Should the US put "troops on the ground" to deal with ISIS?

[Savannahmann]

13. I wish I had a good answer

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.