You raise many points.

First, just to stay straight, I can make a case blaming Bush; I can make a case blaming Obama....both cases are different and founded on a lot of "what if so". I can also make a case that both were at fault in certain ways.

BUT that conversation, in my opinion should be reserved for historians or if somebody wants a thread to discuss it, but oh my that sounds dangerous. Remember, there are a few who lay some of the blame at President Clintons feet also. BUT THAT IS A SEPERATE ISSUE TO ME.

Second thing you raise is "get out completely" which is pretty much Rand Paul's platform. There is an article today relative to the United States "retreating from the world". Exclusive interview: Ian Bremmer says America is no longer 'indispensable', and that's bad news for Britain - Telegraph

That idea is shown by our foreign policy goes the story, and while I hate the word "retreat", I suppose that is what we are doing. China is becoming the big boy on the block, an ally of Iran in all ways, and thus I suppose our future lies before us to decide.

My entire life, I have been proud of the this country for taking up the fight, although not always correct, and now you and many others say we should simply turn our back. We are doing that; we did it in Syria big time; we are doing it to Israel, Africa, and many other countries who over the years have depended on us.

I guess I, after 75 years, need time if this is our direction. We made a lot of mistakes over those years, but we saved millions of lives. We inspired others, we helped others. I actually was ill at the thought of how we just ignored the gassing of children in the streets in Syria.

Today, not just ISIS, but China rears its head and shows its power, https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/06/01...-tensions-war/

I guess I just need time to handle the USA walking away from things like this. It is tough for me to rationalize no anger over burning people, beheadings and gassing of children. If this is where we want to go, I think it does not bode well for us. Through our history, as uncomfortable, as unpopular as the USA being the worlds protector, it has serves us well. Only time in history we slowed, it made for trouble.

World is different; one mistake and we are subject to, or SOMEONE is, subject to instant death.

Sorry.....I want no boots on the ground, and I suspect nobody does, but I also am a believer in justice in the world, and if simply turning our backs might do it..so be it.

I still, from a practical stand point, want to know what the SIXTY.60...nation coalition is doing.

The only time we will see Cheney as a war criminal is if he ever leaves the country. Also, for those who say the blame belongs to the person in office and that events have an expiration date are the same as those who blame Clinton, not Bush, for 9/11.

Title of this thread is BOOTS ON THE GROUND.

People keep changing the subject to who is to blame. Many have tried to get people back on the subject, but seems the only important thing is blame.

Suggest a new thread for blame and hope someone will post on the subject of the thread !

OK, boots on the ground and reinstating the draft. Does anyone remember 1968? Time to move on to alternatives. Firing up the coalition and arming the Iraqis are not among them. Looking forward to some fresh thoughts for discussion. I'll start. Identify and target ISIS leadership. Follow their money and put a brick on it. Take out their income producing assets. Continue to destroy their armaments. A weaker enemy emboldens adversaries.

I have been banging away wondering what that 60 nation coalition is doing.

This is mostly information to supplement the thread.

Finally found a bit of information....Tomorrow, in Pais there is a meeting of the supposed 60 nations...I do not see anything that refers to SIXTY...this is a quote....."Tuesday’s summit – which brings together representatives from 24 coalition countries as well as international agencies –"

Next the article from France indicates that at the lead of the US, we will be stressing POLITICAL "“Political solution” is likely to be the catchphrase as the talks get under way, with US officials increasingly warning that the battle against the Islamic State group requires more than just a successful military sthphrase as the talks get under way, with US officials increasingly warning that the battle against the Islamic State group requires more than just a successful military strategy."

In addition it seems the conversation will be limited to Iraq. I have been posting and saying how important Syria was a few years ago and still now, but....

"But the latest round of talks may have doomed itself to failure by declaring an almost exclusive focus on Iraq, relegating the Islamic State group’s recent significant gains in Syria to the background."


Not all gloom and doom however....I find this encouraging.....


"Reinvigorated cooperation between Sunni Muslim powers Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar to contain the regional influence of Iran – a key Assad supporter, and now backing anti-IS militias in Iraq – has brought increased heavy arms flows, such as anti-tank weapons, to Syrian rebel groups battling Assad’s forces.

And Assad’s other main international backer, Russia, is believed to be “turning away from the regime”, according to the Saudi-backed, London-based newspaper Ashraq al-Awsat. In a report published Sunday, the Arabic-language newspaper noted that Russia had most recently evacuated around 100 of its officials, including experts who worked in Assad’s “war room” in Syria."

France - Anti-IS coalition likely to seek 'political' solutions at Paris talks - France 24

If you have an interest in how this is going, it is worth a read.

All good points and the recent bombing and incurision inside Syria supposedly gt a lot of information on the money as we took down the money man.

This, to me anyway, is difficult to discuss. We hear negative things for the most part from the military, and virtually nothing from the WH. It is political "season" with the primaries coming up so everyone will use this issue knowing how sensitive the country is to it. And it is not reserved to the Republican party, but more from there because of so many jockeying for position.


I sure wish I knew the answer, but right now with silence from the administration, I am not sure I even know the scope of the problem. That is not a shot at the WH, simply a statement of fact....they may have good reasons for saying nothing.

And I remember 1968 well. I think we got up over 1/2 million troops in Vietnam that year. I was 29, had done my time and was in awe of everything that was happening. President Johnson was on tv and always looked so sad.

It would be interesting to hear some fresh thought on how to resolve the ISIS issue.
Off the subject, but if you search the internet you will see China has cut resource (LNG and oil) deals with most countries in the Middle East regardless of their politics or religion. Maybe we should ask the Chinese how they do it.

The lower the standards/tolerances the easier the task....nothing new to learn there.

Update on that 60 nation coalition but not sounding positive.

"Members of the international campaign fighting the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) met in Paris on Tuesday to discuss renewed efforts to combat the group, but the meeting again laid bare long-standing divisions and differing priorities that have made finding a common strategy difficult.

The one-day conference of ministers from coalition governments was called in the aftermath of the fall of the Iraqi city of Ramadi and the ancient Syrian city of Palmyra to ISIL last month, which raised questions about the effectiveness of the 60-plus nation coalition, which began operations last Members of the international campaign fighting the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) met in Paris on Tuesday to discuss renewed efforts to combat the group, but the meeting again laid bare long-standing divisions and differing priorities that have made finding a common strategy difficult.

The one-day conference of ministers from coalition governments was called in the aftermath of the fall of the Iraqi city of Ramadi and the ancient Syrian city of Palmyra to ISIL last month, which raised questions about the effectiveness of the 60-plus nation coalition, which began operations last August.

"We will redouble our efforts," said U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Tony Blinken at the conference on Tuesday, filling in for Secretary of State John Kerry, who was injured over the weekend in a biking accident. The U.S. has undertaken the bulk of the coalition airstrikes, conducting some 4,100 against ISIL targets in Syria and Iraq.

But aside from some small pledges for increased U.S. weapons deliveries to Iraqi government forces, and continued coalition efforts to train anti-ISIL Syrian rebels, no new strategy was offered on Tuesday.

One key reason why ISIL continues to thrive despite being considered an enemy of all of the region's major powers is that those powers can't agree on long-term goals and priorities. Indeed, for each of them, the challenge posed by ISIL is secondary to their primary strategic concerns that often put them at odds with one

But aside from some small pledges for increased U.S. weapons deliveries to Iraqi government forces, and continued coalition efforts to train anti-ISIL Syrian rebels, no new strategy was offered on Tuesday.

One key reason why ISIL continues to thrive despite being considered an enemy of all of the region's major powers is that those powers can't agree on long-term goals and priorities. Indeed, for each of them, the challenge posed by ISIL is secondary to their primary strategic concerns that often put them at odds with one"

Anti-ISIL Coalition Divided, Competing Priorities | Al Jazeera America


This coalition just never got started. I am not sure where the leadership is coming from, but I am sure ISIS enjoys this news, and it sure makes me hope that those who say we should leave ISIS alone and they will not bother us are right.

A coalition update from Reuters....

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/to...50603?irpc=932

Thanks so much for the link...I appreciate it.

Have you seen any numbers on the number of countries involved at this point ? They mention twenty, and just wondering about how many.


Seems that the feeling is they can take back control with tribal politics. I also see no mention of Syria, so assume our mission is limited to Iraq ?