Boots on the ground
 

Former Gov. Pataki said he is running for President. He stated today that he would send in American troops to ISIS held areas to destroy training and planning sites and then get out.

What are viewpoints of the other candidates?

Currently, there are about 3,000 American troops in Iraq giving training to the Iraquis.

To early for this discussion.

For the next year and half or so, we have one CINC and one congress. Candidates do not count at all.

I am not sure that a candidate, not in the Senate (meaning being aware of things) should say this.

The question to me is, when does it become NECESSARY to have boots on the ground and I hope the answer is we never have to, but to avoid that we need to quickly make some decisions and develop a well thought out plan (as opposed to no plan we have right now)

Au contrairie
 

Dear Guest:

I have just the opposite view. It is clear that Obama is dead set against any engagement Josh Ernest said on his behalf that since the situation with ISIS is likely to change in two years he will leave it fro the next president.. translated I created a mess and you can clean it up.

So who among the 2016 candidates is likely to be best at foreign policy.

Given Hillary's disastrous stab at foreign policy while Secretary of State
Benghazi, Russia, etc this candidate traveled around the world more times than an astronaut and all for naught. Nice boondoggle for her.

The head of ISIS is Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and is intent on claiming the city whose name he bears and a man wh declared himself a caliph.

Such a candidate should use air power very strategically, conduct purposeful commando raids, capture and interrogate ISIS leaders and send ground combat forces such as engineers, artillery units.

There is much that America can do but we need a candidate who has the intestinal fortitude and the will to fight and more importantly the desire to win. Time is not on our side. History has proved the consequences of being dragged into a war. Quick decisive moves will save lives in the long run

Personal Best Regards:

Doing nothing is always an alternatibe. It does require some knowledge and a conscious decision. Neither of which Obama has or done.

God help us if there is a major 9/11 type incident here in the USA.

Well, I do agreee with what you say, but I understood that she was asking how any potential Republican was responding to the question.

Understand, I have no doubt, she was trying to be an instigator of sorts since that is what she does.

I was trying to just advise her that President Obama is in charge right now, and the only reason folks are commenting on this is because whatever we are doing is failing.

If Sen MCain was correct, and I have no way of validating it, that 75% of our air missions are returning without firing a shot simply because they need the logistical support from the ground...well then someone needs to get fired NOW.

So, no answer as to what the Republican candidates are saying they would do - except it is not OUR problem?

This is a discussion site - for goodness sake, get off your political asses and try to actually discuss a situation.

Otherwise, it is just you jacking your jaws saying whatever Pres. Obama says or does is wrong.

There is nobody on this forum who speaks for all candidates. If you are wanting someone to do your reading for you, forget it.

As I said, we have ONE plan to discuss for the next year and a half and one guy in charge. I think it is safe to say that they ALL , IN ADDITION TO A GROWING NUMBER OF DEMOCRATS, are unhappy with the plan and the leadership at present.

There have been a number of threads and discussions on this forum, where people "got off their asses" and voiced strong opinions. Most were met with either dead silence or wise cracks from the troll cronies. Actually, cannot recall a legit comment from the left on this issue. Next meeting of the cronies, you can...oh never mind....you are all about the snide non related little snippets.

It would be nice to have the left voice opinions instead of teenage wisecracks.

calling a spade a spade does annoy some!

Does not annoy me in anyway, and thank you for the short little cronie type comment....do not confront the issue, and defend the President if you want with facts or logic....nah....just troll the board and make wisecracks.

Why are so many of our limited air strikes not happening ?

Is Sen McCain correct in his statements ?

I think the President has said NO to troops on the ground...do you agree ?

His plan is all there is to discuss. He ignored Syria a few years ago with a phones red line, Should he have actually enforced his words ?



He allowed Russia to negotiate in order to stop the gassing of Syrians, and now it has resumed; should that be addresses ?

ISIL is now in Africa. We have no plan at all there. Should we address that ?

Is there anything our ONE commander in chief is doing on which you disagree or do you simply follow his lead in everything, and then troll this forum ?

US under this president has no will to defeat Isis. We are not even giving air support. How can this president know what these animals are capable of and do Nothing. If Obama had been president during WWII we would have lost. Where are the bleeding hearts in this country? Where are the Dems while this president remains silent in the face of genocide? Isis is winning and coming after America while this country does nothing

You know, what bothers me is something that I would think would just be inherent and easy to do.

When the President submitted a new AUMF to congress, they were a bit shocked at the looseness in it.

"The “intentionally fuzzy” language in the resolution, as White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest has referred to it, has created far more questions for members of Congress than answers. In fact, the draft is not only getting picked apart by lawmakers, but trashed as insufficient to the monumental task at hand or so vague to render any limits on military force irrelevant.

Republicans like Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (Tenn.) and Sens. John McCain (Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), and Marco Rubio (Fla.) are vastly disappointed that Obama intentionally limited his own authority to conduct a war that every serious national security expert in the United States labels a top-tier challenge."

The AUMF: Obama fails to get Congress on his side | TheHill

Now, after Kerry, et all were unable to answer the congress's specific questions, it is now a political football. As planned the WH says that congress was inept in not passing it, but he knew exactly why it was not passed. He is now using this to attack the other party. Is he holding back to use all of this for politics ? I do not know...we will see.

Here is what has bothered me. The President of the United States never talk to the american people about this. When Ramadi went down, he simply said "we are not losing". That was it. I cannot imagine a President saying something like that to the american people in any situation but as a quick response to a question just boggles my mind.

Are we, the american people, just to flounder here. Wonder what he is doing or not doing ? Does he have plans to try and lift the spirits in the country, and as anyone who read knows his party is also getting antsy. ? Is this not part of the President job, i.e.., advise us what is happening ON A NON POLITICAL STAGE, and to pass some confidence on ? WHY is he not doing this is my question.

Of course its the president's job to inform us and this one never does he is the most naracistic , arrogant president ever. His own party is probably ashamed of him and rightly so as people are continuing to be killed, tortured, raped by these animals and he sits by. What a disgrace and how frightening for us knowing they are coming and already here. I absolutely hate to say this but Americans (our kids) are going to get what they deserve. By not paying attention, by burying their head in the sand, the enemy is moving closer everyday. It's only a matter of time now

because he has no interest and is incapable

I remain disappointed at the lack of response from the silent majority, including democrats and blacks, who can let his incompetence go on year after year. We trully are the frogs in the warming waters.

GOP Presidential Candidate Rand Paul: "GOP Created ISIS"

'They created these people': Rand Paul blames GOP hawks for rise of ISIS | Fox News

And we all know Fox News ONLY publishes the truth


Best Personal Regards

Not sure why this is being posted on this thread. It certainly is day old news and he makes a point that can be supported.

A number of ways to look at this issue, and I am sure you posted this to discuss the issue and not simply to dmean.
Quite a conversation in this topic this morning......what do you think of this approach...

"I think the argument that the Republicans should make and that the Wall Street Journal did make -- actually they didn't make this argument. If we followed Rand Paul's foreign policy there would be no ISIS, because we would never have gone into Iraq and Saddam Hussein would not be -- Saddam Hussein would still be there, ISIS would not. If we did not not pull out of Iraq the way we pulled out of Iraq. If you'd just gone George W. Bush or Dick JOE SCARBOROUGH: I think the argument that the Republicans should make and JOE SCARBOROUGH: I think the argument that the Republicans should make and that the Wall Street Journal did make -- actually they didn't make this argument. If we followed Rand Paul's foreign policy there would be no ISIS, because we would never have gone into Iraq and Saddam Hussein would not be -- Saddam Hussein would still be there, ISIS would not. If we did not not pull out of Iraq the way we pulled out of Iraq. If you'd just gone George W. Bush or Dick Cheney's way, ISIS would not be there Iraq because that void would have never been created.

The argument you could make is if you're a Republican, that the Wall Street Journal did make, is that it was Hillary Clinton, people like Hillary Clinton that were wrong both times. That were wrong saying let's go into Iraq and then let's leave Iraq quickly that created the first void. And then after order was brought, which Dexter Filkins (of The New York Times) and everybody else says was in 2008 and 2009, pulling out created a new void that did create the environment for isis. So Hillary was wrong on Iraq twice. I think that's the argument certainly that Republicans would make, that I would make. the Wall Street Journal did make -- actually they didn't make this argument. If we followed Rand Paul's foreign policy there would be no ISIS, because we would never have gone into Iraq and Saddam Hussein would not be -- Saddam Hussein would still be there, ISIS would not. If we did not not pull out of Iraq the way we pulled out of Iraq. If you'd just gone George W. Bush or Dick Cheney's way, ISIS would not be there Iraq because that void would have never been created.

The argument you could make is if you're a Republican, that the Wall Street Journal did make, is that it was Hillary Clinton, people like Hillary Clinton that were wrong both times. That were wrong saying let's go into Iraq and then let's leave Iraq quickly that created the first void. And then after order was brought, which Dexter Filkins (of The New York Times) and everybody else says was in 2008 and 2009, pulling out created a new void that did create the environment for isis. So Hillary was wrong on Iraq twice. I think that's the argument certainly that Republicans would make, that I would make.dy else says was in 2008 and 2009, pulling out created a new void that did create the environment for isis. So Hillary was wrong on Iraq twice. I think that's the argument certainly that Republicans would make, that I would make."

Interesting isn't it ? Ms. Clinton was wrong twice !!!


Scarborough: "If We Followed Rand Paul's Foreign Policy There Would Be No ISIS;" Hillary Wrong About Iraq Twice | Video | RealClearPolitics

I apologize for the poor cut and paste. Kept being interrupted, but I think you get the point of what is being said, and of course the crony crew won't like this, but doubt if there will be any real discussion. Just some nude remarks.

BUT this conversation is what makes history...a different look at the same thing, which is what this forum was created for. Problem is historical and fact based conversation requires adults on both sides. THAT is lacking which all can measure by the childish remarks that surely will follow.

As I recall HW Bush had the wisdom to not continue the war into Iraq because of the civil war which would result. W was advised that continuing the war into Iraq was a good idea. I'm thinking that from Global Strategy standpoint both Republican and Democratic Presidents are not without fault in this Middle East nightmare. Russia had spent time in Afghanistan and they discovered it was a quagmire. They left with our help from the CIA aiding people like Bin Laden. Read you history books.
Ask yourself how does China do business with most countries in the Middle East without problems? Maybe we should examine their Global Strategy!

Dear Guest: My initial post explaining Obama's dismissal lack of performance that makes choosing the next president exhibiting strong foreign policy had defense minded strategies with examples of the things that we must be doing to contain the world fires believe it o not are of my choosing.

Your "only Fox News publishes....." is wrong on at least two counts

but I digress

The problem we are all facing is that political actors are inundating issues with hindsight bias i.e. "If you knew now would you go back to .... This a a futile and unproductive effort. People make decisions based on the information they have at hand . Does it do any good to beat yourself or a decide for doing what the normally prudent man would do? We need forward looking discussion . What do we do now?

Personal Best Regards:

The fact that it was strictly a United Nations effort at the time, and anything beyond what was done would violate the UN mandate...THAT was the reason.

Isn't comparing the current day knowledge to date, applied to a decision made years ago flawed and innaccurate.

The only valid comparison is to have only the information available at the time, in the environment at the time.

The dumbest question of recent days was last week when candidates were being asked ...knowing what we know today would you have gone to war in Iraq?

How is that pertinent to the facts contributing to the decision made then? Adds no value to an analysis of a candidate of today.

Each time the subject is brought up it is presented as if W acted all on his own (like a certain other POTUS!). He had congressional approval.....remember that odd circumstance which is currently not used or abused.

As pointed out earlier, despite the poster reshaping history to fit his post, President HW Bush stopped short of Iraq because he was required by mandate to so do. That war was a UN operation, and he was not allowed to advance any further, so at least keep history accurate.

You are absolutely correct in blaming both parties for sure, and as long as we continue to after these years try to affix blame we are doomed to tread water and make the divide in this country wider.

China is a completely different story, although perhaps the accurate history of the region may help, but China has never been a target of the ME. First they are not an ally, except for trade, of Israel. Second, their culture is not a threat to any mideast countries. They have recently showed a bit of aggresiviness though.

We have a country, Iran who has threatened our country, our way of life and our ally, Israel and continue to do so. Keep in mind that while Sadam still ruled the roost the dialogue was the same from him and all in that area and that was resentment of our way of life, and threatening to us.

Nothing good will come until we stop asking everybody on both sides if they would do Iraq any different. It is done. That debate can be done by history professors and I include the Scarborough theory where he makes the case that Hillary Clinton was wrong twice. As you say, both parties have erred over many many years and it seems that all that should be important to us now is our future and the future of our children and grand children.

We need to look at our threats and deal with them. You can learn from history, but you cannot also get mired in it and just tread water. BOTH parties need to wake up and address what is in front of us.

I DO understand what President Obama was trying....ie., negotiate and discuss and keep it peaceful. I honestly do understand but obviously it is not working

No one is going to say how the Republican candidates feel about putting American troops into the ISIS controlled areas?

Ridiculous blather is all the the tripe posted by the Obama and Clinton haters. Get a spine and tell us what your candidates would do.

One of the troll cronies group, with what appears to be severe reading and comprehension deficit.

...and one of The Gang of Six (now at a lonely two person gang) responds with more blather without answering a question. Sounds like the diversion of just attacking when you have nothing to say. No one is interested in the blatherings of an old, grumpy man. Go away!

Great, have no interest....great with me and while you are at it, stop posting along with your cronie trolls. You obviously do not read anything anyway, and simply come on here with the trolling.

Do everyone a favor and take that lack of interest and act on it !!

Thank you and best to you and the rest of the trolls.

You want to know how Republican candidates feel about ISIS now, a year and a half away from any elections, months before any debates, and while the President is supposed to be reviewing and doing new planning ? Great....makes sense to me that what a Republican candidate who is now trying to win a nomination would matter. Maybe learn to read or watch the news like us feeble old men. And any of the old men on here that I know are anything but grumpy. They are basically, concerned, hopeful, interested and engaged. They also have little or no tolerance for trolls as with any message board.

If any criticism of existing policy upsets or concerns you, then I suggest you do what most adults do on here and comment to defend it. Not much of that happens on here, just the teenage talk.

Listen, you don't like it then PLEASE stay out of here. Us old men and women will just fine without your little snide comments. Most enjoy discussing what is happening instead of acting like a teen.

WOW. It is amazing how some never change, never listen, and continue with the same out tired crap !

Maybe so many republicans are running because they realize how much danger this country is currently in and how desperate America is for leadership

Let all of us concerned citizens would like to know what they would do to alleviate the danger.

Wow what an opening!
Get Obama and the democrats the hell out of the WH!!!

Hard to summarize what you are looking for but it has all been in the news lately.

Most want a strategy as they feel there is none. A number are talking about the number of sorties we fly but cannot bomb anything because of lack of guidance from the ground. Many are concerned about our relationship with Iran and how it is influencing the fight on ISIS.

ALMOST all think we are arming the wrong tribes, and that included many many Democrats, and that we are doing that to facilitate what we are doing with Iran.

A few think we need troops on the ground, not so much for combat to aid our pilots and accelerate the assistance to Iraq.

A few also think we need to get more involved in Syria.

In general it is a typical fight to try and get in the game to have a chance at the nomination so as politics go, many will say things to get press....but in general I think they share the concern of the american public and just wish there was a real policy that might work.

If the reason for the continuing asking of this question is that some feel that there is nothing but criticism of the President with no offer of an alternative, then allow me to comment.

First if aimed at the posters on here, that is out of line. Many posters have offered their input on the situation.

If aimed at the politicians, allow me to remind you that the President has not publicly stated ANY policy, and during the AUMF debate, neither Secy Kerry or anyone from the WH could quite verbalize the plan. To the point during that debate, that even Democrats were confused. The Democrat felt that the President's AUMF proposal was too wide and covered too much and the Republican wanted to give him more leeway in fighting them.

Of course, since we hear nothing from the WH and actually the press secy is getting tired of answering questions, or better said NOT answering questions, he is frustrated because what he says is normally contradicted in the hearings by the military trying to fight the war.

The WH says the strategy is to train and assist troops and he last included Syria which is a country that we ignored initially while they were gassing. This surprised me but you don't care about that. But the strategy as laid out in the press briefings are not matching up well with the military when they testify before the Armed Services Committee.

Most of the candidates, I think favor more troops on the ground...not a number probably exceeding 10,000 or so simply to make our air campaign work, AND IMPORTANT we keep hearing about the coalition. Iran says they are the only ones fighting ISIS...really did "Fazli added that it was a mistake to have U.S.-led foreign forces counter ISIS militants. Iran's Press TV reported that, according to the interior minister, the U.S.-led coalition had failed in its attempts to stop ISIS. Fazli said that the Iraqi forces had managed to be successful only in the regions where popular Iraqi forces supported them. The most important quote for me and is RELATIVE TO YOUR QUESTION.

"Fazli is not the only one whom U.S.-led foreign forces have failed to impress. Mowaffak al-Rubaie said that 8 out of 10 U.S. fighter jets had failed to engage terrorist positions. Iraq’s former national security adviser said that U.S.-led airstrikes had been mostly ineffective against ISIS.

Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani said that Iran was the only country committed to counter ISIS. Reuters reported that the commander of the Quds Force said Iran should help countries get rid of ISIS. "Today, in the fight against this dangerous phenomenon, nobody is present except Iran," he said.

Iran Claims To Be Only Country Fighting ISIS; Slams US Coalition As Ineffective

This quote tells you that the criticism coming from the candidates about our lack of good use of the air seems to be right on the mark.

I know that you cronies are not going to read responses to your questions..you never do, just make short snarky uninformed comments, but......I think to put to rest a lot of what is happening right now, the President should come on television and speak to the nation, not special interest group, but the entire nation and at least defend what he thinks he is doing.

He is not leading at all....he is not communicating at all. If he did that, at least any criticism could be more specific and easier to handle. Right now nobody seems to know what is happening.

With 3 nephews in the military, one of which has been to this war zone 5 times and earned the purple heart, I am clearly opposed to boots on the ground if that means the US military does all the heavy lifting. ISIS is a threat to the world and therefore should be addressed as such.

Well said.

In that vein, I cannot help but wonder where this coalition of 60 countries might be. Iran keeps saying that they are the only ones fighting, and nobody seems to be disagreeing with them. (Iran's growing status is another thread)

I think that those who call for "troops on the ground" might be a bit less forceful, if they knew what was going on.

However when you read..


"This month, when the Islamic State launched a massive attack on the large Iraq provincial capital of Ramadi, the government in Baghdad did what it was supposed to do under Obama’s “strategic plan”: Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi called for a meeting of the US-led coalition to coordinate action against This month, when the Islamic State launched a massive attack on the large Iraq provincial capital of Ramadi, the government in Baghdad did what it was supposed to do under Obama’s “strategic plan”: Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi called for a meeting of the US-led coalition to coordinate action against ISIS.


Very soon, however, it became clear that no such meeting would ever take
The coalition, supposedly consisting of 50 nation, simply has ceased to exist, if it ever did exist.

According to Iraqi sources, al- lowered his expectations by meeting US Ambassador to Baghdad Stuart E. Jones to demand intensified airstrikes on ISIS units advancing on Ramadi.

Why ISIS is beating Obama’s coalition | New York Post

Good post..... We cannot continue to give our young men and women and let the rest of the world off the hook!!

Absolutely true. However, the Republican hawks want the US to send in more Americans to defeat ISIS even though it would mean hundreds or thousands more being killed.

This will not happen as long as Barack Obama is commander-in-chief, maybe when Hillary Clinton is elected. She is much more of a hawk than Obama. That's what cost her the election in 2008, voting for the Iraq war, even though now she says her yes vote was a mistake.

At the end of the Bush Administration the Iraq war was won Iraqi's were trained and signs of Democracy taking hold. Bear in mind it took many many years before America's Independence took full hold.

Along comes Obama and pulls the rug from under the Iraqi's breaking promises and demoralizing them leaving a vacuum filled by ISIS. That is the past we need to focus on the present i order to create the future we desire.

English speaking people since the Magna Carta have been defending freedom since then. Our Three Charters of Freedom are a result of the Magna Carta. Our enemies despise democracy because it is a threat to their authority and so whether we like it nor not they are at war with us

If America does not take the lead here the war will come home to us . This is the lesson of history for so many countries over the ages and all the belly aching, denials and objections by progressives is not going to change the nature of men and the nature of war

Personal Best Regards:

The point of my post, which you obviously fails to get or are simply one of the PARTY first folks, was......

Yes, we needs troops on the ground, or at least it appears that way. When you hear how many planes we fly that do nothing because of that lack....

Where is the 60 nation coalition ? Is anyone but Iran in the ground ? Why don't we know, as the "allies" are driven back ?

I think they are valid questions, and allow me to respectfully suggest that many many democrats are of like mind which does not make them "hawks" but rather concerned Americans.

With all due respect... The pull-out dates were set by the previous administration NOT by Obama. I also remember GW standing under a "Mission Accomplished Banner" very early on and the was NOT true. And last but not least the Iraqi government threw us OUT!

We have heard the "fight them over there instead of over here" one two many times. Because "WE" are not all fighting them over there.... reinstate the draft so WE also share the fight and then we can talk.

I certainly support the re instatement of the draft, using different formulas for the actual numbers. It would serve us well, including beyond military readiness.

I just get confused sometimes. We keep discussing history; my preference would be to discuss the current threat, and I join in asking where is the 60 nation coalition in filling the ground troop void. Of course I think I know the answer; Arab nations set a lot of parameters to even join the fight, and thus I really object to even calling it a 60 nation coalition. Mainly, where are they..is the deal that on the ground is USA or nothing ? Of course Iran maintains that the lead the pack.

Reinstate the draft? Here's your man.

Attachment 51909