How do we defeat ISIS without U.S. Ground Troops?

[WhatTheGox]

how can we defeat ISIS in Iraq without U.S. Ground Troops if most of the Iraqi Army does not want to fight?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_zMTykfK0Q

[Paya]

US can permanently defeat ISIS only with the help of well established local powers with strong leadership and effective armed forces. Like ex-Saddam's Iraq (wait, where did it go?), or current Assad's Syria. Trying to create yet another pathetic puppet regime such as those in Baghdad or Kabul, and chasing guerilla with cruise missiles and Raptors can only end up with more failures.

[spooderman]

How do we defeat ISIS without with U.S. Ground Troops?

FTFY

You don't stop terrorism by killing loads of people (i.e committing acts of terror yourself). All that does is anger people and bring repercussions on yourself.

Fighting fire with fire leads to....guess what.....

A larger fire.

[cryptodevil]

Careful Spoods, it seems the general consensus is that any suggestion other than violence when faced with a violent dysfunctional people is to be dismissed with, you guessed it, hopes of more violence.

hopefully they will cut off the heads of the "intellectually honest" left/lib/tree hugging losers.
By doing this they may save the western civilization.

Not one hint of recognition at the sickening absurdity of it. Not one.

[BADecker]

Careful Spoods, it seems the general consensus is that any suggestion other than violence when faced with a violent dysfunctional people is to be dismissed with, you guessed it, hopes of more violence.

hopefully they will cut off the heads of the "intellectually honest" left/lib/tree hugging losers.
By doing this they may save the western civilization.

Not one hint of recognition at the sickening absurdity of it. Not one.

What??? You want to keep on paying income taxes, so that we can keep on funding ISIS under the table?   

[cryptodevil]

Yes, because that is exactly what I was saying.

The assertion that you can't defeat violence with more violence must, of course, mean I am proposing we keep funding the violence.

/sarcasm

[BADecker]

Yes, because that is exactly what I was saying.

The assertion that you can't defeat violence with more violence must, of course, mean I am proposing we keep funding the violence.

/sarcasm

 

[sana8410]

Maliki initially refused to go because he knew, in the end, we would protect him no matter how much we disapproved of him. When that protection left and we made our return help conditional upon his stepping down, only then did he leave office. We saw this before with the Habre administration in Chad with France. Pretty similar situation. Sometimes having physical presences and guaranteeing the safety of the central government prevents the reform necessary for the country to evolve its political institutions or seek better governance / a compromise that will help promote peace and inclusiveness in the long run.

Sometimes, unfortunately, there is very little that one can constructively do when it comes to intervention in foreign domestic disputes.

This is the part I take issue with. I believe Obama let the situation deteriorate intentionally. I'm not necessarily opposed to him doing that, by the way.

[Mr.Bitty]

Maliki initially refused to go because he knew, in the end, we would protect him no matter how much we disapproved of him. When that protection left and we made our return help conditional upon his stepping down, only then did he leave office. We saw this before with the Habre administration in Chad with France. Pretty similar situation. Sometimes having physical presences and guaranteeing the safety of the central government prevents the reform necessary for the country to evolve its political institutions or seek better governance / a compromise that will help promote peace and inclusiveness in the long run.

Sometimes, unfortunately, there is very little that one can constructively do when it comes to intervention in foreign domestic disputes.

This is the part I take issue with. I believe Obama let the situation deteriorate intentionally. I'm not necessarily opposed to him doing that, by the way.

Via inaction, poor action, or both?

I'm also curious what you mean by 'intentionally', but most of all I want know why you wouldn't be opposed to that.

Thanks in advance for answering my silly questions.

[noviapriani]

Maliki initially refused to go because he knew, in the end, we would protect him no matter how much we disapproved of him. When that protection left and we made our return help conditional upon his stepping down, only then did he leave office. We saw this before with the Habre administration in Chad with France. Pretty similar situation. Sometimes having physical presences and guaranteeing the safety of the central government prevents the reform necessary for the country to evolve its political institutions or seek better governance / a compromise that will help promote peace and inclusiveness in the long run.

Sometimes, unfortunately, there is very little that one can constructively do when it comes to intervention in foreign domestic disputes.

This is the part I take issue with. I believe Obama let the situation deteriorate intentionally. I'm not necessarily opposed to him doing that, by the way.

What makes you believe that and what motivation would you see in that?

[sana8410]

Maliki initially refused to go because he knew, in the end, we would protect him no matter how much we disapproved of him. When that protection left and we made our return help conditional upon his stepping down, only then did he leave office. We saw this before with the Habre administration in Chad with France. Pretty similar situation. Sometimes having physical presences and guaranteeing the safety of the central government prevents the reform necessary for the country to evolve its political institutions or seek better governance / a compromise that will help promote peace and inclusiveness in the long run.

Sometimes, unfortunately, there is very little that one can constructively do when it comes to intervention in foreign domestic disputes.

This is the part I take issue with. I believe Obama let the situation deteriorate intentionally. I'm not necessarily opposed to him doing that, by the way.

What makes you believe that and what motivation would you see in that?

Because it seems pretty obvious that the results of not keeping a significant force in Iraq would eventually lead to collapse one way or the other. The only thing that is surprising is the speed, not the result. To tell Maliki that he would keep a couple thousand troops made it impossible to get the agreement required. It would have been suicide for him, so he made his bed with Iran.

[sana8410]

Motivation? There are too many possibilities. I doubt the intent was specifically what happened, but the long term probability is that something would overthrow the essentially unstable government that Bush created. I learned long ago not to try and assign motivations to people with much more inside information than I have.

[sana8410]

Maliki initially refused to go because he knew, in the end, we would protect him no matter how much we disapproved of him. When that protection left and we made our return help conditional upon his stepping down, only then did he leave office. We saw this before with the Habre administration in Chad with France. Pretty similar situation. Sometimes having physical presences and guaranteeing the safety of the central government prevents the reform necessary for the country to evolve its political institutions or seek better governance / a compromise that will help promote peace and inclusiveness in the long run.

Sometimes, unfortunately, there is very little that one can constructively do when it comes to intervention in foreign domestic disputes.

This is the part I take issue with. I believe Obama let the situation deteriorate intentionally. I'm not necessarily opposed to him doing that, by the way.

Via inaction, poor action, or both?

I'm also curious what you mean by 'intentionally', but most of all I want know why you wouldn't be opposed to that.

Thanks in advance for answering my silly questions.

Inaction mostly. Possibly because he was trying to change the government there, but I can't say for sure. I say intentionally, because he always seems to have an agenda for what he does. So I give the benefit of the doubt.

[sana8410]

I'm not necessarily opposed to it depending on what the intended result was. I'm not overly keen on installing puppet governments any more than incompetent ones. I think Maliki was intended to be a puppet, but ended up being incompetent. I think it's a critical error trying to install western style democracies in places that have no interest and no philosophical basis for the concept. I think the world is best off to leave people to fight their own battles, while offering support for groups that have rational, humanitarian objectives. By support, I mean trade support. I don't mean military support.

I also recognize the problem of others offering military support. But there aren't easy answers to that when the US changes foreign policy concepts every 4-8 years.

[Sindelar1938]

Bring on robot armies supported by unmanned drones from the air
Logical course given the west's sensitivity to losing soldiers in overseas wars

[nidhish]

I think if US stops funding these terrorists & stops supplying them weapons ..ISIS will break into pieces .

[BADecker]

I think if US stops funding these terrorists & stops supplying them weapons ..ISIS will break into pieces .

This is true. This is what would happen. However, the United States Government is here to break Americans, particularly American common law. That's why they will keep on funding ISIS.

ISIS is already here in America. Don't be alarmed. Rather, stand up and stand firm, and be watchful of your surroundings. The U.S. military, and even your local police can't help you against them. You need to arm yourself for your own protection.

[username18333]

How do we defeat ISIS without with U.S. Ground Troops?

FTFY

You don't stop terrorism by killing loads of people (i.e committing acts of terror yourself). All that does is anger people and bring repercussions on yourself.

Fighting fire with fire leads to....guess what.....

A larger fire.

One way of stomping out a blaze is by eradicating its fuel.

[Grand_Voyageur]

The only people able to stand against ISIS right now are the Kurds, and they are only succeeding because of U.S. Airstrikes. But the Kurds only defend their own territory. It is unlikely they will go further south to fight ISIS. Most of the rest of the Iraqi Army is turning and fleeing at the first sight of ISIS.

My question is: If airstrikes can only do so much against ISIS, how can we defeat ISIS in Iraq without U.S. Ground Troops if most of the Iraqi Army does not want to fight?

With other countries & groups troops. How Bosnian Serbs have been defeated? With US Ground Troops? No! They were defeated thanks to Croatian troops receiving aerial support, intelligence & training from US-NATO countries. The fight against IS would be a similar pattern with the US&Arab countries supporting Kurdish Peshmerga, Iraqi Army & maybe unofficially/secretly even Iranian Revolutionary Guards.
Same old stories running again..

[Snail2]

Yes, because that is exactly what I was saying.

The assertion that you can't defeat violence with more violence must, of course, mean I am proposing we keep funding the violence.

/sarcasm

The assyrians, romans, mongols actually proved that you can defeat violence with more violence indeed. Just nowadays ppl do not have the stomach to get things done the same way. That's why "that approach" not working very well.