Are Republicans for or against sending US ground troops back to Iraq and also Syria?

[irishScott]

I say we stick to limited air support to protect the Kurds only. As much as I hate to see innocent people die, for the future of the others, the Middle East needs to resolve their own civil war. I say civil war because really this is just a gigantic Sunni and Shi'a conflict; they're all Arabs. If we go in and wipe the floor clean, another hate group will rise to fill the place of ISIS. If the Middle East resolves their own problems and learns that these groups are unacceptable, then they'll be squashed at the tribal level before they even have a chance to get off the ground.

People forget that part of the price Americans paid for our freedom included a very terrible and destructive civil war. That's the perspective we have. We don't want to go through that again. But other parts of the world haven't learned that yet. Despite their hatred towards us, every Middle Eastern country is expecting the United States to waltz in and resolve their problems. Do you see Saudi Arabia mobilizing to handle save their Arab brethren from ISIS? What's Jordan doing? Of course Iran and Turkey are going to stand on the sidelines, because they're not stupid. They're also not predominantly Arab.

Eventually they'll realize that this sectarian violence isn't worth it anymore. It's too bad they had to bring an actual demon in the midst to realize it.

It's not a matter of going through a civil war, Arabs, even in the days of the Islamic Empire, were never a cohesive entity. Muhommad managed to conquer or ally the tribes and start an empire, as did the Ottomons and some other empire builders, but at the core Arabs have always been a bunch of warring nomadic tribes. They just got lucky and struck oil, otherwise they'd still be a bunch of warring nomadic tribes.

What we're seing with ISIS, Sunni, Shia, etc isn't a civil war, it's primitive clan/tribal warfare. The only difference throuhgout history is that occaisionally one clan gains enough power to kill or subdue all the others in a given region.

And I'm convinced that it will be quite some time, possibly centuries, before the Arabs set aside sectarian violence as a whole. Remember the Sunni/Shia split and all the violence it causes today is soley due to a debate over the line of succession when Muhommad died in 632 AD. Nearly 1400 years later and they still haven't let it go.

The issue is Islam has had no enlightenment. It's an anachronistic holdover from the dark ages that hasn't contributed anything positive to modern society for centuries. The Koran also IIRC demands a theocracy in no uncertain terms, making secularization an impossible concept to a literalist Muslim. Turkey's come the closest and their form of secularization is tenuous and best, so tenuous that for decades enforcement of secularization was seen as the primary domestic function of the military.

Barring some Islamic enlightenment, I see the long-term future of Islam being rather bleak. Eventually they'll run out of oil, and at that point will be of no further value to the world. They'll slip back into primitive tribes living in a no-man's-land, occaisionally suffering a developed-world strike when they declare another retarded holy war. That or we'll have at least a half dozen more Arab springs of increasing magnitude after which the Arabs will finally get their shit together.

 

[irishScott]

As for the OP, ISIS is a long-term threat to America. It's going to be an endless game of whack-a-mole, but I'm for limited operations of necessarry scale to destroy them. I think nation building and occupation is a lost cause, just make it clear that threatening us or our allies means death.

 

[senseamp]

Limited operations always seem to grow beyond their limits. We should keep bombing from above and let the locals fight on the ground.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Republicans will exclaim that they want the opposite of whatever actually happens, and they will blame it all on Obama. This has been their policy for the entire duration of his term.

I think Lewis Black was right. The problem is that the politicians are all sober. Get the drinks flowing to the point where they can tolerate each other, and maybe we'll see something besides gridlock and horseshit from them.

 

[Victorian Gray]

So he's going to violate Syrian sovereignty while lecturing Putin on violating Ukraine's?

Putin is attempting to steal Ukrainian territory. I don't think the US is planning on invading and keeping Syria.

Try harder.

 

[Fern]

So Lindsey has the same level of access to top secret intel, confidential communications with other world leaders and all the other data that the president uses to make life giving/taking decisions wrt defeating the Islamic State?

If not, which I think is more than likely, then how can he shoot his mouth off with such inflammatory fear mongering commentary without the knowledge that is needed to make an informed and reasoned decision on whether to send troops back into the meat grinder, when to send them, how many to send, what types to send?
-snip-

I'm pretty sure Graham has been on the Armed Services Committee for about 15 yrs (combined House and Senate service).

He also served in the Air Force.

Otherwise, he's not really saying anything different than what our armed forces (Joint Chiefs and commander of ME) recommended to Obama (i.e., ground troops) and he rejected. I saw some of senate Committee hearing today and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff confirmed this.

Also, every so-called expert on TV that I have seen, no matter the channel, has said the same thing.

I.e., there's no "top secret intel" that says this (no ground troops) is the way to go. Simple fact is that the policy of no ground troops is driven by politics. Can you imagine Obama declaring war and sending in troops right before the midterm elections after all his rhetoric to the contrary? No; nobody can.

And all you complaining about a do-nothing Congress, get back to me when Obama requests they vote on it. AFAIK, the protocol is for the President to first request authorization. If Obama were to request authorization I'd be stunned, as would the Democratic members of Congress. Here again, it's all about politics. The Dems up for reelection don't want to be forced into choosing to vote for 'war' or refusing to support Obama before the midterms. Obama isn't requesting anything due to the politics.

Personally, I think the AUMF might be sufficient for military action in Iraq. But Obama has now spoken of attacking Syria if they attack any of our aircraft operating there. That shiz ain't covered under any AUMF and that needs congressional approval. (Though he won't seek it for the reasons I mentioned above.)

Fern

 

[senseamp]

Putin is attempting to steal Ukrainian territory. I don't think the US is planning on invading and keeping Syria.

Try harder.

So some violations of sovereignty are OK?

 

[Matt1970]

The fact of the matter is there isn't a race card.

Other than in the GOP's mind.

Whoosh again.

I will ask you again, do you even know what Woosh means?

 

[Fern]

This could get interesting:

Syria and Iran have a mutual defense pact.

Would we have to fight Iran too?

Iran and Russia have a mutual defense pact.

Would we have to fight Russia too?

Russia and China have a mutual defense pact.

Would we have to fight China?

So on and so forth.

Fern

 

[Orignal Earl]

It's not a matter of going through a civil war, Arabs, even in the days of the Islamic Empire, were never a cohesive entity. Muhommad managed to conquer or ally the tribes and start an empire, as did the Ottomons and some other empire builders, but at the core Arabs have always been a bunch of warring nomadic tribes. They just got lucky and struck oil, otherwise they'd still be a bunch of warring nomadic tribes.

What we're seing with ISIS, Sunni, Shia, etc isn't a civil war, it's primitive clan/tribal warfare. The only difference throuhgout history is that occaisionally one clan gains enough power to kill or subdue all the others in a given region.

And I'm convinced that it will be quite some time, possibly centuries, before the Arabs set aside sectarian violence as a whole. Remember the Sunni/Shia split and all the violence it causes today is soley due to a debate over the line of succession when Muhommad died in 632 AD. Nearly 1400 years later and they still haven't let it go.

The issue is Islam has had no enlightenment. It's an anachronistic holdover from the dark ages that hasn't contributed anything positive to modern society for centuries. The Koran also IIRC demands a theocracy in no uncertain terms, making secularization an impossible concept to a literalist Muslim. Turkey's come the closest and their form of secularization is tenuous and best, so tenuous that for decades enforcement of secularization was seen as the primary domestic function of the military.

Barring some Islamic enlightenment, I see the long-term future of Islam being rather bleak. Eventually they'll run out of oil, and at that point will be of no further value to the world. They'll slip back into primitive tribes living in a no-man's-land, occaisionally suffering a developed-world strike when they declare another retarded holy war. That or we'll have at least a half dozen more Arab springs of increasing magnitude after which the Arabs will finally get their shit together.

Arabs only account for 20% of the world wide Muslim population

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Putin is attempting to steal Ukrainian territory. I don't think the US is planning on invading and keeping Syria.

Try harder.

We didn't keep Iraq either, did we?

 

[irishScott]

Arabs only account for 20% of the world wide Muslim population

True, but the description also applies to much of Africa and Eurasia. Warring tribes and clans, with perhaps one clan on top in a few countries. Fundamentalist Islam is a primitive, harsh and sometimes brutal religion, and it only significantly grows in primitive societies. You can even see the dichotomy in Islamic nations. The larger cities with greater access to education, the internet, etc are usually fairly moderate. Go out into the rural areas where literacy dies out, and it's a whole different world.

 

[OutHouse]

Putin is attempting to steal Ukrainian territory. I don't think the US is planning on invading and keeping Syria.

Try harder.

fail.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Fundamentalist Islam is a primitive, harsh and sometimes brutal religion, and it only significantly grows in primitive societies. You can even see the dichotomy in Islamic nations.

Ah..Fundamentalist Islam
Is that Muslims who want to take over the world?
Good thing even in primitive countries they are very few in number

 

[rudder]

Limited operations always seem to grow beyond their limits. We should keep bombing from above and let the locals fight on the ground.

Exactly, but Obama said he would destroy ISIL. This isn't going to happen without ground troops at some point. Ideally it should be the arab countries doing the grunt work. Otherwise ISIL will rally the muslim world against the U.S. and other non-middle eastern countries. U.S. troops would get bogged down again for years. Unfortunately we have already seen how effective the Iraqi military has been. Other middle eastern "coalition" countries want to fight ISIL but they do not want to be associated with the U.S.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Otherwise ISIL will rally the muslim world against the U.S. and other non-middle eastern countries.

Oh Lord...
Even in rich countries there is lot's of "educated" people who can believe in the most insane things

Arab states willing to join air fight against Islamic State in Iraq, U.S. officials say

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...dbe1a4-3c41-11e4-b0ea-8141703bbf6f_story.html

 

[rudder]

Oh Lord...
Even in rich countries there is lot's of "educated" people who can believe in the most insane things

Arab states willing to join air fight against Islamic State in Iraq, U.S. officials say

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...dbe1a4-3c41-11e4-b0ea-8141703bbf6f_story.html

So John Kerry, when will it be appropriate to name those countries that will actually commit ground forces?

 

[Orignal Earl]

So John Kerry, when will it be appropriate to name those countries that will actually commit ground forces?

All I am saying is that the "Muslim world" is not going to rally to ISIS's side.
That kind of thinking is very ignorant, and shows you have no idea what's going on

 

[Jhhnn]

I don't think Obama will commit ground troops, other than advisors & maybe very limited Seal-type incursions. Air support, logistics & whatever kind of intelligence we can gather, for sure. Drones as well.

If there are any incursions into Syrian airspace, it'll be a set up deal of no Syrian resistance w/ appropriate squawking afterwards.

Unlike his predecessor, Obama doesn't want in to the fight, but rather out.

 

[trenchfoot]

I'm pretty sure Graham has been on the Armed Services Committee for about 15 yrs (combined House and Senate service).

He also served in the Air Force.

Otherwise, he's not really saying anything different than what our armed forces (Joint Chiefs and commander of ME) recommended to Obama (i.e., ground troops) and he rejected. I saw some of senate Committee hearing today and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff confirmed this.

Also, every so-called expert on TV that I have seen, no matter the channel, has said the same thing.

I.e., there's no "top secret intel" that says this (no ground troops) is the way to go. Simple fact is that the policy of no ground troops is driven by politics. Can you imagine Obama declaring war and sending in troops right before the midterm elections after all his rhetoric to the contrary? No; nobody can.

And all you complaining about a do-nothing Congress, get back to me when Obama requests they vote on it. AFAIK, the protocol is for the President to first request authorization. If Obama were to request authorization I'd be stunned, as would the Democratic members of Congress. Here again, it's all about politics. The Dems up for reelection don't want to be forced into choosing to vote for 'war' or refusing to support Obama before the midterms. Obama isn't requesting anything due to the politics.

Personally, I think the AUMF might be sufficient for military action in Iraq. But Obama has now spoken of attacking Syria if they attack any of our aircraft operating there. That shiz ain't covered under any AUMF and that needs congressional approval. (Though he won't seek it for the reasons I mentioned above.)

Fern

A reasoned thoughtful response. Great post. :thumbsup:

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I don't think Obama will commit ground troops, other than advisors & maybe very limited Seal-type incursions. Air support, logistics & whatever kind of intelligence we can gather, for sure. Drones as well.

If there are any incursions into Syrian airspace, it'll be a set up deal of no Syrian resistance w/ appropriate squawking afterwards.

Unlike his predecessor, Obama doesn't want in to the fight, but rather out.

What you say he wants even if true doesn't mean that's what we'll get. Obama has invoked Iraq war rhetoric with his talk of destroying IS and that is a significant commitment to war. He's using the Bush playbook. It will be interesting to see if he acts smarter than his banter suggests.

 

[Victorian Gray]

fail.

You believe that the two are equivalent? Really?

 

[Jaskalas]

We're doing all this, "years long" war without Congress putting it to a vote?

They don't have to wait for the President to ask to issue an authorization.

 

[TreVader]

We will bomb people and send spec ops but no we won't send troops. Obama is many things but I think we can agree he isn't stupid. Sending regular ground forces into Syria to fight a regular war with tanks and humvees is stupid.


Whatever is done about ISIS on the ground, it won't be done by US marines a la Falluja 2k4. Most likely some other group will emerge to oppose them, and when we finish aiding this new group to beat ISIS, we will fight them too. Wash rinse repeat.

 

[sportage]

Watched some of the live C-Span coverage Tuesday morning.
Loved the protesters.
Thank God for the protesters.
Especially when old wrinkled meat-head John McCain spoke.
I just keep remembering, THIS was the guy that gave us Sarah Palin.
Not exactly a reliable source of intelligence nor foresight.

We need more protesters. God bless the protesters.
At least not all of America are sheep for the slaughter.
Bless the protesters. May the force be with you.