Quote:
Originally Posted by B767drvr
I do think it's important to ALWAYS evaluate past strategies and outcomes so that we learn from our mistakes (both diplomatically and militarily) and are more effective and efficient in future conflicts. Many people predicted a civil war along tribal lines if the brutal dictator Hussein was removed from power. We've seen the same thing in Libya and Egypt most recently. At some point you have to choose the lesser of two evils. Which route results in the least loss of life commensurate with maintaining our national interest? Did Hussein kill more or did 8+ years of war and now a civil war among tribes?
My PERSONAL (Libertarian) opinion is to basically allow civil wars and regional conflicts to be decided locally, interfering ONLY when America's strategic national interest is threatened (Syria most recently.) In Iraq I would arm the Kurds in the north with modern weaponry, let Iran arm and defend the Shia's in the south, and ISIS will (unfortunately) get its weapons/funding by sympathetic Sunni friends. There are a lot of nations with strategic national interests and security concerns jockeying in this part of the world. DO NOT put US boots on the ground and spill any more blood policing this bad neighborhood.
For those that truly have a fear for the future all I can say is that the US military is incredibly capable and has a devastating arsenal of weaponry. What it lacks, or rather is constrained by, is the political will to unleash any more than tiny bits of it. The ENTIRE country of Iraq could quite easily be leveled (similar to the terrible scenes in Gaza) in just a few days using airpower alone if it weren't for the massive loss of life that would ensue (MILLIONS.) The world community simply won't stand for that level of brutality and destruction… and rightly so. Therefore, we use "surgical" airstrikes dropping a few dozen 500 lb bombs and essentially tap the enemy on the head with what amounts to a little wooden chopstick. Make no mistake though, we are capable of killing the bad guy if the political will exists. And by political will… I'm referring to "acceptable" collateral civilian damage as very little is truly "surgical" on this scale.
Just my thoughts though… your mileage may vary.
|
This is a good post and I agree with it. We can, and at some point will have to level the ISIS homeland much as we did Germany and Japan but it will take several horrific attacks on our homeland before the need for this becomes obvious. Boots on the ground will also be inevitable at that point for us to truly destroy ISIS, which is what must happen.
However, the main point you omit is ISIS will attack us asymmetrically here at home … using innovative weapons and tactics, and most likely by coming across our porous southern border, or what used to be a border. We will truly rue and regret the day we did not secure it. I’m sure we will secure it after many thousands of Americans die here at home. It’s unfortunate we can’t anticipate, and then act, on the obvious now, but I think that’s partly the nature of a democratic republic. We are slow to rile but, once we have a Pearl Harbor, we go all out etc.