Languish.org

Is it time that Western government deployed combat units to fight and defeat ISIL on the ground in Iraq and/or Syria?

My view is yes we should and do it soon. The reasoning being, it will take at least a year to get any Iraqi or Kurdish forces retrained/reorganised so that they can pose a real existential threat to ISIL.

Just as ISIL had a moment of opportunity, which the took with both hands, when they expanded into the Syrian vacuum and more specifically broke the back of much of the Iraqi Army. Now they have exposed themselves to conventional attack as they moved from solely terrorist/guerilla attacks to taking and holding territory.
The Western armed forces are good at rapidly taking back occupied lands, so they should be used to smash ISIL on the ground in first Iraq and then sweep into Syria. I see this as an extended smash and grab raid on a grand scale, bringing along with them whatever Iraqi and Kurdish forces they can. I think now is the time to smash the ISIL invincibility myth they've created around themselves and give the occupied peoples of their domain the chance to throw off their chains.

I characterise it as a smash and grab raid, as the aim should be limited to doing the maximum damage to them in a short campaign, of which the current air campaign and associated 'transportation' plan is an important first step.

The western forces shouldn't hang around to become targets for a growing terrorist campaign carried out by any residual ISIL fighters, but should leave the areas to be taken over by whatever opportunistic forces, be these Kurds, Sunni militia, Syrian Kurds, FSA or even forces of the Syrian government. Give those who oppose ISIL a once in a lifetime opportunity to reassert themselves, if they fail, then the policy should be one of containment only, like that which effectively limited Saddamite Iraq for a dozen years.

Clearly ISIL will have planned for such an eventuality and triumph each individual death of a Western soldier, plus things will go wrong, helicopter crashes/accidents can claim 20-40 lives in a single go, but I feel the risk reward in terms of lives lost and money spent would be much better than the combined positive of the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Additionally  'we' need to fully get into the business of killing foreign jihadis, particularly if they come from our own western countries, we should be demonstrating to them, our domestic population and the wider world that their suicide death cult is a literal dead end, with no domain on earth.

I'd rather not.  Let's see if we can get Iran to do it.

Inclined towards "no".  If only for the reason that it has been show in that region that our help and assistance is mostly met with ingratitude.  Indifference at best.

The only real exceptions are maybe the Kurds, and those whose positions in power depend on our help.

Voted No, as a Westerner.

drones and other air strikes should be sufficient to support the local troops already on the ground

Quote from: Tonitrus on October 03, 2014, 05:31:14 PM
Inclined towards "no".  If only for the reason that it has been show in that region that our help and assistance is mostly met with ingratitude.  Indifference at best.

The only real exceptions are maybe the Kurds, and those whose positions in power depend on our help.

And I'll qualify that by saying I support the air strikes, because the financial cost of bombs is worthwhile to kill ISIS nutters.  :)

And while I don't think a large scale "boots on the ground" deployment should be considered.  Small scale embedded special forces troops, and people to help better coordinate air strikes and drone activity is fine as well...preferably mostly with the Kurds (but then I would be a supporter of Kurdish independence as well).

It's been known for some time now what needs to be done - but nobody is willing to do it... not yet: use nuclear fire to cleanse the whole region.

Once the Kaaba, Jerusalem, Medina, Karbala, and whatever other places are precious in their eyes have been vaporized - once their cities have burned - it should help break the spirit of the remaining filth that's already metastasizing the West.  From the borders of India to the coasts of Morocco - from Turkey to Sudan and to Indonesia - burn them all!  When the Dar-al-Islam has been shattered - the survivors will, in time, assimilate and the whole accursed death cult finally disappear.

So say we all!



G.

Fuck no.

Voted no.

Assuming ground troops accomplish anything - what is the plan after that?

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2014, 07:24:59 PM
Voted no.

Assuming ground troops accomplish anything - what is the plan after that?

I outlined it in my post.

Quote from: Grallon on October 03, 2014, 07:16:59 PM
It's been known for some time now what needs to be done - but nobody is willing to do it... not yet: use nuclear fire to cleanse the whole region.

Once the Kaaba, Jerusalem, Medina, Karbala, and whatever other places are precious in their eyes have been vaporized - once their cities have burned - it should help break the spirit of the remaining filth that's already metastasizing the West.  From the borders of India to the coasts of Morocco - from Turkey to Sudan and to Indonesia - burn them all!  When the Dar-al-Islam has been shattered - the survivors will, in time, assimilate and the whole accursed death cult finally disappear.

So say we all!



G.

Or we could just roll you up in blanket and hit you cricket bats.  That seems easier.

We should tomahawk their oil fields so they run out of money.

Too risky.  The Muslim world is turning against ISIS.  The only way for them to recover their prestige and popularity would be for them to be fightng the evil yanqui pigdogs and kill them every once in a while.  That is why they are grabbing every American they can get their hands on and cutting his head off.  Best to fight them by proxy on the ground.

They let the dwarf out of his cage again!



G.

Quote from: Razgovory on October 03, 2014, 08:04:00 PM

Quote from: Grallon on October 03, 2014, 07:16:59 PM
It's been known for some time now what needs to be done - but nobody is willing to do it... not yet: use nuclear fire to cleanse the whole region.

Once the Kaaba, Jerusalem, Medina, Karbala, and whatever other places are precious in their eyes have been vaporized - once their cities have burned - it should help break the spirit of the remaining filth that's already metastasizing the West.  From the borders of India to the coasts of Morocco - from Turkey to Sudan and to Indonesia - burn them all!  When the Dar-al-Islam has been shattered - the survivors will, in time, assimilate and the whole accursed death cult finally disappear.

So say we all!



G.

Or we could just roll you up in blanket and hit you cricket bats.  That seems easier.

Hear, hear!

Quote from: garbon on October 03, 2014, 08:36:12 PM


Hear, hear!

Oh look - Carnival dwarves and empty shells unite!  An outing for the entire family.



G.

Quote from: Grallon on October 03, 2014, 08:42:11 PM

Quote from: garbon on October 03, 2014, 08:36:12 PM


Hear, hear!

Oh look - Carnival dwarves and empty shells unite!  An outing for the entire family.



G.

Sticks and stones, darling, sticks and stones.

I don't think that it's a good idea.  Barring the national will to recolonize, the West is far more the problem in the Middle East than the solution.

Lets protect the Kurds and the other weird religious people of the region. The muslisms can kill themselves without our help.

Hell no.  I couldn't think of a stupider response to the ISIS situation as of now.

I voted yes.  If you're going to kill shit, kill it straight up.   But if you go there, fuck all that "hearts and minds" bullshit, improving infrastructure and teaching those tribal moon worshipers how a bill becomes a law, it's all just a waste of time, money and effort with those filthy monkeys, as we saw in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Go there, kill them all, go home.

No.  But if western countries were willing to supply troops proportional to population and GDP I would be willing to reconsider.

I am starting to think that we are playing to ISIS tune, rather than the other way around.

They *want* us to take more active action against them - that is the only purpose for this calculated provocation.

And I think them wanting us to do it is a pretty good reason to think long and hard about doing so.

Who is supporting ISIS? Where are they getting their money, recruits, weapons?

Looking like a FOOL with your boots on the ground.

Why boots on the ground? We (by which I mean you) already did that for a number of years and it worked out so-so.

The religion is the root cause of this. Shit like this isn't happening in non-Islamic shit holes. The moderates are part of the problem since they accept the same twisted basic tenants of the religion they just choose to ignore some of the specifics. Genocide will work, but that seems to be taking "the ends justify the means" a few steps too far.

You don't need a real army to beat IS on the ground. You only need to provide specialist support to local forces. Please do remember that when the whole thing is over then the local forces will need to survive on minimal help after "we" leave. If they can't win with "our" support they cannot survive on their own.

What I am in favor is giving up on this democratization process while there is no demand for democracy.

No blood for oil! Draft war mongers!  :swiss:

Quote from: Valmy on October 03, 2014, 08:28:44 PM
Too risky.  The Muslim world is turning against ISIS.  The only way for them to recover their prestige and popularity would be for them to be fightng the evil yanqui pigdogs and kill them every once in a while.  That is why they are grabbing every American they can get their hands on and cutting his head off.  Best to fight them by proxy on the ground.

as long as islamic countries and peoples generally continue to believe that their religion should rule the world and sharia (and assorted nonsense) should be the basis of jurisprudence, as long as they believe that their 'prophet' (a massmurderer and slaver) is the perfect human everyone should emulate, it's no use trying to clean up ISIS. ISIS are just most 'honest' about their endgoal, all the rest is lesser gradations of the same evil.

Ideally the region and the religion see the light before it comes to Grallon's horror-scenario.

in the mean time it might be necessary for the West to establish to the muslims the very simple fact that our safety is worth a few million of their lives. A balance of terror basically, abhorrent as it is. So it'll come down to having the Kurds doing the dirty work (and this time let them have their country)

And indeed an end to muslim migration to the West except in very very extraordinary circumstances.

No. The Middle Eastern states will take care of it themselves, and the reaction to Islamists committing atrocities against normal Muslims will be good for the political discourse in that part of the world.

Quote from: Berkut on October 04, 2014, 01:04:44 AM
I am starting to think that we are playing to ISIS tune, rather than the other way around.

They *want* us to take more active action against them - that is the only purpose for this calculated provocation.

And I think them wanting us to do it is a pretty good reason to think long and hard about doing so.

These guys always say that, and we always wind up killing them.  They always lose the short game.  If martyrdom is their primary goal, let's oblige them.

QuoteWho is supporting ISIS? Where are they getting their money, recruits, weapons?

As far as money goes, aside from selling oil at rock-bottom prices, they have very wealthy patrons in our friends in the Gulf:  Qatar, the UAE and to a lesser extent, SA. 

So, when people bitch about the Europeans paying ransoms for hostages as funding ISIS, maybe they should think first about what exactly our government is doing to play its part of the sucker with our bestest buddies in the Gulf.  With friends like these, who needs friends.

We shouldn't say never but there isn't a need

Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 04, 2014, 01:27:19 PM
As far as money goes, aside from selling oil at rock-bottom prices, they have very wealthy patrons in our friends in the Gulf:  Qatar, the UAE and to a lesser extent, SA. 

So, when people bitch about the Europeans paying ransoms for hostages as funding ISIS, maybe they should think first about what exactly our government is doing to play its part of the sucker with our bestest buddies in the Gulf.  With friends like these, who needs friends.

The ISIL sponsors in Qatar, the UAE, and SA are enemies of the west, not their "bestest buddies," let alone friends.

Best buddies may be a bit strong, but we were friends way back.  Used to play basketball, I liked playing them cause none of those guys are over 5'5.

Interesting that only one American (7% of them) favours this type of campaign, but a whole 20% of other westerners/Europeans favour it.

That might be interesting if the sample was a decent size.

Quote from: mongers on October 04, 2014, 02:37:15 PM
Interesting that only one American (7% of them) favours this type of campaign, but a whole 20% of other westerners/Europeans favour it.

of course, the Euros would expect America to do it.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 04, 2014, 02:39:17 PM
That might be interesting if the sample was a decent size.

We're not very numerous are we.  :(

Maybe someone could take it to Paradox OTR forum, oh that's right they don't allow these sorts of discussion.  <_<

Quote from: Ed Anger on October 04, 2014, 02:39:51 PM

Quote from: mongers on October 04, 2014, 02:37:15 PM
Interesting that only one American (7% of them) favours this type of campaign, but a whole 20% of other westerners/Europeans favour it.

of course, the Euros would expect America to do it.

Former imperial holdings, it's bombs away.  But in support of other Europeans they don't consider "real" Europeans, like the Balkans? Genocide away, baby.  Getting focused on hardcore sanctions to support less-than-European pipples like Georgians or Ukrainians?  zomg teh natural gas an stuff

Quote from: mongers on October 04, 2014, 02:43:12 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 04, 2014, 02:39:17 PM
That might be interesting if the sample was a decent size.

We're not very numerous are we.  :(

Maybe someone could take it to Paradox OTR forum, oh that's right they don't allow these sorts of discussion.  <_<

You might be surprised. They have an Israel v Palestine megathread now.

Airstrikes and supporting Assad & the Kurds and a non-divisive Iraqi government to the hilt is the least worst option. Unless the situation gets to the point where it spooks the financial markets, in which case further action may be needed. Yes, it will be blood for oil in a way, but it's better than blood for religion / ideology etc..

Quote from: PJL on October 04, 2014, 03:51:58 PM
Airstrikes and supporting Assad & the Kurds and a non-divisive Iraqi government to the hilt is the least worst option. Unless the situation gets to the point where it spooks the financial markets, in which case further action may be needed. Yes, it will be blood for oil in a way, but it's better than blood for religion / ideology etc..

That's the problem with our foreign policy standards.  We cannot support dictators like Assad against the religious extremists.  We have to support the pro-democracy elements who, when/if we were able to put them in power, would be immediately voted out of office in the free elections and replaced by the religious extremists.   :P

Quote from: mongers on October 04, 2014, 02:37:15 PM
Interesting that only one American (7% of them) favours this type of campaign, but a whole 20% of other westerners/Europeans favour it.

Probably cause it'll be American boots on the ground.  I'm not keen on a big military intervention with tanks and stuff, but special forces raids and the like are okay.

Quote from: Viking on October 04, 2014, 04:13:21 AM
The religion is the root cause of this. Shit like this isn't happening in non-Islamic shit holes. The moderates are part of the problem since they accept the same twisted basic tenants of the religion they just choose to ignore some of the specifics. Genocide will work, but that seems to be taking "the ends justify the means" a few steps too far.

This is true, except for the all the other places where it happens.

Quote from: mongers on October 03, 2014, 07:56:04 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2014, 07:24:59 PM
Voted no.

Assuming ground troops accomplish anything - what is the plan after that?

I outlined it in my post.

Your plan assumes that there will be something else on the ground to take their place.  Unfortunately that assumption has proved incorrect in the past.

The immediately preceding assumption, in fact.  :)

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2014, 04:44:59 PM

Quote from: mongers on October 03, 2014, 07:56:04 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2014, 07:24:59 PM
Voted no.

Assuming ground troops accomplish anything - what is the plan after that?

I outlined it in my post.

Your plan assumes that there will be something else on the ground to take their place.  Unfortunately that assumption has proved incorrect in the past.

No I'm not assuming that, the plan it to hammer ISIL, do the maximum damage whilst they're vulnerable, in the process of which destroying the local myth of their invincibility. Then withdraw, leaving it up to whatever forces choose to fill the vacuum. If no one does, then revert to a policy of containment, like the one that worked with Saddam. This then leaves it up to the regional powers like Saudi Arabia to eventually come up with their own military solution to ISIL on the ground or not. 

The whole plan is predicated not on 'nation building' but smashing, all be it temporarily, a suicide death cult; killing as many foreign fighters as possible in the process. If we see a surfeit of UK Muslim families grieving for their dead 'misguided'* sons, then so much the better. Some people need to understand the consequences of not positively influencing their children away from horrible ideologies.



* how anyone can be in the dark about how despicable this organisation is I don't know. Given the information age we live in I'd argue there's not even the waffen-SS excuse available.

I am not sure how boots on the ground smashes them.  The US is talking about degrading their ability and that it will take a long time.  If you put boots on the ground in one area they will just move to another.

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2014, 08:28:33 PM
I am not sure how boots on the ground smashes them.  The US is talking about degrading their ability and that it will take a long time.  If you put boots on the ground in one area they will just move to another.

Indeed.  Boots on the ground in Iraq is probably no problem.  Moving those boots into Syria?  Assad may be ok with the air strikes, and we can hit ISIS there and still get away with saying we're not directly involving ourselves in the civil war...ground troops inside Syria would make that nearly impossible to argue.

Quote from: mongers on October 04, 2014, 07:02:58 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2014, 04:44:59 PM

Quote from: mongers on October 03, 2014, 07:56:04 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2014, 07:24:59 PM
Voted no.

Assuming ground troops accomplish anything - what is the plan after that?

I outlined it in my post.

Your plan assumes that there will be something else on the ground to take their place.  Unfortunately that assumption has proved incorrect in the past.

No I'm not assuming that, the plan it to hammer ISIL, do the maximum damage whilst they're vulnerable, in the process of which destroying the local myth of their invincibility. Then withdraw, leaving it up to whatever forces choose to fill the vacuum. If no one does, then revert to a policy of containment, like the one that worked with Saddam. This then leaves it up to the regional powers like Saudi Arabia to eventually come up with their own military solution to ISIL on the ground or not. 

The whole plan is predicated not on 'nation building' but smashing, all be it temporarily, a suicide death cult; killing as many foreign fighters as possible in the process. If we see a surfeit of UK Muslim families grieving for their dead 'misguided'* sons, then so much the better. Some people need to understand the consequences of not positively influencing their children away from horrible ideologies.



* how anyone can be in the dark about how despicable this organisation is I don't know. Given the information age we live in I'd argue there's not even the waffen-SS excuse available.

Why would you assume that whatever takes ISIL's place is any different or better than ISIL?

Quote from: sbr on October 04, 2014, 10:07:03 PM
Why would you assume that whatever takes ISIL's place is any different or better than ISIL?

Yeah remember how removing Saddam Hussein was going to increase regional stability?

Quote from: grumbler on October 04, 2014, 02:11:40 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 04, 2014, 01:27:19 PM
As far as money goes, aside from selling oil at rock-bottom prices, they have very wealthy patrons in our friends in the Gulf:  Qatar, the UAE and to a lesser extent, SA. 

So, when people bitch about the Europeans paying ransoms for hostages as funding ISIS, maybe they should think first about what exactly our government is doing to play its part of the sucker with our bestest buddies in the Gulf.  With friends like these, who needs friends.

The ISIL sponsors in Qatar, the UAE, and SA are enemies of the west, not their "bestest buddies," let alone friends.

Quote from: I wrote, and what you misread wasour government is doing to play its part of the sucker with our bestest buddies in the Gulf.

Who ya gonna believe, your own lying eyes...or the deft touch and dulcet tones of Joltin' "We have a variety of canned press release apologies already printed out, Mr. President" Joe?

QuoteUAE demands 'clarification' of Biden's comments

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — The United Arab Emirates said Sunday it wants "a formal clarification" of U.S. Vice President Joe Biden's recent comments that America's allies in the Middle East sent weapons and cash to extremists fighting in Syria.

Biden already apologized to Turkey over his comments, made Thursday during a question-and-answer session at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Biden said that "our biggest problem is our allies" who are engaged in a proxy Sunni-Shiite war against Syrian President Bashar Assad. He specifically named Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

"What did they do? They poured hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of tons of weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad — except that the people who were being supplied were (Jabhat) al-Nusra and al-Qaida and the extremist elements of jihadis coming from other parts of the world," he said.

The UAE's official news agency carried a statement from Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Anwar Gargash calling Biden's comments "far from the truth." The UAE Foreign Ministry said it was astonished by the remarks.

The UAE is a key Arab partner in the U.S.-led coalition against the Islamic State group and has targeted its fighters in airstrikes in Syria. Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Jordan also have carried out airstrikes against the group in Iraq and Syria, while Qatar has provided logistical support.

Gargash said the vice president "gave a negative and inaccurate impression" about the UAE's support in confronting the Islamic State group and terrorism. He said Biden's statement ignored the political and practical steps taken by the UAE, as well as its position against terrorism financing.

"The UAE's counter-terrorism approach reflects a pioneering national commitment that recognizes the extent of the danger posed by terrorism to the region and to its people," Gargash said.

There has been no official comment from Saudi officials over Biden's comments. On Saturday, Biden called to apologize to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the White House said.

"The vice president apologized for any implication that Turkey or other allies and partners in the region had intentionally supplied or facilitated the growth of ISIL or other violent extremists in Syria," the White House said, using an acronym for the Islamic State group.

instead of apologising they should release the money-trails.

Quote from: PJL on October 04, 2014, 03:51:58 PM
Airstrikes and supporting Assad & the Kurds and a non-divisive Iraqi government to the hilt is the least worst option. Unless the situation gets to the point where it spooks the financial markets, in which case further action may be needed. Yes, it will be blood for oil in a way, but it's better than blood for religion / ideology etc..

Assad's forces don't really fight ISIS and I think he's probably got more reasons to hope they keep going than most.

Quote from: LaCroix on October 03, 2014, 06:53:46 PM
drones and other air strikes should be sufficient to support the local troops already on the ground

unfortunately, no.

The US&coallition did not plan for the after Saddam as well as they should have, instead relying on prayers to do the job for them.  Wich gave us this mess where part of the population feels disenfranchised with the central government and welcomed any opportunity to get rid of them.

Iraq will need a long term ground force if we want to push ISIS out of there.  Airstrikes will have them move in cities and dig in the way Germans dug themselves in their trenches in WW1.  It might stop ISIS advance, but it doesn't stop them in the long term, and they're just building their forces to fight the other arabs first, than Israel, the US and other western countries.

Then we either push for reforms in the Iraqui government or we split the country in 3 parts.

Quote from: Valmy on October 03, 2014, 08:28:44 PM
Too risky.  The Muslim world is turning against ISIS.  The only way for them to recover their prestige and popularity would be for them to be fightng the evil yanqui pigdogs and kill them every once in a while.  That is why they are grabbing every American they can get their hands on and cutting his head off.  Best to fight them by proxy on the ground.

yes