Let them fail, cold war (albeit modified) containment as a strategy with ISIS.

"Let Isis succeed in setting up a failed “state” – in a contained area and over a long enough period of time to prove itself unpopular and unable to govern. This might begin to discredit the leadership and ideology of Isis for good"

Did that really work in the Cold War? I suppose given 4 decades it did, but that's a long time. Cuba has been isolated by the US for longer, and still holds out.

The real solution has to come from within the region. The more that the West picks sides in the various internal and international conflicts in Middle East, the more we get drawn in and liable to need to get involved in the next one.

This is why I opposed the UK's military involvement in Libya and later the proposals for Syria. We may fix a short-term problem with bombing, but it seems to lead to long term issues becoming more convoluted.

There is a struggle between Sunni and Shia in the region. Neither extreme of that division should be given support. And the people in the middle - whether Muslim or not - are the real victims.

I don't know what the best strategy is. All I do know is that I don't trust those who claim they do.

This is essentially what we've been doing with Somalia for decades now. Hasn't really worked out too well.

Sassenach wrote:This is essentially what we've been doing with Somalia for decades now. Hasn't really worked out too well.

Yet, the President cited it as a success.

Over the last several years, we have consistently taken the fight to terrorists who threaten our country. We took out Osama bin Laden and much of al Qaeda’s leadership in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We’ve targeted al Qaeda’s affiliate in Yemen, and recently eliminated the top commander of its affiliate in Somalia.

I guess the plan is to make Iraq and Syria as peaceful and safe as . . . Somalia and Yemen???

Now it looks like Congress is backing the idea of arming the "free Syrian Army."

Lame. This is not going to work.

Fwiw, if I was President, I would tell the Pentagon to give me a plan that is more Inchon and less Gettysburg. In other words, I think it is a mistake to take a "grind out victory" approach. We should look for something far more sweeping.

We ought to put in our troops, but not in the conventional manner. I want a few Marine brigades moving from Kuwait and Jordan, I want them to hit the ground hard and drive ISIS back rapidly.

That's the conventional part.

The unconventional part would be the Special Ops folks I would put near every possible choke point and path. As ISIS retreats or attempts to flee, we kill them.

No nation-building. In and out in 20-30 days.

Rinse, modify, and repeat as necessary.

Sassenach wrote:This is essentially what we've been doing with Somalia for decades now. Hasn't really worked out too well.

Is it? I thought the US and West were backing AU military action that's been taking place for years in Somalia to try and push Al Shabaab out of its present area of control.

The President has made his case that we must act. However, he outlined a plan that he says will take three years.

Three years? How many more Americans and Brits must be beheaded? How many children will be butchered? How many women will be sold as slaves?

Are the Syrians the President mocked a month ago really capable of beating ISIS now? Is training them in Saudi Arabia and/or Kuwait going to work?

Who are the "boots on the ground?" Will they fight ISIS and Assad simultaneously?

The President's minimalist strategy appears motivated by crass partisan politics (not wanting to tick off his base) and has no apparent connection to a military victory.

I think DF's strategy would be ok--no permanent large force, though. I guess I don't know how militarily feasible it would be but in theory--ok.

freeman3 wrote:I think DF's strategy would be ok--no permanent large force, though. I guess I don't know how militarily feasible it would be but in theory--ok.

I think the problem with the current strategy, as presented by the President, is that it CANNOT succeed. ISIS has most of its forces in Syria--and most of its infrastructure. Without "boots on the ground" there is no one to root out and destroy ISIS.

Furthermore, it is growing--apparently doubling in size. Meanwhile, the President is proposing shrinking the FSA (Free Syrian Army) temporarily in order to train it elsewhere (Saudi Arabia, apparently). The problems with that strategy should be obvious, but I'll list a few:

1. As we take them away from Syria, they are removed from an active battlefield. Assad and ISIS will not take a "timeout" to permit training of the FSA.

2. It is in Assad's interest to ignore ISIS and focus on the FSA. We will fight ISIS, so why should he worry about it?

3. It is in the FSA's interest to ignore ISIS. Apparently, they have a deal as they both loathe Assad.

4. Saudi Arabia is the home of Wahhabist Islam. We are going to send "moderates" to the home of extremism and hope for the best?

Honestly, I think we're better off trying to simply defend the Kurds than do what the President is proposing. I think that is a bad strategy, but his is worse.

Meanwhile, ISIS was allegedly behind a massive plot in Australia. http://hotair.com/archives/2014/09/18/a ... f-attacks/

Do we really want to take 3 years or more to deal with these people?

What we don't know are what kind of military options are being presented to President Obama. What a mess...even if we defeat or weaken ISIS what then? How do you stabilize Iraq? And at this point I don't know it is even in our best interests to have Assad toppled...The Iraqi army appears completely worthless...I would not want to be the one making these decisions but I guess our priorities would be:

(1) Weaken ISIS so they do not pose a threat to Iraqi stability
(2) Formulate a political solution for Iraq that will ensure some kind of stability
(3) Protect the oil reserves
(4) Figure something out with Syria. Get Assad out of there...or what? Broker a deal with rebel groups? I don't know, it seems like an all or nothing deal there to me. What will Syria look like if the rebels win? Better the devil you know than the one you don't?

freeman3 wrote:What we don't know are what kind of military options are being presented to President Obama.

I'm not going to say "you're wrong," but I do think this is the wrong perspective. He has to say to them, "I want to destroy ISIS. Every option you present me must have that as its end." He has to be like Lincoln--willing to sack generals who don't fulfill his expectations.

The Iraqi army appears completely worthless...

So true, yet somehow we're going to take those the President scoffed at a short time ago and turn them into an efficient army? We could not do that with many years of training Iraq's army and we don't have "many years" to train the FSA.

I would not want to be the one making these decisions but I guess our priorities would be:

(1) Weaken ISIS so they do not pose a threat to Iraqi stability

True, but an organization that can double its size in less than a month (from 15 to 30,000) has to be dismantled. So far, there has been nothing put forth that is going to cripple ISIS.

(2) Formulate a political solution for Iraq that will ensure some kind of stability

I think our mistake across the region has been to remove dictators and believe peaceful democracy would take root. Beginning with Iraq, then going through Egypt, Libya, and Syria, each one of our pronouncements that so-and-so's "days are numbered" has been a disaster. I think we should try to find a benevolent-ish dictator and run for the hills.

(3) Protect the oil reserves

Again, I think this points to a non-democratic outcome. However, I think the neo-con dream (of which Obama has, in part, become a participant) has proven to be unrealistic.

(4) Figure something out with Syria. Get Assad out of there...or what? Broker a deal with rebel groups? I don't know, it seems like an all or nothing deal there to me. What will Syria look like if the rebels win? Better the devil you know than the one you don't?

The choice appears to be between the man who gasses people and the group that beheads them.

fate

We ought to put in our troops, but not in the conventional manner. I want a few Marine brigades moving from Kuwait and Jordan, I want them to hit the ground hard and drive ISIS back rapidly

Since Isis is now dispersing into urban areas, on acount of their vulnerability to air strikes anywhere else ...
Any attempt to uproot them and drive them out of cities will require a large force.

http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast ... story.html

So true, yet somehow we're going to take those the President scoffed at a short time ago and turn them into an efficient army? We could not do that with many years of training Iraq's army and we don't have "many years" to train the FSA.

The FSA have spent the last 3 years fighting a brutal war and surviving against incredible odds. The likelihood is that they know a fair bit about how to fight already.

Sassenach wrote:

So true, yet somehow we're going to take those the President scoffed at a short time ago and turn them into an efficient army? We could not do that with many years of training Iraq's army and we don't have "many years" to train the FSA.

The FSA have spent the last 3 years fighting a brutal war and surviving against incredible odds. The likelihood is that they know a fair bit about how to fight already.

Okay, so then we just leave them on their own? Or, are you just sniping?

If they're an effective force, why are they surrounded at Aleppo? Why haven't they won? If it's just numbers, then what is Obama yammering about?

rickyp wrote:fate

We ought to put in our troops, but not in the conventional manner. I want a few Marine brigades moving from Kuwait and Jordan, I want them to hit the ground hard and drive ISIS back rapidly

Since Isis is now dispersing into urban areas, on acount of their vulnerability to air strikes anywhere else ...
Any attempt to uproot them and drive them out of cities will require a large force.

http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast ... story.html

This does nothing but demonstrate the uselessness of Obama's "strategy."