1  2  Next

Title: Why the U.S. strategy to take on ISIS isn't working
Category: Military
Posted By: andyt
Date: 2015-05-22 07:13:07

   

R

   

They know very well you can't control a country without soldiers on the ground. They are hoping some locals step up and make the effort to protect themselves.

   

The locals that are willing to step up are the Shia militias and the Kurds. The US has not wanted to support the Shia with airstrikes, but as the article says, they're changing their mind on that. Of course that just bolsters Iran, which pisses off Israel and Saudi Arabia, and round and round we go. Oh and it pisses off Turkey with the Kurds, and apparently Turkey is a key NATO ally. Just no easy solution, despite the troglodytes call for another war. "Third time's the charm."

   

Because they aren't playing to win, as usual.

Haven't seen it since 1945.


Maybe Grenada is an exception.

   

As I said, the trogs speak. Or the Rambos "are they going to let us win this time." You're an idiot if you think going in for another war will make positive change this time. But then we already know you're an idiot.

   

Maybe we should just give them a house, raise their minimum wage and legalize drugs.

   

Martin's right. The US aren't playing to win, they are playing to control.

What I've learned is that war increases unpredicatbility. That's the opposite of control.

That seems to me to be an even more fundamental error than not being aware of the situation on the ground prior to engagement. And that is why just about everything the US has done has made it worse.

I have some sympathy for the US, because, for this most recent incursion at least, the reasons were laudable--stop the suffering of innocents.

   

They can't play to win, if by that you mean full on invasion. Even if they had the national will for the sacrifice it would take, you can't defeat the jihadist ideology militarily, you can't just wave your hand after a military victory and create a stable Iraq and you can't make appease all the various players in the region. And the US certainly doesn't have the power to defeat and hold the whole region. Even if it did, that darn hearts and minds thing would be a problem. This is something the region needs to work out for itself, just contain the collateral damage.

   

Another thing you can't do with the Jihadist threat is you can't stop it from spreading worldwide if you let it get strong in its home. The policy of 'Destroy the infidel everywhere' is built into their magic book.

Which brings us to the possibility Bush was right to invade Iraq. We know he was right about what he predicted would happen if they left too soon.



And if America was still there wouldn't they have a stronger hand in deciding whether or not Iran could go nuclear. Because there's a side that says if you think ISIS is a problem you ain't seen nothin yet, but you will when Iran gets the bomb.

One thing Andy's analysis left out is the Shia militias are Iranian backed. That matters.

   

What would the US winning in Iraq look like, and what would be required to accomplish it?

   

We are seeing the result of "Winning". Religious and Ethnic fractioning and radicalization. Expect increased belligerence between Saudi Arabia and Iran, leading to even more destabilization. ISIS can be expected to be far worse than Al Queda could ever have hoped to be, committing Terrorist acts globally. Not sure they will achieve 9/11 level of attack, just smaller attacks more frequently.

   

Well they did win the war. They lost the Peace when Obama withdrew before order had been restored.

   

Why the U.S. strategy to take on ISIS isn't working

'cause the haven't nuked Mecca or Medina yet.

   

You spelled "Bush" wrong. That said, it was the Iraqi's who wanted the US out.

   

1  2  Next