Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis
Well the inevitable course of action, boots on the ground, will be coming soon I would imagine, as quickly as a month. I'm guessing Obama won't commit any until after the midterms for political reasons, but after that there will likely be no choice. Bombing could only go so far with how big the group is, ground forces were always going to be needed.
But frankly the Islamic world, if they really are so disgusted and angry at the extremists, should take this battle on themselves. Doing so sends a substantially more powerful message than the West doing it, which will primarily be used as a propaganda and recruitment tool by future extremist groups. A coalition of primarily Islamic countries taking out ISIS would be a landmark move.
|
I agree boots on the ground is the inevitable escalation, but it's just as bound to fail in the long run. How many years did the west have troops in Afghanistan and Iraq and how did that turn out? (the "Surge" is actually a good example of applying appropriate forces and achieving a result, but only for as long as those forces stayed).
Even if we defeat this round of fundamentalists there are plenty more to take their place, because it is not an organization it's a mindset. We can hinder their ability to spread their territory and message (maybe) but you can't defeat a belief. In fact just the opposite you strengthen it.
If we still insist on fighting them then forget blowing up a few humvees or tanks and killing a few thousand radicals - you have to fight their economic and political support. Blow up their refineries and pipelines to deprive them of that income (i.e. save the country by destroying it), go after their benefactors - individual or state - whevever they may be - Turkey, Saudi, UAE, ....
I agree with you Senator that the only hope for a lasting military solution, if there is one, is an Arab one. Let the Saudi's and other do the heavy lifting, but be careful what you wish for. Suppose we end up with Saudi effectively controlling Iraq and applying their own version of brutal justice to keep the populace in check. Is that much of an improvement?
My conclusion is we can't win and should just stay the hell out.
Now when it comes to terrorism and security, different story. I don't fear the ISIS horde invading Canada so leave them to their own fate. But go after the homegrown terrorists (mostly half-crazed loners so far but likely to evolve), go after the terror networks (if ISIS has one), go after the propaganda machine, go after the leadership. Mostly international police work with a few extrajudicial missile strikes thrown in (I never said I was a pacifist). Basically,
what has been working for the most part in the 13 years since 9/11. Despite lots of threats and plots, even in Canada, the West has seen relatively few successful attacks.
Do we need to beef up CSIS to deal with the internal threat? Seems reasonable. Do we need to curtail a few liberties? I can live with that, though as a middle aged white male that's awfully easy to say. Let's do whatever is necessary to protect our own house and people but not pin any hopes that we can "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here".