General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsShould the US put "troops on the ground" to deal with ISIS?
I think there are better ways to deal with them like acknowledging our ally Saudi Arabia has bankrolled most of the Sunni extremist groups we've fought, and treating them accordingly, but someone in a thread here said that most people, including those on DU, would support sending in ground troops to fight ISIS.
Would you support sending ground troops to fight ISIS?
9 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited | |
YES--right NOW! | |
2 (22%) |
|
YES--if Obama feels it's necessary | |
0 (0%) |
|
MAYBE--if they spread to more countries or got hold of nukes or something | |
2 (22%) |
|
NO--there are better ways to fight them and they are not a threat to us here in the States anyway. | |
3 (33%) |
|
OTHER (please explain) | |
2 (22%) |
|
0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)No point in pretending that we don't.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Definitely not unilaterally.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)choosing targets, intelligence gathering, etc.), no to regular combat troops taking and holding territory. Iraq/Kurds need to defend their own land.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)ISIS is a spinoff of al Qaeda, and had the United States not attacked Iraq and had executed Saddam Hussein - the one person in the M.E. who fought al Qaeda viciously - we wouldn't be in this mess today.
But there are other ways for the U.S. to combat ISIS, and I believe we should play a major role in doing so since the United States is largely to blame that ISIS exists. Hard truths, but truth nonetheless.
Edited to add: And we should make corporations that have benefited from the Iraq war pay for it in its entirety.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)I am not in favor of a wide scale deployment of U.S. troops to the area at this time or for the foreseeable future given the current conditions.
I would consider sending special operations people to help coordinate air strikes IF their presence would significantly enhance the effectiveness of the air strikes.
It is foolish for a leader to permanently rule out the use of U.S. ground troops and I wouldn't believe them if they did say it.
pampango
(24,692 posts)all before the US entered WWII. If he could avoid 'boots on the ground' yet take action against authoritarian governments with whom we were not at war, we can figure out how to deal with ISIS without troops on the ground.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Iggo
(47,552 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Our history in the region is a cavalcade of failure.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)We're capable of many more sorties per day then we are currently engaging in and we are not using B-52s and various other aircraft.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)that's how we won there.
KG
(28,751 posts)because obama!
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)I don't want to say no, because after watching the goings on I have come to a few uncomfortable conclusions.
1) IS is unwilling to talk. The Taliban was willing to talk. OK, factions of the Taliban were willing to talk. We erred tremendously when we used a Drone strike on one of them who was enroute to a meeting to talk. Jaw Jaw is better than War War. ISIS/ISIL/IS is unwilling to talk. They make demands, and when the demands are not met, they slaughter hostages. While this certainly proves they are "serious" it also shows that negotiation is not an option. Absent Jaw Jaw, I don't have another option other than War War. I really wish I did.
2) Considering it a local, or at worst regional problem doesn't contain it much less solve it. Worst case scenario the madmen who are even now throwing people off buildings, burning them alive, beheading them with knives would win. Best case scenario, the local governments are so overwhelmed in fighting that even if they win, it causes them to fail and the region is left in chaos. Nothing good comes from Chaos. Look at Libya for proof of that.
3) Outing the Saudi's. That turns a questionable associate into an outright enemy. They are too powerful to do that to without putting even more troops on the ground to fight them. Even if we respond only with embargos on Saudi Oil, they have too much money, access to too much US Military equipment, and are able to hold our troops and civilians in the country hostage. That will result in widespread military action. We'll have to go. We could not allow our civilians to be slaughtered by massed crowds ala Iran 1979. As bad as Saudi is now, it could be much, much worse. Then you have an out of control regime in Saudi, and an uncontrolled regime in Iraq, and no reason for the regional powers not to go for total war. If Jaw Jaw is better than War War, then all out regional conflict is definitely something to be avoided. I don't want to even imagine what an all out religiously driven war would look like.
4) Ground troops in to fight IS may end up being an answer, and one I would feel at best ambivalent about. Perhaps we can reexamine some relationships, like Syria, and see if we can extend the branch of peace to Assad. Long ago I pointed out that the Russians would never allow Assad to fall. I stand by that assertion today. I believe we are in a situation where two bad choices exist regarding Syria. One of the more moderate groups is not going to win. It will be Assad, or IS. Given that choice, as distasteful as Assad is, we must choose him.
I honestly don't know the answer, and I'm afraid if we don't find one soon, that the next President may select one from the extreme fringes of the RW. The idea of using the Islamic Religion against the groups like IS. That almost certainly would not cause second thoughts in the minds of the fighters. It would steel opposition to us with a certainty however.
Wait and see hasn't gotten us much. Drone strikes are not widespread enough to be helpful. That leaves a sustained bombing campaign, including the use of heavy bombers like the B-52's mentioned above. Carpet bombing is a terrible thing, but sadly, it may be the best of a number of very bad choices.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)My tentative guess is not, but I wouldn't want to bet other people's lives on that.
There wasn't an option for fuck no, we already have too many people abroad and are already spread too thinly.
We need to start AND finish our wars one at a time, not taking some shotgun approach that ends up not solving the real problem and just ends up in a whack-a-mole game that drains us of resources, lives, dignity, and tax dollars.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Warmongers are welcome to spend.their own money and blood if it's that important to them.
Wounded Bear
(58,654 posts)There are precious few examples of success, unless you use the Roman method, which was basically to go in and kill everybody and start razing villages and towns, basically laying waste. Then you import good Roman citizens who will act 'properly.' Often, they would give the land to the soldiers who did the rampaging as a reward for their service.
The truth for modern times, we've already seen. Wars on terror end up with the opponent looking and acting no better than the groups they're trying to suppress. The only real way to fight it is too improve the lives of the people they operate among, which runs counter to the corporate meme. We cheered when the Afghan war 'broke' the Soviet Union, and then cheered again when we went in to repeat the same mistakes.
Ground troops need to come from the local national communities. If we go in, we'll just be "Imperialist invaders and occupyers".....again.