Should the US Declare War Against and Take ISIS On the Ground?

[Free Bird]

Whether it is by coalition or not doesn't matter. If they do, I personally believe that we should throw absolutely everything at ISIS. But ultimately I am conflicted.

[Green Line]

Only if it's a Gulf-War type invasion with all the major players and we use overwhelming force, nothing like the invasion-on-the-cheap stuff Rumsfeld tried in Iraq.  We start at the Turkish border and move down, wiping out every last insurgent stronghold while securing the area.  Of course, Syria and Russia won't be too happy about this, which is a problem.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

No, for obvious reasons.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

formally declaring war would legitimise daesh as a state.

[BundouYMB]

ISIS is not a state, so America can't declare war on it... the US should help the Syrian government bring this roving band of criminals to justice.

[Green Line]

ISIS is not a state, so America can't declare war on it... the US should help the Syrian government bring this roving band of criminals to justice.

There's nothing that says the US can only declare war on another state.  A declaration of war is nothing more than a joint resolution of Congress, it can be declared against anything we want.  It just so happens that previous Congress' have only used it against other states

[Comrade Funk]

formally declaring war would legitimise daesh as a state.

[Blair]

A ground war sounds good, nobody thinks that ISIS would actually be able to stop a grand coalition. The problem is that the 'dream' gulf war that everyone talks about was were we had one enemy-a nation state, that relied on a huge standing army. Once we cut off the head, we had a nice easy time. It also helps that we left straight away.

The problem with ground troops is that we'd have to occupy these areas-do we think that its going to be easy? We'd have to accept causalities, we'd have to accept a lot more spending and we'd have to accept being there for a very long time

[Hnv1]

No, political arrangement for Syria following which Assad(Iran and proxies) on one side, Kurds on the other with western aerial assistance should take them on

[ag]

To declare war, I guess, you would have to recognize ISIS first - doubt you have that in mind.

If you forget the declarations, sending the land troops in is, probably, not the smartest thing to do. You may be forgetting, but you have only recently done so, the result of which, to a non-insignificant degree, is ISIS. If your objective is to replace ISIS with a different acronym I am pretty sure you can do that. But ISIS has, at least, the limited virtue of being pronounceable.

[Boston Bread]

After Syrian ISIS territory is occupied by the US, what should be done with that territory? Let Assad keep it? Or should Assad be overthrown as well?

[Comrade Funk]

After Syrian ISIS territory is occupied by the US, what should be done with that territory? Let Assad keep it? Or should Assad be overthrown as well?

Personally, the state of Syria is finished. You sure as hell won't see Assad governing the whole country. The best Junior can do is an Alawite state in western Syria.

[ag]

After Syrian ISIS territory is occupied by the US, what should be done with that territory? Let Assad keep it? Or should Assad be overthrown as well?

Personally, the state of Syria is finished. You sure as hell won't see Assad governing the whole country. The best Junior can do is an Alawite state in western Syria.

Personally, what? You are planning to personally go finishing the Syrian state?

[Boston Bread]

Intervention to destroy ISIS isn't going to bring about peace. Assad/FSA/Kurds will keep on fighting. Refugees will keep fleeing the country. Any sort of actual peace will require us to destroy the government or all of its opposition. And even then only a temporary one, before the next monster emerges.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

No. Simply no. Boots on the ground is the last thing we should do. Hell, we ought to drop the big one before we actually deploy ground troops (and no, we shouldn't do that either). This is an Arab fight. If the French and Russians want to fight it, good for them, but I don't think ISIS is officially our enemy until they strike us first on our own soil.

[patrick1]

No. Simply no. Boots on the ground is the last thing we should do. Hell, we ought to drop the big one before we actually deploy ground troops (and no, we shouldn't do that either). This is an Arab fight. If the French and Russians want to fight it, good for them, but I don't think ISIS is officially our enemy until they strike us first on our own soil.

...this sorta already happened and I would say chopping our citizens heads off and raping women would make someone our enemy. Further, if 9/11 taught us something it was that you dont wait around to get popped in the f#cking mouth. You take the fight to the enemy. Now Iraq taught us that occupying land is a fool' errand.

[Comrade Funk]

After Syrian ISIS territory is occupied by the US, what should be done with that territory? Let Assad keep it? Or should Assad be overthrown as well?

Personally, the state of Syria is finished. You sure as hell won't see Assad governing the whole country. The best Junior can do is an Alawite state in western Syria.

Personally, what? You are planning to personally go finishing the Syrian state?

I'm just saying that's what I believe. Calm down jesus...

[ag]

After Syrian ISIS territory is occupied by the US, what should be done with that territory? Let Assad keep it? Or should Assad be overthrown as well?

Personally, the state of Syria is finished. You sure as hell won't see Assad governing the whole country. The best Junior can do is an Alawite state in western Syria.

Personally, what? You are planning to personally go finishing the Syrian state?

I'm just saying that's what I believe. Calm down jesus...

Then say it in English, please.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

No. Simply no. Boots on the ground is the last thing we should do. Hell, we ought to drop the big one before we actually deploy ground troops (and no, we shouldn't do that either). This is an Arab fight. If the French and Russians want to fight it, good for them, but I don't think ISIS is officially our enemy until they strike us first on our own soil.

...this sorta already happened and I would say chopping our citizens heads off and raping women would make someone our enemy. Further, if 9/11 taught us something it was that you dont wait around to get popped in the f#cking mouth. You take the fight to the enemy. Now Iraq taught us that occupying land is a fool' errand.

Do you want to intervene in the Central African Republic? What about Zimbabwe? Mali? Darfur? Pretty sure the Troubles flair up every once in a while in Northern Ireland. How about Mexico? Lotta heads getting cut off there. Crimea? Gaza? Congo? Nigeria? Screw it all, lets just nuke the whole world.

How do you propose we beat ISIS? We can go in, shoot all their recruits, blow up their camps, and leave. Then what? This is a death cult we are dealing with. They are like cockroaches. They will just keep coming back. Taking the fight to them is exactly what they want. We ought to secure our own borders and let the Middle East sort itself out. The Iranians, Russians, and Syrian regime should just solve this problem on their own.

[Mr. Morden]

After Syrian ISIS territory is occupied by the US, what should be done with that territory? Let Assad keep it? Or should Assad be overthrown as well?

Yes, this seems to be glossed over when people talk about sending in ground forces.  Ground forces on behalf of whom?  Assad?  Anti-Assad rebels?  Assad considers his government the sole legitimate government of Syria.  So if the US or the US + allies send in troops to take territory, and they're not aiming to hand that territory over to Assad, then aren't they at war with Assad?

Similar issues re: setting up a "no fly zone".  IS isn't bombing people from the air, so I'm not sure what good a no fly zone does against IS.  It can be used to protect people from Assad's air power, but that in turn could help IS.

I am at a loss to understand what precisely people are proposing here, if they even know themselves.  But I'm also a bit confused about Obama's current policy.  We seem to be bombing IS, but not everywhere.  Within Syria, the air strikes preference targets that threaten Kurdish and other "friendly" ground forces.  I guess the thinking is that we don't want to attack IS in a way that enables Assad to "win the war" because "Assad must go".  But maybe Paris will change the calculus, and the coalition will now target IS everywhere, even if it means giving Assad a huge advantage in the civil war?

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

No. Simply no. Boots on the ground is the last thing we should do. Hell, we ought to drop the big one before we actually deploy ground troops (and no, we shouldn't do that either). This is an Arab fight. If the French and Russians want to fight it, good for them, but I don't think ISIS is officially our enemy until they strike us first on our own soil.

...this sorta already happened and I would say chopping our citizens heads off and raping women would make someone our enemy. Further, if 9/11 taught us something it was that you dont wait around to get popped in the f#cking mouth. You take the fight to the enemy. Now Iraq taught us that occupying land is a fool' errand.

Do you want to intervene in the Central African Republic? What about Zimbabwe? Mali? Darfur? Pretty sure the Troubles flair up every once in a while in Northern Ireland. How about Mexico? Lotta heads getting cut off there. Crimea? Gaza? Congo? Nigeria? Screw it all, lets just nuke the whole world.

How do you propose we beat ISIS? We can go in, shoot all their recruits, blow up their camps, and leave. Then what? This is a death cult we are dealing with. They are like cockroaches. They will just keep coming back. Taking the fight to them is exactly what they want. We ought to secure our own borders and let the Middle East sort itself out. The Iranians, Russians, and Syrian regime should just solve this problem on their own.

French army is already dealing with that and is...alone.

There isn't a rule about interventions, only a total variety of situations which have to be differently treated.

Should have admired the speed pick-ups heading toward Bamako full of that former glorious Kadafi heavy war weapons? What a wonderful spot to have a control on both Sahara and Sahel if so.

Should have we just taken bets about whether Centrafrique would have turned into one confessional Rwanda? At one point it seemed...f**king close.

And there too, it's not about 'the US' to declare war here, as far as I know there is something called Paris in Texas, but, well...

Don't worry, wait a bit, Hollande has just planned a little 'war path tour', gonna meet Obama in Washington (26/11 iirc) and Putin in Moscow (28/11 iirc) soon, in order to 'plan some things' maybe...

Yesterday, it was already kinda odd to see Putin publicly call the French 'an ally that gonna join us' about the Charles de Gaulle reaching Syria soon.

I'm sure Putin looooves being a bit on 'the normal cool side with the normal budies' for once...

Someone in the media made a rather relevant comparison: 'it's like allying with Stalin against Hitler, shouldn't have we done that?'

Hey America liked it, didn't it??

That being said, even if you manage a big global coalition, which would have different kinds of Muslims countries from all around the world, backed by the UN, in order to wipe out IS on the ground and to then reorganize a new political scene for Syria, thanks to Russians eventually pushing Assad to accept it, and this being done only under an UN supervision, and this in the name Universal Declarations for Human Rights, which is the philosophical base of what's supposed to be the most recognized international organization for international right, the UN, (and which moreover obviously originally comes from France, back to the point!).

Even if you manage that kinda 'best case dream scenario', then:

1st

It would, by far, mainly be led by 'Christian countries', US, Russia, France-Europe, and in IS mythology, there is something that says that a big battle would take place between their proud armies and all Christian armies, somewhere in the north Syria, and overall it could excite still more the Muslims vs Christian things amongst the local populations, making a quite harsh and nasty guerilla eventually that could eventually last long enough.

Remember Falluja?

The proud strong US army only managed to handle it through that f**king brilliant white phosphore bombs. Iirc now about 1/2 babies there born handicaped now. Kudos.

And the IS military is in big part constitued of some very strong Iraqi generals, brilliantly ousted by the US bacause belonging to Baas, and which then decided to join Jihadists, so they can well benefit of their big experience...

Far to be only excited guys there.

2nd

Even if it happens quite well and fast, if the guys feels they lose ground, they won't wait to be killed/captured till the last one.

They would try to set the mess all over Mid-East and eventually further in all Muslim and in all Western countries they can touch, through terrorrism, through pro cells like we saw in Paris but also thanks to any young guy that feels that has to 'stand up for the Caliphate' and attack whatever he can attack (kinda like the stabbing wave in Israel). But also through trying to escape in some neighbouring countries wherre they could try to make the same mess amongst local, populations, trying to turn those into allies or hostages, trying to take new cities to hide.

And some countries around there don't really show as quite safe to say the least, thinking about Jordan (which is, well, bordering Palestine), Lebanon, and well the very big piece of cake which is at risk for a while now I think, which also gives a looot of young guys to IS, which is also f**king appealing to IS symbolically, and about which I let you imagine...all...the possible brilliant geopolitical and economical consequences if ever all of this makes some mess on the more or less long run in this country, KSA.

Then in any case, it's kinda a really really really f**king f**king f**king situation.

And then, unlike the Stalin comparison, it looks more like a 'WW1 thing' than a WW2 one, that is a '1st round', lol, it would be a 'World War against IS'.



I'd say that you can effectively reasonably imagine a US-Russia-France/Europe taking place in a more or less close future, even with UN back (well, why would Chinese oppose) in orderr to oust the IS, eventually even on the ground, severral politiciabs spoke about that here.

All belongs to that little man...

aww, so tough...

Moreover, it would kinda be a kind of revenge if France manages to bring something to Syria.

Hollande administration always took...very bad...the US withdrawal caused by Obama call to Congress on September 2013 while French jets were ready to go to Syria in the coming night, and you always had Valls, Fabius, and even Hollande, reminding it when they could.

In any case, the title of that thread would be pretty irrelevant.

[Zinneke]

Yes because the US made a commitment to police the world. It failed and it must clean up its own mess. It has been asked to do so by the Iraqi government no less.

Russia has more legitimacy to intervene in Syria. USA in Irak. Double team ISIS that way.

[Mehmentum]

No.  When we invaded Iraq, Sadam's people just went underground, coming back later as part of ISIS.  Invading won't actually solve this problem, it'll just drive ISIS underground.

How long will we plan to stay after an invasion?  It'll take a generation for Syria to be stable enough to leave.  How much money and how many lives will we have to sacrifice in the occupation?  How many more enemies will we make?

[patrick1]

No. Simply no. Boots on the ground is the last thing we should do. Hell, we ought to drop the big one before we actually deploy ground troops (and no, we shouldn't do that either). This is an Arab fight. If the French and Russians want to fight it, good for them, but I don't think ISIS is officially our enemy until they strike us first on our own soil.

...this sorta already happened and I would say chopping our citizens heads off and raping women would make someone our enemy. Further, if 9/11 taught us something it was that you dont wait around to get popped in the f#cking mouth. You take the fight to the enemy. Now Iraq taught us that occupying land is a fool' errand.

Do you want to intervene in the Central African Republic? What about Zimbabwe? Mali? Darfur? Pretty sure the Troubles flair up every once in a while in Northern Ireland. How about Mexico? Lotta heads getting cut off there. Crimea? Gaza? Congo? Nigeria? Screw it all, lets just nuke the whole world.

How do you propose we beat ISIS? We can go in, shoot all their recruits, blow up their camps, and leave. Then what? This is a death cult we are dealing with. They are like cockroaches. They will just keep coming back. Taking the fight to them is exactly what they want. We ought to secure our own borders and let the Middle East sort itself out. The Iranians, Russians, and Syrian regime should just solve this problem on their own.

Standing by and hoping problems will resolve themselves or that someone else will take care of it is not a way to run a foreign policy. I propose we kill ISIS before they continue their abominations in Syria+Iraq, against our allies and their plans against the US. There is no negotiations with ISIS, you clear them out of the Syrian and Iraq, cut off all escape. Use local knowledge, they know who is from there and who is in league with whom. There is no political situation with them at the table. Just nice that the scum have largely ed with everyone in the region at this point so use this as a foundation for a first pointl of consensus in a larger political solution.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Well, then, yeah, so far if something, this isn't the US, but France, and thankfully so far through UN:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report-france-pushes-united-nations-to-support-fight-against-islamic-state-2147175