|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Aug 29, 2014 19:10:02 GMT -5
President Obama is now infamously quoted as not having a strategy to deal with ISIS. While it may make for a good sound byte, I can understand his position; developing a strategy requires that one understand the topic for which the strategy is being devised. Let's help him out;
Proposition: While ISIS poses a threat to US interests, it is not an existential threat. We (defined as the US and any allies with whom she engages on this issue) should therefore wait until one of the consolidated interests is directly threatened or attacked before we engage ISIS beyond the current level of effective, but relatively occasional strike.
|
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Aug 29, 2014 19:19:07 GMT -5
The problem with that proposition is, ISIS continues to gain strength, and following, while we dither. Will they 'invade'? No. However, how many suicide bombers, biological attackers, and hackers will they get in here to disrupt and destroy specific targets? We don't even know who's come over our southern border in the last year or so.
|
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Aug 29, 2014 19:30:23 GMT -5
The problem with that proposition is, ISIS continues to gain strength, and following, while we dither. Will they 'invade'? No. However, how many suicide bombers, biological attackers, and hackers will they get in here to disrupt and destroy specific targets? We don't even know who's come over our southern border in the last year or so. Your answer doesn't address the proposition, red. Essentially , the question is since ISIS poses no existential threat, do we wait for one of those events to happen, to us or our allies before we escalate from our current response level? |
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Aug 29, 2014 19:35:58 GMT -5
While it is true that ISIS is not currently an existential threat, they have made it crystal clear that they are going to do everything they can to become one. We should not wait until they are that existential threat to strangle this monstrosity in its crib.
I agree that, at this time, it's probably not necessary/in our best interest to send in a large force to counter them. However, we should be arming the Kurds and probably the Jordanians, and not be so squeamish about hitting them hard when any opportunity presents itself.
If the term 'evil' does not apply to ISIS, what does it apply to?
|
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Aug 29, 2014 19:43:47 GMT -5
RJn your response suggests attacking ISIS earlier than the proposition would allow. Let me pose a question: Syria has said they will work WITH the west but will consider a unilateral attack as an invasion. President Obama has indicated he will not ally with Syria. We attack an ISIS target of opportunity in Syria snd Syria shoots down one of our aircraft. What does the US do?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Aug 29, 2014 19:54:57 GMT -5
RJn your response suggests attacking ISIS earlier than the proposition would allow. Let me pose a question: Syria has said they will work WITH the west but will consider a unilateral attack as an invasion. President Obama has indicated he will not ally with Syria. We attack an ISIS target of opportunity in Syria snd Syria shoots down one of our aircraft. What does the US do? I don't know as we need to get into Syria right at the moment. There are plenty of targets in Iraq. If we're able to push ISIS back into Syria, perhaps Assad changes his tune. In the mean time, if an especially good target presents itself within Syria, we have drone and cruise missile options to explore. |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Aug 29, 2014 20:33:48 GMT -5
The problem with that proposition is, ISIS continues to gain strength, and following, while we dither. Will they 'invade'? No. However, how many suicide bombers, biological attackers, and hackers will they get in here to disrupt and destroy specific targets? We don't even know who's come over our southern border in the last year or so. Your answer doesn't address the proposition, red. Essentially , the question is since ISIS poses no existential threat, do we wait for one of those events to happen, to us or our allies before we escalate from our current response level? Their intention is to pose an existential threat to us, and if we allow them time, they will do so. The question, then, becomes do we allow them to disrupt our economy, systems, and people while they build up to an existential threat. Remember that there were only 4 deaths from anthrax, but our entire country almost came to a halt. What happens if 100, 200, 1000 die from a terrorist attack. |
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Aug 29, 2014 21:21:14 GMT -5
RJn your response suggests attacking ISIS earlier than the proposition would allow. Let me pose a question: Syria has said they will work WITH the west but will consider a unilateral attack as an invasion. President Obama has indicated he will not ally with Syria. We attack an ISIS target of opportunity in Syria snd Syria shoots down one of our aircraft. What does the US do? I don't know as we need to get into Syria right at the moment. There are plenty of targets in Iraq. If we're able to push ISIS back into Syria, perhaps Assad changes his tune. In the mean time, if an especially good target presents itself within Syria, we have drone and cruise missile options to explore. I'm not sure I see an ability to push ISIS back into Syria with just air power. |
|
|
|
Post by rentedmule on Aug 30, 2014 5:38:35 GMT -5
I don't know as we need to get into Syria right at the moment. There are plenty of targets in Iraq. If we're able to push ISIS back into Syria, perhaps Assad changes his tune. In the mean time, if an especially good target presents itself within Syria, we have drone and cruise missile options to explore. I'm not sure I see an ability to push ISIS back into Syria with just air power. Anyone remember the immense amount of ordnance we dropped upon North VietNam? Mr. Kerry may not remember. And the President may not even know what a bomb is? Was his Nobel Prize in the arena of Peace? |
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Aug 30, 2014 6:17:04 GMT -5
I don't know as we need to get into Syria right at the moment. There are plenty of targets in Iraq. If we're able to push ISIS back into Syria, perhaps Assad changes his tune. In the mean time, if an especially good target presents itself within Syria, we have drone and cruise missile options to explore. I'm not sure I see an ability to push ISIS back into Syria with just air power. Well, it would require the Iraqis and Kurds to step up. I think that's something the Kurds, at least, are more than willing to attempt. The Peshmerga do have something of a reputation as very tenacious fighters. |
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Aug 30, 2014 7:23:18 GMT -5
Your answer doesn't address the proposition, red. Essentially , the question is since ISIS poses no existential threat, do we wait for one of those events to happen, to us or our allies before we escalate from our current response level? Their intention is to pose an existential threat to us, and if we allow them time, they will do so. The question, then, becomes do we allow them to disrupt our economy, systems, and people while they build up to an existential threat. Remember that there were only 4 deaths from anthrax, but our entire country almost came to a halt. What happens if 100, 200, 1000 die from a terrorist attack. But how do you sell military intervention today to a population that may not see a threat and is tired of war and to a military that is, frankly, exhausted to a point bordering on hollowed out? |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Aug 30, 2014 9:41:10 GMT -5
Their intention is to pose an existential threat to us, and if we allow them time, they will do so. The question, then, becomes do we allow them to disrupt our economy, systems, and people while they build up to an existential threat. Remember that there were only 4 deaths from anthrax, but our entire country almost came to a halt. What happens if 100, 200, 1000 die from a terrorist attack. But how do you sell military intervention today to a population that may not see a threat and is tired of war and to a military that is, frankly, exhausted to a point bordering on hollowed out? One of the reasons the military is so exhausted is because it's been cut so deeply over the last 20 years. We used to have 12-14 divisions, ready for a 2 front war. After Clinton's "peace dividend" cuts, Bush's failure to restore those assets, and The Puppet cutting as fast and as deep as possible, I don't know that we have the manpower left to conduct an extended campaign. As for the population, we need a statesman to simply explain, even to the LIV's, what the threat is. Of course, attacking ISIS in Iraq, or Syria, does little good when they can, and already probably are, here in the US, thanks to The Puppet's open border. |
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Aug 30, 2014 9:51:17 GMT -5
But how do you sell military intervention today to a population that may not see a threat and is tired of war and to a military that is, frankly, exhausted to a point bordering on hollowed out? One of the reasons the military is so exhausted is because it's been cut so deeply over the last 20 years. We used to have 12-14 divisions, ready for a 2 front war. After Clinton's "peace dividend" cuts, Bush's failure to restore those assets, and The Puppet cutting as fast and as deep as possible, I don't know that we have the manpower left to conduct an extended campaign. As for the population, we need a statesman to simply explain, even to the LIV's, what the threat is. Of course, attacking ISIS in Iraq, or Syria, does little good when they can, and already probably are, here in the US, thanks to The Puppet's open border. Red, I'd like this thread to go on for a bit. Please drop the unnecessary shots and stay on point. |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Aug 30, 2014 9:58:34 GMT -5
One of the reasons the military is so exhausted is because it's been cut so deeply over the last 20 years. We used to have 12-14 divisions, ready for a 2 front war. After Clinton's "peace dividend" cuts, Bush's failure to restore those assets, and The Puppet cutting as fast and as deep as possible, I don't know that we have the manpower left to conduct an extended campaign. As for the population, we need a statesman to simply explain, even to the LIV's, what the threat is. Of course, attacking ISIS in Iraq, or Syria, does little good when they can, and already probably are, here in the US, thanks to The Puppet's open border. Red, I'd like this thread to go on for a bit. Please drop the unnecessary shots and stay on point. That wasn't really an 'unnecessary shot'. Far too many in this country have no idea what's really happening on the border, how open it is. How many know that we got a warning yesterday that an attack may be imminent? There is plenty of evidence that we have had ME folks crossing the southern border, we just don't know who they are, and whether they came over for jobs and liberty, or to attack us. ISIS is extremely well funded, and there are thousands of Europeans and Americans that have joined, and their passports give them access without simply crossing the border. We need someone to tell 'the people' in incisive and conclusive terms what the danger is, and someone needs to come up with a strategy to combat it. |
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Aug 30, 2014 11:16:10 GMT -5
I don't necessarily disagree with the premise, but I would ask that you be a little more circumspect in the delivery.
|
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Aug 30, 2014 12:14:27 GMT -5
President Obama is now infamously quoted as not having a strategy to deal with ISIS. While it may make for a good sound byte, I can understand his position; developing a strategy requires that one understand the topic for which the strategy is being devised. Let's help him out; Proposition: While ISIS poses a threat to US interests, it is not an existential threat. We (defined as the US and any allies with whom she engages on this issue) should therefore wait until one of the consolidated interests is directly threatened or attacked before we engage ISIS beyond the current level of effective, but relatively occasional strike. Just a reminder: the premise is that we will not take action above the level we are already doing in Iraq. Given redlegs positions of an ISIS presence in Juarez, Mexico, is there support for a cross-border, extra-legal strike at such forces, if they could be identified? And if so, by whom and to what level? |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Aug 30, 2014 12:14:41 GMT -5
I don't necessarily disagree with the premise, but I would ask that you be a little more circumspect in the delivery. Roger. |
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Aug 30, 2014 12:34:45 GMT -5
President Obama is now infamously quoted as not having a strategy to deal with ISIS. While it may make for a good sound byte, I can understand his position; developing a strategy requires that one understand the topic for which the strategy is being devised. Let's help him out; Proposition: While ISIS poses a threat to US interests, it is not an existential threat. We (defined as the US and any allies with whom she engages on this issue) should therefore wait until one of the consolidated interests is directly threatened or attacked before we engage ISIS beyond the current level of effective, but relatively occasional strike. Just a reminder: the premise is that we will not take action above the level we are already doing in Iraq. Given redlegs positions of an ISIS presence in Juarez, Mexico, is there support for a cross-border, extra-legal strike at such forces, if they could be identified? And if so, by whom and to what level? I suspect our relations with Mexico are strong enough that it wouldn't need to be 'extra-legal'. If we can make the case to the Mexican government, I suspect that they would either support the strike, or even carry it out themselves, if it were in their ability to do so. The Mexican government does have some experience with their drug cartels, and I don't believe they are supporters of the Caliphate. |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Aug 30, 2014 14:41:59 GMT -5
Just a reminder: the premise is that we will not take action above the level we are already doing in Iraq. Given redlegs positions of an ISIS presence in Juarez, Mexico, is there support for a cross-border, extra-legal strike at such forces, if they could be identified? And if so, by whom and to what level? I suspect our relations with Mexico are strong enough that it wouldn't need to be 'extra-legal'. If we can make the case to the Mexican government, I suspect that they would either support the strike, or even carry it out themselves, if it were in their ability to do so. The Mexican government does have some experience with their drug cartels, and I don't believe they are supporters of the Caliphate. That's not necessarily so. Given the corruption in the Mexican government, and especially in the Mexican Army, if the terrorists are supported by some of the stronger cartels, it's a tossup whether they would actually go after them, and if they did, if they would be successful. |
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Aug 30, 2014 15:12:51 GMT -5
I suspect our relations with Mexico are strong enough that it wouldn't need to be 'extra-legal'. If we can make the case to the Mexican government, I suspect that they would either support the strike, or even carry it out themselves, if it were in their ability to do so. The Mexican government does have some experience with their drug cartels, and I don't believe they are supporters of the Caliphate. That's not necessarily so. Given the corruption in the Mexican government, and especially in the Mexican Army, if the terrorists are supported by some of the stronger cartels, it's a tossup whether they would actually go after them, and if they did, if they would be successful. That would tend to be my sense as well, redleg, but I think we owe Mexico the "theoretical" discussion now, so as to set the stage for action that may be needed 30 days from now. |
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Aug 30, 2014 15:57:07 GMT -5
I suspect our relations with Mexico are strong enough that it wouldn't need to be 'extra-legal'. If we can make the case to the Mexican government, I suspect that they would either support the strike, or even carry it out themselves, if it were in their ability to do so. The Mexican government does have some experience with their drug cartels, and I don't believe they are supporters of the Caliphate. That's not necessarily so. Given the corruption in the Mexican government, and especially in the Mexican Army, if the terrorists are supported by some of the stronger cartels, it's a tossup whether they would actually go after them, and if they did, if they would be successful. While the Mexican government does have it's rather large corrupt areas, it is unlikely to me that either the cartels, or the government, or ISIL/AlQaida would get together for an attack on the US.... for several reasons, including: 1) Islamists are unlikely to get close to non-Islamists. 2) If an attack were to be found to have been launched from Mexico, Mexico knows we'd be across the border in days, if not hours... and trust me, they don't want that. |
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Aug 30, 2014 19:38:13 GMT -5
That's not necessarily so. Given the corruption in the Mexican government, and especially in the Mexican Army, if the terrorists are supported by some of the stronger cartels, it's a tossup whether they would actually go after them, and if they did, if they would be successful. While the Mexican government does have it's rather large corrupt areas, it is unlikely to me that either the cartels, or the government, or ISIL/AlQaida would get together for an attack on the US.... for several reasons, including: 1) Islamists are unlikely to get close to non-Islamists. 2) If an attack were to be found to have been launched from Mexico, Mexico knows we'd be across the border in days, if not hours... and trust me, they don't want that. I think the cartels would sell access through their drug/illegals delivery routes and would do so without a second thought. And while it is unlikely ISIS would have the cartels execute an attack, they would have little problem using the access to execute an attack on their own. I think Mexico would cooperate more after an attack executed from their country, but I don't think they fear the likelihood of an attack from the US. Frankly, I agree with them, unless a second attack were to occur. |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Aug 30, 2014 20:35:44 GMT -5
That's not necessarily so. Given the corruption in the Mexican government, and especially in the Mexican Army, if the terrorists are supported by some of the stronger cartels, it's a tossup whether they would actually go after them, and if they did, if they would be successful. While the Mexican government does have it's rather large corrupt areas, it is unlikely to me that either the cartels, or the government, or ISIL/AlQaida would get together for an attack on the US.... for several reasons, including: 1) Islamists are unlikely to get close to non-Islamists.2) If an attack were to be found to have been launched from Mexico, Mexico knows we'd be across the border in days, if not hours... and trust me, they don't want that. Not entirely true. While they don't want to associate with non Muslims, they will to accomplish a particular mission. Just as Iran will work with secular states for a particular purpose. And with this regime, there is no telling what would happen if it were proven to have come from Mexico. We might cross the border, but it's just as likely that The Puppet would decide that "diplomacy" is needed, and that the Mexicans should handle it. A lot depends on the type, and severity of the attack. |
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Aug 31, 2014 6:12:12 GMT -5
While the Mexican government does have it's rather large corrupt areas, it is unlikely to me that either the cartels, or the government, or ISIL/AlQaida would get together for an attack on the US.... for several reasons, including: 1) Islamists are unlikely to get close to non-Islamists. 2) If an attack were to be found to have been launched from Mexico, Mexico knows we'd be across the border in days, if not hours... and trust me, they don't want that. I think the cartels would sell access through their drug/illegals delivery routes and would do so without a second thought. And while it is unlikely ISIS would have the cartels execute an attack, they would have little problem using the access to execute an attack on their own. I think Mexico would cooperate more after an attack executed from their country, but I don't think they fear the likelihood of an attack from the US. Frankly, I agree with them, unless a second attack were to occur. I really don't see the cartels doing that. Indeed, in many ways, I believe the cartels and ISIS are more natural enemies than the US and ISIS. ISIS are Islamists. They oppose drugs... and alcohol. The Cartels are either Catholic or, even worse for ISIS, pagan. And the US is the primary market of the cartels. Throwing it into a state of chaos, or encouraging the arrival of the military on our border, is VERY bad for cartel business. Now, I believe the drug cartels are evil, and like ISIS, they support human trafficking. But I don't think they'll allow ISIS to shut down their income stream by starting a war between the US and Mexico. |
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Aug 31, 2014 6:13:35 GMT -5
While the Mexican government does have it's rather large corrupt areas, it is unlikely to me that either the cartels, or the government, or ISIL/AlQaida would get together for an attack on the US.... for several reasons, including: 1) Islamists are unlikely to get close to non-Islamists.2) If an attack were to be found to have been launched from Mexico, Mexico knows we'd be across the border in days, if not hours... and trust me, they don't want that. Not entirely true. While they don't want to associate with non Muslims, they will to accomplish a particular mission. Just as Iran will work with secular states for a particular purpose. And with this regime, there is no telling what would happen if it were proven to have come from Mexico. We might cross the border, but it's just as likely that The Puppet would decide that "diplomacy" is needed, and that the Mexicans should handle it. A lot depends on the type, and severity of the attack. I agree that O's response would be incredibly weak. I just think the cartel's business interests are undermined by an alliance with ISIS. |
|
