Skip to main content

View Diary: The United States should attack ISIS immediately, and not wait for them to attack Irbil (91 comments)

Comment Preferences

  • first. Make sure your son, daughter (14+ / 0-)

    niece, nephew, or very close relative is put in harms way. Then I will think about it.

    Too many people call for the USA to be involved in putting our people in harms way without having any skin in the game. So, you send your own kids into a situation that may get them killed.

    "We are a Plutocracy, we ought to face it. We need, desperately, to find new ways to hear independent voices & points of view" Ramsey Clark, U.S. Attorney General.

    by Mr SeeMore on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 08:12:32 PM PDT

    •  Use drones. (4+ / 0-)

      it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses

      by Addison on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 08:14:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You Don't Seem To Understand The Situation. (11+ / 0-)

        Airstrikes (planes or drones) can disrupt ISIL operations but they are not going to remove ISIL from its strongholds.

        Airstrikes can degrade their artillery and exposed tanks and other assets but you will need troops to remove ISIL from (and then hold) Mosul and any other entrenched positions.

        The president is striking the correct pose at this time. There are Kurdish, Turkish, Iranian, and Iraqi military troops and assets in the region with more to lose if ISIL succeeds than we do.

        The president's announcement that U.S. soldiers will not be deployed pressures the regional forces to accept their responsibility for stopping ISIL while reassuring Americans that our soldiers won't be back in that meat grinder.

        YMMV but I believe Obama will not re-commit our soldiers in any significant way and I wholeheartedly support that decision no matter how awful the Sunni-Shia war gets.

        •  I think maybe I do understand? (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Jim P, rduran, METAL TREK, davis90, VClib
          Airstrikes can degrade their artillery and exposed tanks and other assets but you will need troops to remove ISIL from (and then hold) Mosul and any other entrenched positions.
          We have allies on the ground who don't have the airstrike capabilities we have. We don't need to supply the troops, motivated ones, and they aren't ours and don't need to be. We should supply military assistance through air power, intelligence, and other such capabilities.

          it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses

          by Addison on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 08:32:46 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Those Allies & Their Resources Require Prior (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            rduran, Davui, Sybil Liberty

            planning, positioning, and co-ordination if airstrikes in support of ground operations are going to be effective. That will take time to broach, plan, and implement.

            The president's remarks suggest that air strikes in support of ground attacks are not contemplated at this time. He specifically talked about attacking ISIL's advancing convoys and warned against attacking Erbil.

            Our already deployed "advisors" are already supplying intel and logistics support to the Kurds and maybe to Iran's puppet, Maliki. That doesn't mean that the ground forces that can be mustered in the region are going to be sufficient to the task (or even trustworthy).

            There is no reason to rush into anything as treacherous as the Sunni-Shia war.

            •  this. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              VClib, majcmb1

              you don't just wave your wand, and troops, material & supplies magically appear where they're needed. it requires logistics even to do air strikes. you'd need permission, from all the countries our planes would fly over, on their way to Iraq, and then there's the question of anti-aircraft systems: what kind? where are they deployed? what will be needed to suppress them? etc. it just isn't as easy as you think.

              using drones is a fiction. most aren't designed as weapons platforms. the ones that are don't carry much, and are highly susceptible to attack from the ground, be it AA systems or just being shot at.

              so no, I question how effective US air strikes would actually be, and how long would it take to put together a plan, that has a reasonable probability of success.

          •  Turkey's airforce is third largest in world. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            amyzex, majcmb1

            They definitely have a dog in this race.

            "Show up. Pay attention. Tell the truth. And don't be attached to the results." -- Angeles Arrien

            by Sybil Liberty on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 05:59:08 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  I Support Obama's Decision (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        to conduct airstrikes on ISIS, which, according to the Huffington Post, are going on as we speak.  Once the airstrikes have been completed, let the Iraqi army, with the assistance of the hundreds of military advisers Obama sent to Iraq months ago, mop everything up.  We'll have to see how effective all of this is.

        The Iraqi government needs to take care of this on the ground.  I for one will not support sending US ground troops to Iraq.  However, we all need to contact our reps in the Hose and Senate and let them know that.  They need to hear our voices on this.  So send out an email today and let them know what you think.  I just finished sending mine to my congresswoman and two senators.

        "The quote on the Statue of Liberty doesn't say 'give me your english-speaking only, Christian-believing, heterosexual masses'

        by unapologeticliberal777 on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 06:11:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site