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

  •  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 ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (150)
  • Community (65)
  • Elections (43)
  • Civil Rights (38)
  • 2016 (32)
  • Culture (32)
  • Baltimore (28)
  • Economy (27)
  • Texas (27)
  • Law (27)
  • Bernie Sanders (26)
  • Environment (26)
  • Hillary Clinton (24)
  • Labor (23)
  • Health Care (21)
  • Rescued (21)
  • Barack Obama (20)
  • Republicans (18)
  • International (18)
  • Freddie Gray (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site