wants to launch a ground invasion of ISIS that's fine. America can support them from the air.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

I'm honestly unsure of what to do. And I do feel like drone strikes aren't really getting it done. Obama, other leaders, and militaries have the data and info to make the decision. So that's going up to them.

But part of me wishes it like this... Obama: No ground troops. Reporter: Why? Obama: Do you want to start WWIII? Because data points to that being a likely outcome. It would require money and resources like we've never seen to maintain an occupying force after military action to truly rebuild and find non shit head leaders. Are we ready for that scale of war?

It's more like "No ground troops. We feel like it would be ineffective based on the data we have. We'll keep doing what we're doing and not change policy."

And that's it. It opens him up to so much more criticism and makes him appear as if he were weak. The old Democrats suck at getting a mass message out there while Republicans have an opportunity to put out a sound bite or two to rally people which overshadows what is said and gains more support.

I mean, I was watching Fox News briefly and that's exactly what they're doing after his remarks.

 

[Phoenix]

Can someone explain to me what we would gain by putting boots on the ground versus just continuing to bomb them from the skies?

If your goal is to retake territory - you need boots on the ground; ours or someone else's. Our strategy has been to let other people put their own bodies in harms way. You can bomb the shit out of a territory, but unless you have people there to control it after the bombing - you haven't really accomplished much. You will very rarely kill all of your enemies with bombing, so the ones that survive (or arrive to reinforce the position) still successfully hold that land.

 

[Zultan]

You're kidding, right?

If not, your view of politics is quite warped.

In general, the world has gotten a lot more unstable since Obama became president. Much like Bush Jr.

Like it or not, we are the world's police. When the world becomes unstable, people blame us. Whether we were party to the situation or not.

 

[Phoenix]

In general, the world has gotten a lot more unstable since Obama became president. Much like Bush Jr.

Like it or not, we are the world's police. When the world becomes unstable, people blame us. Whether we were party to the situation or not.

The world has been getting more unstable - period. The US doesn't have the ability to prevent the world from becoming more unstable any more than it has the ability to prevent climate change.

 

[Nivash]

Intervening in Syria with ground troops is strategic lunacy and has been from the start. There are too many hostile factions, the enemy isn't really conductive to the kind of warfare NATO excels at and the logistics would be a nightmare. That's why Obama has been staying out if it, the JCOS have probably been screaming at him for years to not even think about it.

Now that Russia's involved itself as well any intervention rises from lunacy to batshit insanity unless you suggest joining forces with Assad, aka the dictator who started the civil war by torturing children and massacring protesters and has continued to kill and torture on a scale that makes even ISIS blush. It's a completely unthinkable situation. NATO would have to look the other way as their "allies" slaughter civilians all around them in an attempt at stomping out any opposition to Assad for good.

Obama is right. Boots on the ground in Syria remains moronic.

 

[Phoenix]

Now that Russia's involved itself as well any intervention rises from lunacy to batshit insanity unless you suggest joining forces with Assad, aka the dictator who started the civil war by torturing children and massacring protesters and has continued to kill and torture on a scale that makes even ISIS blush. It's a completely unthinkable situation. NATO would have to look the other way as their "allies" slaughter civilians all around them in an attempt at stomping out any opposition to Assad for good.

Obama is right. Boots on the ground in Syria remains moronic.

And sadly, that's REALLY what's going to end up happening. You're going to have to prop up some stable government in that region that has an ability to keep things under control and while we would like to get rid of Assad, we're really not willing to go to war in order to get rid of him (which is what it will take). Consequently we have to accept to some extent that the only way this quiets down is to either:

a) Go balls-deep and expect to support an expeditionary force sitting in the region for decades

b) Accept that some asshole is going to have to rule the region and that its going to be someone who we won't like that is going to torture and kill a lot of people who we wanted to help

There is no "winning" solution to the problem.

 

[JackBauer24]

They are baiting Russia/US/Europe into spending trillions attempting another decade long occupation/policing.

 

[beato_angelico]

They are baiting Russia/US/Europe into spending trillions attempting another decade long occupation/policing.

So basically the idea is do nothing and hope they continue to blow up european people instead of americans?

 

[Coriolanus]

People commenting on the world getting more unstable would do well to remember that until the soviet union ended, a very short while ago, yall lived under the threat of a nuclear holocaust.


The short period of very relative peace youve experienced in the 90s was the exception, not the rule, and the world by and large remains far more stable than it has ever been during most of human history.

So basically the idea is do nothing and hope they continue to blow up european people instead of americans?

If that is one's concern, one prevents such a result both by applying more rigorous border controls and destroying the recruitment appeal of radicalism, something that is done via education and stability.

Neither benefits from bombings.

 

[Antiwhippy]

In general, the world has gotten a lot more unstable since Obama became president. Much like Bush Jr.

Like it or not, we are the world's police. When the world becomes unstable, people blame us. Whether we were party to the situation or not.

Lol no.

Why do you think the world got unstable in the first place? Because Americans love waving their sticks and playing police.

Face it America, you've been part of the problem for a long time.

 

[Abstruse Moose]

Can't help but enjoy the comments about Obama not knowing how to lead, meanwhile his military advisors are telling him not to send in ground troops. Surely those posters have a better handle on the situation than the military advisors who have had their finger on the pulse from the beginning.

 

[Nivash]

And sadly, that's REALLY what's going to end up happening. You're going to have to prop up some stable government in that region that has an ability to keep things under control and while we would like to get rid of Assad, we're really not willing to go to war in order to get rid of him (which is what it will take). Consequently we have to accept to some extent that the only way this quiets down is to either:

a) Go balls-deep and expect to support an expeditionary force sitting in the region for decades

b) Accept that some asshole is going to have to rule the region and that its going to be someone who we won't like that is going to torture and kill a lot of people who we wanted to help

There is no "winning" solution to the problem.

Which is why we (as in the West, I'm not American) should just stay out of it. We would becone complicit in one of the greatest atrocities in modern times if we get involved. True, no matter which faction wins (or if none do, and Syria just becomes the next Somalia) the end result will be horrifying but there's no reason we should have to bloody our hands too.

We should stay out and help the refugees who are the only people with some claim to innocence in all this. Syria's gone. Nothing we do can change that.

 

[Timeaisis]

So more training foreign armies, then? Is that the big plan? I'm against war and ground campaigns, of course, but it seems like if anything should justify ground troops it's fucking this.

My opinion of the matter is either go all in or stay out of it.

 

[Heartfyre]

It's not like afghanistan where Americans are the majority in the forces fighting al queda. There are plenty of ground troops in that region fighting Isis already.

Of course, yet this thread is about American intervention. Regardless, up to this point, the current ground troops haven't been effective enough anyway. Even looking past the death toll and the amount of territory under ISIS control, as an ancient historian, my heart bleeds. I see no reason to think that, if nothing changes, the conflict won't still be ongoing for another decade. I'm not criticising inaction, by the way -- I'm just frustrated that there's no obvious solution that can be followed.

They are not just doing airstrikes.

Yet generally keeping a distance when change has to take place on-site. Most definitely for the best, and most likely following sound military strategy, but what they're doing is not effectively destroying the organisation. They may use a drone to take out a high-ranking leader, but another will replace him. There's no end in sight, and no chance of a diplomatic conclusion.

 

[beato_angelico]

If that is one's concern, one prevents such a result both by applying more rigorous border controls and destroying the recruitment appeal of radicalism, something that is done via education and stability.

Neither benefits from bombings.

So you think having a self proclaimed islamic state still standing after months of bombing has nothing to do with the "recruitment appeal of radicalism"?

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

It's a such a tough nut to crack.

Every time Western powers do something in the Middle East, it ends up biting them in the ass.

I'm stumped, honestly.

If we always expect the worst-case scenario to happen in the Middle East, I think the foreign policy would be a lot more realistic.

Newsflash: Majority still remember how insanely fucked up Iraq and Afghanistan were and still are.

Didn't think it would be this number though

I actually love this. People still remember the Bush years. This is good in the long-term.

 

[Coriolanus]

So you think having a self proclaimed islamic state still standing after months of bombing has nothing to do with the "recruitment appeal of radicalism"?

I think that shows quite clearly that bombing, at best, does nothing.

 

[Buba Big Guns]

So more training foreign armies, then? Is that the big plan? I'm against war and ground campaigns, of course, but it seems like if anything should justify ground troops it's fucking this.

My opinion of the matter is either go all in or stay out of it.

And your opinion comes from your ass while Obama's is based off evidence and expert advice.

 

[Wiz]

Yeah, let's not do that. ISIS has more than enough enemies, so that forming an Allied team to bring them down is the best bet. Which is what already exists.

If we send ground troops, we gotta think of the aftermath which will probably be an indefinite occupation of Syrian territory by US forces. And that could lead to more issues which posters have already brought up.

So yeah, let's not do that.

I'm all for bombing em to hell and back though.

 

[gutter_trash]

In general, the world has gotten a lot more unstable since Obama became president. Much like Bush Jr.

Like it or not, we are the world's police. When the world becomes unstable, people blame us. Whether we were party to the situation or not.

removing Saddam Hussein is what created the instibility in Iraq in the first place.

was it so hard just to maintain the no fly zones?

now look at Iraq, it is now friends with Iran.

removing Saddam made Iran stronger.

US talks that Iran is the enemy but lol, Bush made Iran stronger by taking out Saddam

 

[beato_angelico]

I think that shows quite clearly that bombing, at best, does nothing.

That actually is a reason to do more than bombing then.

 

[Malyse]

In general, the world has gotten a lot more unstable since Obama became president. Much like Bush Jr.

Like it or not, we are the world's police. When the world becomes unstable, people blame us. Whether we were party to the situation or not.

Jesus Christ.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

Everything that happens while Obama is in office isn't Obama's fault.

 

[Coriolanus]

That actually is a reason to do more than bombing then.

It's a reason to do something other than bombing, if one opts to directly intervene. Yes.

removing Saddam Hussein is what created the instibility in Iraq in the first place.

was it so hard just to maintain the no fly zones?

now look at Iraq, it is now friends with Iran.

removing Saddam made Iran stronger.

US talks that Iran is the enemy but lol, Bush made Iran stronger by taking out Saddam

To be fair, Iran should be a regional power. I'd take Khamenei and Rouhani over a fuck like Al-Sisi any day of the week.

 

[JZA]

Could be an opportunity to try to fight a modern conflict the way OIF 2 should have been fought, with a maximum use of special forces and an attempt to minimize collateral damage and the need for occupation.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

That actually is a reason to do more than bombing then.

Why are you treating like a binary situation? You're never gonna wake up one day and IS disappeared overnight. From what I've seen, they've had territorial losses in the last few months.

 

[JackBauer24]

So basically the idea is do nothing and hope they continue to blow up european people instead of americans?

Not saying that no troops is a better option, but a full out invasion/occupation isn't what any country should do. ISIS are not using traditional methods of war. The US fought guerrilla warfare for over 10 years and look at what the outcome was.

 

[Antiwhippy]

Of course, yet this thread is about American intervention. Regardless, up to this point, the current ground troops haven't been effective enough anyway. Even looking past the death toll and the amount of territory under ISIS control, as an ancient historian, my heart bleeds. I see no reason to think that, if nothing changes, the conflict won't still be ongoing for another decade. I'm not criticising inaction, by the way -- I'm just frustrated that there's no obvious solution that can be followed.

It has not exactly been entirely win-win for isis recently. If anything the tide is starting to turn.

 

[Syph Medwes]

For someone lauded as a master orator, President Obama has sure managed to sound like an apolitical idiot these past months/years.
How about "...at this time", etc. On paper you're supposed to be the leader of the free world, and on paper you should be willing to do anything to defend that. Of course, it's beyond established that this president is a house of cards and ISIS is holding a jet engine, but at least project an air of defiance. I mean, really, it's up to the French to lead?

Again, I'm pertaining to the choice of language, not to whether there should actually be ground troops.

edit:

Compare and contrast these two posts.

before you can compare first you must read

 

[gutter_trash]

It's a reason to do something other than bombing, if one opts to directly intervene. Yes.



To be fair, Iran should be a regional power. I'd take Khamenei and Rouhani over a fuck like Al-Sisi any day of the week.

But Al-Sisi reigned in on the theocratic Morsi
Egypt is not ready for democracy

 

[davepoobond]

i think a problem is people are expecting instant gratification, go in, kill them, get out, everything is happy. people who suggest this are delusional.

- it wont "only" take 10,000 troops, it'll be more like 75,000 or more. especially if you implement a no fly zone or a "safe zone" (which is essentially a no fly zone) in Syria.

- ISIS may hold territory but they are a cultural movement in the area AND abroad. There are citizens in every country who are turned into ISIS ideological supporters through social media. they never need to have traveled to the middle east for this to happen. How will 75,000 troops in Syria stop this? It doesn't.

- any reclaimed ISIS territory has to be held by someone. Local fighters are being touted here because they have a stake in keeping their cities safe. Sending in Americans to do their job, guess what happens if we leave? Guess what happens if we stay forever? We've seen both of these things already.

- I consider ISIS losing Sinjar an important stepping stone here -- there is a strategy in removing their grip on the portion of Syria/Iraq they've carved out for themselves and the only way this is going to work is if people who live in the area care about excising radicals.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

For someone lauded as a master orator, President Obama has sure managed to sound like an apolitical idiot these past months/years.
How about "...at this time", etc. On paper you're supposed to be the leader of the free world, and on paper you should be willing to do anything to defend that. Of course, it's beyond established that this president is a house of cards and ISIS is holding a jet engine, but at least project an air of defiance. I mean, really, it's up to the French to lead?

Again, I'm pertaining to the choice of language, not to whether there should actually be ground troops.

i think a problem is people are expecting instant gratification, go in, kill them, get out, everything is happy. people who suggest this are delusional.

- it wont "only" take 10,000 troops, it'll be more like 75,000 or more. especially if you implement a no fly zone or a "safe zone" (which is essentially a no fly zone) in Syria.

- ISIS may hold territory but they are a cultural movement in the area AND abroad. There are citizens in every country who are turned into ISIS ideological supporters through social media. they never need to have traveled to the middle east for this to happen. How will 75,000 troops in Syria stop this? It doesn't.

- any reclaimed ISIS territory has to be held by someone. Local fighters are being touted here because they have a stake in keeping their cities safe. Sending in Americans to do their job, guess what happens if we leave? Guess what happens if we stay forever? We've seen both of these things already.

- I consider ISIS losing Sinjar an important stepping stone here -- there is a strategy in removing their grip on the portion of Syria/Iraq they've carved out for themselves and the only way this is going to work is if people who live in the area care about excising radicals.

Compare and contrast these two posts.

 

[Coriolanus]

But Al-Sisi reigned in on the theocratic Morsi
Egypt is not ready for democracy

I can't even tell if you're being serious.

 

[Poodlestrike]

Say we defeat ISIS today, some other group will just rise up and take their place tomorrow.

Not necessarily? ISIS is kind of a different beast than a lot of the terror organizations that have preceded it.

Not saying that no troops is a better option, but a full out invasion/occupation isn't what any country should do. ISIS are not using traditional methods of war. The US fought guerrilla warfare for over 10 years and look at what the outcome was.

Are they? ISIS isn't acting like an insurgency, they're acting as an army, a state. Or a crazed wannabe version of those two things, at least.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Are they? ISIS isn't acting like an insurgency, they're acting as an army, a state. Or a crazed wannabe version of those two things, at least.

They're a group of insurgents trying to form some half assed state. First and foremost. If they were an army or a state you could march into Raqqa and get the top leaders to sign a surrender agreement or lay down their arms eventually when they know they're defeated. I seriously doubt that's gonna happen.

They'll fight til they die by any means necessary. Most of these guys were insurgents in Iraq before they became IS.

 

[TarNaru33]

Which is why we (as in the West, I'm not American) should just stay out of it. We would becone complicit in one of the greatest atrocities in modern times if we get involved. True, no matter which faction wins (or if none do, and Syria just becomes the next Somalia) the end result will be horrifying but there's no reason we should have to bloody our hands too.

We should stay out and help the refugees who are the only people with some claim to innocence in all this. Syria's gone. Nothing we do can change that.

This is a really stupid idea imo. Inaction is what causes more issues, as it only kicks the can down the road.

Everyone here is too busy citing Afghanistan and Iraq as examples of bad occupation, forgetting that U.S was half-assing both of them. No where near the number of troops that was required was sent to occupy either country and U.S did both of them at the same time. The allied nations there, put in some troops, but it was mainly token forces.

Then the 2nd issue was U.S wanted those countries to govern themselves, instead of taking a strong hold of the politics there. Even with all of these issues, U.S kept the country as stable as they were. U.S only has 10K force in Afghanistan right now, you guys call that an "occupation"?

The real reason occupation isn't working is because no one wants to do it and rely heavily on one country to (U.S). Then they cite bad news in those countries saying "See? This won't work". It is equivalent of Republicans gutting the Postal Service while expecting great results.

What needs to be done is a U.N occupation and not a token force, but unfortunately that is impossible with Russia and China having veto ability.


EDIT: So many deaths all because people do not want to intervene, as if doing nothing makes it any better. The Kurds are not going to overstretch themselves, fighting ISIS. This is the only bad thing about liberals... they stick to inaction, while the conservatives/republicans go balls deep. It is like the extreme of both sides, no down the middle.

Know what this reminds me of? Rwanda and WW2 where things went to genocide as all other nations wanted to sit by and wait.

 

[Coriolanus]

Then the 2nd issue was U.S wanted those countries to govern themselves, instead of taking a strong hold of the politics there. Even with all of these issues, U.S kept the country as stable as they were. U.S only has 10K force in Afghanistan right now, you guys call that an "occupation"?

Might wanna read a bit on afghanistan's 2014 presidential election, chief.

 

[TarNaru33]

Might wanna read a bit on afghanistan's 2014 presidential election, chief.

Well aware of that election. I am talking down to local levels, you know where authorities could get away with heinous crimes because U.S troops couldn't deal with them for example. It basically wasn't done the way it should have been. Who knows, maybe the way I am talking about would be too liberal for them.

 

[Nivash]

This is a really stupid idea imo. Inaction is what causes more issues, as it only kicks the can down the road.

Everyone here is too busy citing Afghanistan and Iraq as examples of bad occupation, forgetting that U.S was half-assing both of them. No where near the number of troops that was required was sent to occupy either country and U.S did both of them at the same time. The allied nations there, put in some troops, but it was mainly token forces.

Then the 2nd issue was U.S wanted those countries to govern themselves, instead of taking a strong hold of the politics there. Even with all of these issues, U.S kept the country as stable as they were. U.S only has 10K force in Afghanistan right now, you guys call that an "occupation"?

The real reason occupation isn't working is because no one wants to do it and rely heavily on one country to (U.S). Then they cite bad news in those countries saying "See? This won't work". It is equivalent of Republicans gutting the Postal Service while expecting great results.

What needs to be done is a U.N occupation and not a token force, but unfortunately that is impossible with Russia and China having veto ability.

Staying out of it isn't a stupid idea if the alternative is even more stupid. Believe you me, I'm definitely not an isolationist in any way, but you need to recognise that sometimes military intervention can be such a bad option that it's even worse than doing nothing.

The fact that Russia has directly allied with and is fighting alongside Assad is what makes the kind of grand intervention you're talking about impossible. If everyone involved - NATO, Russia, China, Iran, the Arab nations - were in agreement that Syria is FUBAR and needs a UN intervention then that could probably work. All of the factions could be subdued and the country rebuilt in a UN effort. The problem is that because Russia have already sided with Assad any grand intervention would have to do the same, which is unthinkable, or fight Russia, which is even more unthinkable. We've been dealt a bad hand. The entire region is using Syria for a proxy war and that makes intervention impossible.

So if a proper UN intervention is "impossible" and inaction is "stupid" in your words, what do you suggest we do?

Know what this reminds me of? Rwanda and WW2 where things went to genocide as all other nations wanted to sit by and wait.

Again, our options are either to assist Assad in his genocidal campaign or start killing Russians and risk something truly unthinkable. Neither is an option for obvious reasons.