Originally posted by Tulsaaggieson:
I do understand that provocations are intended to elicit a military response. That however is not the entire story is it. They are thumbing their noses at the US, because they don't think we will respond with anything that is effective. It's like a bully, they are trying to taunt you into a fight they don't actually want or fully understand.
This makes absolutely no sense. So your strategy is to give them exactly what they want? You are exactly right, they don't think we will respond with anything effective, and by that they think our response will be boots on the ground. I swear for some people geopolitics is really a dick measuring contest by national proxy. You are playing checker and they are playing chess. If you are trying to establish a caliphate in the middle east, but are having a rough go of it because you are surrounded by other Muslim's that have US air support who oppose you, what is your best strategy? Get the US to invade the middle east to rally support, beat the US in a war of attrition and which will shut off the air support and demoralize those who oppose you.
This is just like how bin Laden rope a doped us into waging enormous costly wars in the region. We are still reaping what we sowed.
Originally posted by Tulsaaggieson:
Now this is where you lack understanding of what ISIS is and has. They do have the capability to wage war over a very large area to include a global threat. Not all of it is conventional. Their threat to the US is primarily non-conventional but like I have stated, any harm to US citizenry at this point is considered a victory to them.
Now to effectively counter their operations in Iraq and Syria, you will need to still place boots on the ground. Imbedding our troops with Kurdish and Iraqi forces will limit your "targets of opportunity". Lets not forget that these men and women signed up for this, and this is exactly what they want to do. The reason you want to do this to provide eyes on target for Air Forces to be able to effectively drop metal on flesh.
Literally, every group/state/organization has the capability to commit terrorism globally. How can a military prevent terrorism? It never has and it never will. Fortunately IS has actual geopolitical goals, which is to establish a caliphate. This is an incredible development. How do you deter a suicide bomber? You can't. How do you deter a caliphate? threaten to destroy the caliphate. This is Al Qaeda showing its cards trying to play geopolitics with the big boys. They have gone from a shadow organization that wears no uniform and has only irrational goals to a uniformed quasi state that has rational goals. The former we suck at containing, the latter is kind of our wheelhouse. The last thing you want to do is turn these people from soldiers to terrorists.
Originally posted by Tulsaaggieson:
You do understand that the enemies terms for a fight would be to fight us here in the US and Europe? Fighting ISIS in their territory is exactly how you fight them. If you defend territory (Vietnam) you will get no where, and bleed troops. If you fight on your terms you would be fighting exactly how we fought Vietnam, and the end would be the same.
What is their goal in the US and Europe? They are currently fighting in the middle east. I prefer to allow IS to be at war with Syria, Iraq, Kurdistan, Iran, and hopefully KSA soon than the US. This is precisely our terms. The US should provide just enough air support to ensure that these conflicts continue indefinitely leaving the region in balance and showing everyone the wages of fundamentalism. You would rather have another botched intervention, push these people back to terrorism, open up yet another power vacuum, and put on full display the amoral dystopia that is modernism.
Originally posted by Tulsaaggieson:
Now your modernism vs fundamentalism idea can be debated, but I don't think we are going to disagree much. The disagreement we are having is how to fight a 30 year war. It is my opinion you take the fight to the enemy, but I'm more in line with General Sherman's idea of how you win this, and until you take up his tactics to win this it will draw out. Our current President doesn't have the ability to understand that, or the ability to implement it.
General Sherman played chess not checkers and probably considered the enemy's motivations and goals as well as the possible consequences before making his march to the sea. Trust me, he had more strategies than "Hulk Smash." We listened to fearmongers and warmongers like you in the early 2000s and things didnt' work out. Besides if you were president we would be knee deep in WW3 with Russia (OMG they have a submarine!) and we wouldn't have any boots on the ground to spare for ISIS.
