nsaspook
Science Advisor
- 1,479
- 4,878
Ryan_m_b said:If the US put troops forward to combat IS you can bet your bottom dollar it would become guerrilla warfare. Thousands of civilians have flocked to IS and given that they aren't a state army they can melt back into civilian life, or across the borders back into Syria. There's also the question of what US troops would actually achieve. If they halt this advance what's to stop IS coming back? Or other groups taking advantage of local dissatisfaction.
I agree so there's little chance the US will send in regular troops to the front lines but our SF guys are there now and have been there since the beginning. Our attempt to rescue James Foley is a example.
Hopefully there won't be a way back to Syria if there is a unified front to destroy ISIS.
Ryan_m_b said:I really hope this is some sort of bad sense of humor because if not it doesn't reveal anything good about you. You realize that any sort of mass bombing is going to hugely affect the civilian population? Terrorist groups can easily jump borders and find shelter elsewhere. The people who live there: not so much. And if their infrastructure is "bombed to the Stone Age" then they are going to experience abject poverty. The sort which is a) horrific any human being should live through and b) a great way to radicalize people and create more terrorists.
No, it's not humor and I admit to not being a 'good' person when things got ugly.
I'm not advocating the mass bombing of the civilian population in this case or in Afghanistan as it's not 'total' war and was controversial even during WW2 but having spent several years near Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation I can tell you for a fact the USSR had no problem using a page out of LeMay's book to completely destroy the infrastructure of Afghanistan. Soviet attacks backed with massive firepower delivered from fixed-winged aircraft, helicopters, artillery, rocket launchers and tanks destroyed entire cities, villages, crops, irrigation, power plants, industrial facilities and they tried to kill literally anything that moved as SOP. It did radicalize people and create more terrorists for Islamic militancy and (with US providing arms to the Mujahideen) ultimately failed to stop the Mujahideen, created the extremism of the Taliban and the last 20 years of jihadist. This is the reality we face if we partner with people like Assad who use Soviet tactics to win wars. I don't think it's a good choice but it might be the only one we can make if we declare ISIS a 'clear and present' danger to the security of the US.
http://world.einnews.com/article/219924643/sfDTlxF01rdUgoYf
The Obama administration is considering seeking congressional authorization for military action against the Islamic State under a revamped counterterrorism strategy President Obama announced last year.
A mandate from Congress could provide domestic legal justification for the unlimited use of force against the Sunni Muslim group across Iraq and Syria, a senior administration official said. Congress last formally authorized such action in 2001, against al-Qaeda and its associates, and 2002, against Iraq under Saddam Hussei
Last edited: