What Does "Destroying" ISIS Really Mean?

[morningfog]

When the United States decided to make its latest military intervention in Iraq, it was difficult to discern the goal of the mission based on President Obama’s statements. Given that lack of clarity, it was hard to avoid the conclusion that the object was to make Iraq just stable enough that the U.S. could go back to ignoring it.

Judging by the president’s statement following the killing of journalist Steven Sotloff, that’s no longer the case. “The bottom line is this,” he said at a news conference. “Our objective is clear and that is to degrade and destroy [ISIS] so that it’s no longer a threat not just to Iraq but also the region and to the United States.”

It seemed obvious that continued videotaped killings of U.S. citizens would provoke a more steadfast response than what we’ve seen so far. The goal of the U.S. operation has now expanded from averting a “potential act of genocide”—or recapturing control of a critical dam, or even propping up the Iraqi government—to eliminating ISIS as a force entirely.

The thing is, Obama’s own military commanders say that destroying ISIS is impossible without strikes against its strongholds in Syria, a step this administration has been extremely reluctant to take. U.S. strikes on Syria probably aren’t imminent—for one thing, more intelligence gathering is probably needed before the military would take such a step—but eventual military action against ISIS on the other side of the border is starting to feel inevitable.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_world_/2014/09/03/obama_now_says_the_u_s_will_destroy_isis_that_means_we_have_to_go_into_syria.html

"Destroying" IS will also require combat boots on the ground.

[KG]

1. It means he can talk as tough as any repub.

[leftyohiolib]

2. it means the mic is about to feed

[GliderGuider]

3. You can't destroy an idea through warfare.

Ireland, Korea, Vietnam, Algeria, Iraq, Israel, Gaza, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Rhodesia, Namibia, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria...

In each case, attacking an idea with military force simply strengthened it, and in some cases dispersed it to wider regions.

ISIS is the same kind of tar baby. But General Dynamics shareholders love the idea...

[gratuitous]

4. We're already quietly bringing in more troops

Right now, the official reason is additional embassy security. But I'm sure that there will be no mission creep or anything untoward happening, and we'll "destroy" ISIS by dint of our exceptional exceptionality as the greatest country inna history of the world.

[CJCRANE]

5. I don't know but when we do finally

reduce it to a manageable size...

Can we just hand the money over direct to the MIC next time?

There is no need to go through with this Punch & Judy show again and again.

We get it. They want all the money.

[Cleita]

6. Kill them all!

You don't think they just want to disband the organization?

[Journeyman]

7. It means someone is unfamiliar with the metaphor of the Lernaean Hydra. . .

[SummerSnow]

8. Couldn't get rid of Al Qaeda so why do they think they can get rid of ISIS?

No telling what other terrorist group is springing up

[Scootaloo]

9. It means using IS as a pretext for an American war on Syria

[stevenleser]

10. IMHO, the goal should be destroying their ability to operate as a traditional military force.

Destroy all of their armor and artillery, carpet bomb their troop concentrations with B-52s, drive them into operating as guerillas. Then entities like the military of Iraq and the Free Syrian Army will be able to deal with them without us.