The Pentagon Is Sending the World's Most Elite Soldiers to Wipe ISIS Off the Face of

[scottmandue]

Originally Posted by Por_sha911

Special forces enables us to do 2 things:
-Avoid collateral damage when the chicken sh_t terrorist hide in places with innocent civilians.
-Search for intel and data when the shooting stops.

This times ten thousand, the cowards set up shop next to (or inside) hospitals and schools. I am a big advocate of sending an army of snipers over there to pick them off. Once these b-stards start getting their brains splattered while sitting at the dinning room table they will scatter like cockroach's when you turn the lights on.

I talked to an Air Force Colonel and he said it is like fighting a street gang, they are constantly moving and you can't just blow up a building and be done with them.

[island911]

Originally Posted by KNS

I've never understood why this stuff is made public. Do you think the Russians make a press release about their covert ops? Their enemies just quietly disappear.

+1

although, it could be designed just to give the appearance that something is being done (when in fact nothing is being done - 'covert', donncha know..)

Didn't Obama write: "I will stand with the Muslims, if the political winds change to an ugly direction."

[fintstone]

Originally Posted by KNS

I've never understood why this stuff is made public. Do you think the Russians make a press release about their covert ops? Their enemies just quietly disappear.

It generally means that we really intend to do nothing. We use special forces quite often...and in many cases, what they do is not released for decade...if ever.

[gsxrken]

Originally Posted by jyl

... And I worry that if the world sees a video of a Navy SEAL beheaded by ISIS, and if we have a weak President at the time, we'll see another 100,000 US soldiers headed to the Middle East.

John, care to elaborate on what you meant here without naming any particular POTUS and sending the thread into PARF territory? Is some sending some number under 100k troops OK, but you start to worry after a certain number is exceeded? Is sending troops (any number) a sign of weakness (or strength)? Do only weak presidents send troops, or only after beheading videos do some presidents become weak and send troops?

[jyl]

Originally Posted by gsxrken

John, care to elaborate on what you meant here without naming any particular POTUS and sending the thread into PARF territory? Is some sending some number under 100k troops OK, but you start to worry after a certain number is exceeded? Is sending troops (any number) a sign of weakness (or strength)? Do only weak presidents send troops, or only after beheading videos do some presidents become weak and send troops?

I'll try to be brief.

I think there is a limitless supply of future Islamic terrorist groups. If it isn't Al Queda, then it is ISIS. If it isn't ISIS, then it will be something else. It is like weed seeds living in the soil. Lift your boot off the ground, and a weed sprouts where you weed-whacked just last week.

I think the only way to contain these Islamic terrorist groups is to have "boots on the ground" and in control. These can be dictator government boots - like Syria when Assad was strong, Iraq when Saddam was in control, like Iran now. These can be monarchy government boots - like Saudi, Dubai, etc. These can be democratically elected government boots - like Egypt sort of is, and like Afghanistan and Iraq have failed to be, because their governments are too weak. These can be strong regional tribal government boots - like in the Kurdish regions of Iraq. Or these can be the boots of an occupying Western army - like the US did for ten years.

The thing is, those boots have to be on the ground permanently, in numbers big enough to control. Once the boots leave, the weeds aka terrorists emerge. Look at our experience in Afghanistan and Iraq. We sent the biggest US overseas military force since Vietnam, wiped out the enemy, were in deep for a decade, and as soon as we left, terrorists re-emerged and now control significant parts of Iraq. Because you cannot "wipe out" this enemy - that is silly Rambo movie talk. Any more than you can wipe out crime, or evil, or bad thoughts. You can only suppress it.

Therefore, suppose we send a sizable US military ground force into Syria and Iraq to attack ISIS. It would cost billions of dollars and some US lives. We would destroy ISIS' equipment and organized fighters and kill most of their leaders, in pretty short order. (We might also get into a shooting war with Russia, but maybe not.) Then we'd leave. What next? Whose boots would take our place, if any?

If no boots take our place, if the area remains an ill-governed mess, then sending lots of US troops to attack ISIS will be a waste. Just a couple years after US forces leave, the next Islamic terrorist group will be extorting, beheading, bombing, recruiting, tweeting. (We completed our pullout from Iraq in 2011; only a couple years later, ISIS was taking over Iraqi cities.) Around the world, Islamic jihadism will be viewed as even stronger, because they'll have defeated two US occupations (and one Russian occupation).

That is why I don't want to see large numbers of US troops headed back over to the Middle East. We tried it. For ten years. It didn't work, and won't work, unless you want to permanently occupy the area with a garrison of 50,000 to 100,000 US soldiers.

Special forces - fine. Airstrikes and drones - fine. Equipment and assistance for local forces - fine. When the local forces try to take a city from ISIS, we (meaning the US and our allies, including Europe) should support them. We should destroy oil production, refining, and transportation equipment and facilities used by ISIS, and keep destroying them. We should destroy any concentration of fighters, weapons, supplies that we can find (bummer about the occasional hospital). We should disrupt ISIS' internet presence, jail anyone traveling to join or train with ISIS or returning from such trips, monitor the heck out of communications between US/Europe and the Middle East (and screw Snowden and his like, I want the NSA doing everything it can). We should support local forces who are trying to put their own boots on the ground, if they can realistically succeed. That includes governments (Iraq) and rebels (Syria, Kurds).

Finally, my comment about a "weak president". Right now there is a huge clamour to JUST DO SOMETHING! Politicians are falling all over themselves to talk tough, promise that they'd wipe ISIS off the face of the earth, use the full might of the US military, etc. The easiest thing a President could do, either the current or the next administration, would be to send a large US military force into Iraq and Syria. As explained, I think it would be the worst thing to do.

So that is what I meant. I am concerned that a weak President, who unable to resist the political pressure, might send US troops back to occupy the Middle East. Especially if the pressure is intensified by the video beheading of a captured US Special Forces soldier - or any American, civilian included, for that matter.

[MRM]

Stories like this are planted for propaganda purposes to keep up the morale at home. If the government didn't want us to know about it we wouldn't. I've read a lot of newspapers from the 60s when Vietnam was in full swing. The news/propaganda articles from now could have been lifted from then with just the location changed.

[tabs]

Mr JYL that is what the West did for 500 years after beating them back. The West either occupied them which was called colonization eg Imperialism or in the 20TH century the West had secular dictatorships do the dirty work. Islam left on its own will rise up and challenge the West for supremacy as it is an messianic religion. With the rise of the Iranian or new Persian empire and ISIS/Al Qaeda we see the opening of chapter two of the clash of civilizations.

[tabs]

Was it Valerie Jarrett who authorized the release of this info?

[DanielDudley]

Pretty sure it was Valarie Plame.