[Purple Haize]

I get the feelings on ISIS. I just don't get having faith in trumps' shallow words.

I'm not sure they are that shallow. Trump has a little 'crazy' in him. It wouldn't take an stretch of imagination to see him put a carrier group back in the Med and in the Gulf and let the Military loose with few ROE.
Obama will try to sic the FBI and Justice Dept on the terrorists

[lynchburgwildcats]

How long until the USA gets sucked into another can't-win war in the Middle East?

[thepostman]

I get the feelings on ISIS. I just don't get having faith in trumps' shallow words.

I'm not sure they are that shallow. Trump has a little 'crazy' in him. It wouldn't take an stretch of imagination to see him put a carrier group back in the Med and in the Gulf and let the Military loose with few ROE.
Obama will try to sic the FBI and Justice Dept on the terrorists

Maybe so but crazy typically is just as dangerous as complacency

[Purple Haize]

I get the feelings on ISIS. I just don't get having faith in trumps' shallow words.

I'm not sure they are that shallow. Trump has a little 'crazy' in him. It wouldn't take an stretch of imagination to see him put a carrier group back in the Med and in the Gulf and let the Military loose with few ROE.
Obama will try to sic the FBI and Justice Dept on the terrorists

Maybe so but crazy typically is just as dangerous as complacency

Not completely crazy. Just a touch crazy. Reagan had that trait. I think Trump does too. And that may be the only Trump/Reagan comparison that works. Ha

[thepostman]

Mentioning trump in the same sentence as Regan is ridiculous. So I don't even know how to respond to that.

[bluejacket]

How long until the USA gets sucked into another can't-win war in the Middle East?

The wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria can be won. The question is whether the American people and their leaders are willing to do what is necessary to win. The national will was not ready before 9/11, it wasn't ready immediately after the attacks, and it still isn't ready to do what is necessary.

[Purple Haize]

Mentioning trump in the same sentence as Regan is ridiculous. So I don't even know how to respond to that.

Ha. That's why I qualified it as THE ONLY correlation between the two. The Soviets feared and respected Reagan because they knew he might just do something crazy. Same with Trump. Both were unpredictable to their adversaries
Other than that.......they have/had great hair!

[Purple Haize]

How long until the USA gets sucked into another can't-win war in the Middle East?

The wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria can be won. The question is whether the American people and their leaders are willing to do what is necessary to win. The national will was not ready before 9/11, it wasn't ready immediately after the attacks, and it still isn't ready to do what is necessary.

What is necessary? Putting a million troops in the Middle East, toppling their governments, then holding elections? Keep the troops there though, because we are going to like who they elect even less.

No, the American people don't have a will to watch 50,000+ of their sons and daughters die fighting an enemy that can't hit us unless we let them. Close the border. Stop granting visas to countries who hate us. Send those who are here home. It's simple really.

Or, launch a full scale nuclear attack on the Middle East. That would solve it. Not sure if Jesus would do that though. Just depends on which Jesus you actually believe in I guess.

What form of Government did Jesus espouse while on Earth? I always forget that passage

When the Bible does have God's thoughts on Warfare it's pretty much total warfare. Kill me all, and that was without nuclear weapons

On moral grounds, do we stand by and let evil men triumph when it is within our power to stop/curb their aggression?

Iraq in 08 was very stable and held elections. What has changed to destabilize the situation?

[SuperJon]

The Atlantic has a really, really good article on ISIS from back in March. I haven't finished it yet, but this line stuck out to me:

Bin Laden viewed his terrorism as a prologue to a caliphate he did not expect to see in his lifetime.

In essence, Bin Laden viewed himself as the John the Baptist to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi's Jesus.

Also, in regards to ISIS, they describe it as this:

Its rise to power is less like the triumph of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (a group whose leaders the Islamic State considers apostates) than like the realization of a dystopian alternate reality in which David Koresh or Jim Jones survived to wield absolute power over not just a few hundred people, but some 8 million.

I knew ISIS were radicals, but that comparison helped me understand them a little bit more.

[Purple Haize]

You're living in a fantasy world if you believe Iraq was stable in 2008.

And if you are endorsing a full scale nuclear attack, that's fine. You just have to be ready for the consequences of killing a few million women and children.

It was the most stable it had been. Shia and Sunni saw the US as impartial arbiters and began to trust us. I am not living in a fantasy land. Anyone with any experience in that region during that time says that Iraq was on the right track. Don't believe US sources (and people I know) fine. Even AQ was actively discouraging fighters from going to Iraq because the battle was lost.

And you were the one going Jesus juke with a WWJD comment about warfare and government. I was just pointing out what type of warfare God condones based on Biblical passages.

There are several options available that do not involve the use of nuclear weapons. In fact I'm not even sure a tactical nuclear strike makes sense in that theater.

[thepostman]

It was more stable, yes, but you're talking to the wrong people if you believe it was stable.

[Purple Haize]

The only time Iraq has been stable as when Saddam Hussein was in charge, and zero threat to us. Containment was working wonderfully for us. No Islamist problem, no US troops dying. No matter how you spin it, you will never get around the truth that Al-Qaeda set up a whole new franchise and flourished in the power vacuum our wreck less intervention caused.

Now who is living in a fantasy land. The Saudi's Kuwaiti's Kurds and millions of Iraqi citizens would dispute your claims of 'stable'. As would the Israeli's, since Sadaam sent checks to the families of homicde bombers.
I will not dispute that there were huge failures in the immediate post Sadaam country. However, The Surge worked. The Anti insurgency strategy worked and was continuing to work. Gen Patreus was a brilliant choice to take over the US Strategy. There was no ISIS until this administration signaled it was hell bent on leaving and the consequences be damned.

[Purple Haize]

It was more stable, yes, but you're talking to the wrong people if you believe it was stable.

Yeah, it wasn't Norman Rockwell. But it was infinitely better than the previous years and was on the right track.

Hope that clarifies

[thepostman]

It was better but it will never be stable. The culture there just makes its a near impossibility.

[Purple Haize]

It was better but it will never be stable. The culture there just makes its a near impossibility.

I think that's a 'agree to disagree' thing. But it would hinge on the level of stability though. It will never be Rustburg, but it doesn't have to be Thunderdome.
IMO, the better question to ask is : would ISIS/DAESH come to the forefront in an Iraq of 2008? I would say no. But, as hawkish as I am, this is my problem with US Foreign policy. We forget our friends and our commitments. While W effectively doubled down on our commitment to great success. Then the new Administration comes in and it becomes 'See ya, wouldn't want to be ya".

[SuperJon]

No matter how you spin it, you will never get around the truth that Al-Qaeda set up a whole new franchise and flourished in the power vacuum our wreck less intervention caused.

Sorry to side track things, but I'm still reading the article from The Atlantic. Speaking specifically of Al Qaeda and ISIS:

In November, the Islamic State released an infomercial-like video tracing its origins to bin Laden. It acknowledged Abu Musa’b al Zarqawi, the brutal head of al‑Qaeda in Iraq from roughly 2003 until his killing in 2006, as a more immediate progenitor, followed sequentially by two other guerrilla leaders before Baghdadi, the caliph. Notably unmentioned: bin Laden’s successor, Ayman al Zawahiri, the owlish Egyptian eye surgeon who currently heads al‑Qaeda. Zawahiri has not pledged allegiance to Baghdadi, and he is increasingly hated by his fellow jihadists. His isolation is not helped by his lack of charisma; in videos he comes across as squinty and annoyed. But the split between al-Qaeda and the Islamic State has been long in the making, and begins to explain, at least in part, the outsize bloodlust of the latter.

[thepostman]

It was better but it will never be stable. The culture there just makes its a near impossibility.

I think that's a 'agree to disagree' thing. But it would hinge on the level of stability though. It will never be Rustburg, but it doesn't have to be Thunderdome.
IMO, the better question to ask is : would ISIS/DAESH come to the forefront in an Iraq of 2008? I would say no. But, as hawkish as I am, this is my problem with US Foreign policy. We forget our friends and our commitments. While W effectively doubled down on our commitment to great success. Then the new Administration comes in and it becomes 'See ya, wouldn't want to be ya".

Yeah I still don't think we should of been there but after the decision was made to do it the choice to cut ties quickly and leave that country high and dry was very iressponsible.

[Purple Haize]

It was better but it will never be stable. The culture there just makes its a near impossibility.

I think that's a 'agree to disagree' thing. But it would hinge on the level of stability though. It will never be Rustburg, but it doesn't have to be Thunderdome.
IMO, the better question to ask is : would ISIS/DAESH come to the forefront in an Iraq of 2008? I would say no. But, as hawkish as I am, this is my problem with US Foreign policy. We forget our friends and our commitments. While W effectively doubled down on our commitment to great success. Then the new Administration comes in and it becomes 'See ya, wouldn't want to be ya".

Yeah I still don't think we should of been there but after the decision was made to do it the choice to cut ties quickly and leave that country high and dry was very iressponsible.

See We agree on the last part!

[BJWilliams]

I posted this in another thread in response to someone's apparent feeling that I have raging bloodlust or something. While I don't advocate going nuclear as Russia is won't to do...butId have thousands of leaflets printed and dropped throughout the target country that basically say, "folks, this country is about to be bombed...heavily...in 72 hours. pack whatever you can and get out..." Obviously it will take a significant logistics to handle the giant influx of refugees that will need to be processed in the bordering nations, as well as rooting out the terrorists (and terrorist sympathizers) who no doubt will try to hide out among those evacuating. I'd also send in units of special forces to rescue as many civilians that may be held as human shields or other obstacles by the terrorists over the 72 hour window

[thepostman]

Thanks beej. It needed to be posted again. It was a great idea. I'm going to start dropping your name around town. You need to be in Arlington making some serious decisions at the Pentagon.

[BJWilliams]

Your sarcasm...and actual hatred of my idea...are both duly noted

[Purple Haize]

Your sarcasm...and actual hatred of my idea...are both duly noted

It's a self defeating plan. Why drop leaflets if you are going to send in troops? I even pointed it out on the other thread and you just doubled down on it.

[BJWilliams]

The leaflets are informational. It gives the people an idea of what is about to happen. The bad guys aren't in every house. So folks can get what they can packed and run for safety. The troops are to rescue those who receive the information but are in the situation you describe PH. I'll flesh it out more later

[SuperJon]

You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You're not going to be able to save civilians and "leave a smoldering crater" at the same time. You have to decide which one you want the most.

[thepostman]

I remember when I was 16 and I thought nukes were the answer to all our problems. Then I grew up.