No Strategy for Defeating ISIS

[church mouse guy]

Fine but saying that Air Power alone never wins a war is pretty much implying boots on the ground don't you think? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt though. What do you suggest we do to supplement airstrikes aside from putting boots on the ground?

I have no suggestions and I did not intend to imply that saying that Air Power cannot win wars meant that I favored troops but I merely was stating the observation about Air Power.

It is up to the Democrats. They seldom ask for GOP advice. They do not need GOP votes in the Senate and they only need a few GOP votes in the House. I think that the GOP should give them a few votes in the House and no votes in the Senate.

 

[poncho]

The GOP is more expert at foreign policy than the Democrats and they do not support the 0bam@ foreign policy but a lot of non-Republicans don't know what is going on inside the GOP.

Expert? :laugh:

All the foreign interventions they've been "in charge of" has turned into epic failures.

The republicans are just better at convincing themselves that it's all the democrat's fault.

 

[carpro]

Fine but saying that Air Power alone never wins a war is pretty much implying boots on the ground don't you think? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt though. What do you suggest we do to supplement airstrikes aside from putting boots on the ground?

Air power can slow down ISIS, but cannot defeat it.

Absent a real coalition,Obama's "strategy" will achieve no long term gains. I'm not sure he has the skills necessary to build a coalition. Our allies simply do not trust him. He has spent his entire term in office alienating our allies and kissing up to our enemies.

Yes, to defeat them will take ground combat troops. Am I ready to do that? Not at all.

Not until the money, weapons, and supplies for ISIS stop coming in from Turkey and Saudi Arabia. I'd like to see some ground troops of theirs in the fight before I see ours.

 

[Use of Time]

Air power can slow down ISIS, but cannot defeat it.

Absent a real coalition,Obama's "strategy" will achieve no long term gains. I'm not sure he has the skills necessary to build a coalition. Our allies simply do not trust him. He has spent his entire term in office alienating our allies and kissing up to our enemies.

Yes, to defeat them will take ground combat troops. Am I ready to do that? Not at all.

Not until the money, weapons, and supplies for ISIS stop coming in from Turkey and Saudi Arabia. I'd like to see some ground troops of theirs in the fight before I see ours.

I mostly agree but just know that any coalition formed in the future is going to include U.S. Soldiers.

 

[FollowTheWay]

You're simply wrong. Sour grapes never taste all that good.

Your guy is generally despised by the troops. He could double their pay. It wouldn't change a thing. They're not in it for the money. They want leadership and victory. Bush gave them both. Obama is pathetic and they know it.

Bush gave them two meaningless wars which resulted in a large loss of life (mainly on the "enemy side") and cost us trillions of dollars.

 

[FollowTheWay]

I mostly agree but just know that any coalition formed in the future is going to include U.S. Soldiers.

The "coalition" that Bush formed was made up almost entirely of American and British troops. The total number of coalition troops involved after the surge in Iraq in 2007 was about 230,000. The U.S. supplied 165,000 and the U.K. 46,000. S. Korea with 3,600, Australia with 2,000, Georgia with 2,000, the Ukraine with 1,650, Romania with 730, Denmark with 545 and Bulgaria with 485 were the only other significant contributors. The rest of the coalition countries contributed 300 or less with many under 100.

Bottom line is over 90% of the troops came from the U.S. or the U.K. Where were our major NATO allies other than the U.K. like Germany, France, Japan, Canada, Turkey, Spain, Italy, Spain, etc?

 

[carpro]

The "coalition" that Bush formed was made up almost entirely of American and British troops. The total number of coalition troops involved after the surge in Iraq in 2007 was about 230,000. The U.S. supplied 165,000 and the U.K. 46,000. S. Korea with 3,600, Australia with 2,000, Georgia with 2,000, the Ukraine with 1,650, Romania with 730, Denmark with 545 and Bulgaria with 485 were the only other significant contributors. The rest of the coalition countries contributed 300 or less with many under 100.

Obama won't even come close to that kind of foreign participation.