Posted on 08/20/2014 9:57:36 PM PDT by blam
Michael B Kelley and Mike Nudelman
August 20, 2014
Just about everyone agrees that the world would be a better place without the brutal terrorist group known as ISIS (or Islamic State or ISIL).
On Wednesday, Barack Obama compared the group to a "cancer" whose spread must be contained and that the group "has no place in the 21st century." And Secretary of State John Kerry tweeted that "ISIL must be destroyed/will be crushed."
But there is one thing everyone must realize in the anti-ISIS crusade: Given the momentum that ISIS has built over the past two years in Syria and Iraq, it would be very difficult to dislodge them from the region. To actually do it would require a full-scale war.
"If destroying ISIL becomes the near-term policy goal—which seems the likely outcome of saying you are going to 'roll back' the group—then 10,000-15,000 troops vastly understates the true commitment, which will actually require years, direct military action on both sides of the Iraq/Syria border, tens (if not hundreds) of billions of dollars, and many more than 15,000 troops," counterterrorism expert Brian Fishman writes in War on the Rocks. "ISIL is an inherently resilient organization—look how far they have come since getting 'rolled back' during the Surge in 2007 when 150,000 American troops were occupying the country."
ISIS has gone through many iterations since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and is now at its most powerful point as they control a vast swath of territory across Syria and Iraq. What has become a de facto criminal petrostate brings in nearly $12 million a month in revenues from extortion and other shady practices in the Iraqi city of Mosul alone in addition to $1 million to $3 million a day selling oil illegally.
(snip)
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
Full scale war now or utter western destruction later. There is no alternative.
There will be no peace until there is no Islam.
They’re a “cancer” says Agent Smith.
Let me get this straight. The Syrian “rebels” Obama was supporting have morphed into the worst terrorists the world has ever known?
This is a Captain Obvious type of article.
Except, when Kerry says, “ISIL must be destroyed/will be crushed”, something true and what should happen, I don’t think he believes it, really.
It’s just rhetoric to him and his peers.
The aim should be a) To take back or take out of action the weapons the West gave them b) To help any country in the area that is friendly to the west c) Stop funding terrorist/rebels/freedom fighters (Different names same BS) of any sort and that includes Hamas and Fatah d) Total support for Israel.
Full scale all out war sounds about right to me .
bring back the draft , let old men enlist too.
Form a coalition between US-Euro-Russia & China and
GO GET SOME .
Stamp out Islamism worldwide
It’s time , let’s roll
If the free world truly united, this threat could be met and defeated. It's a matter of will, not capability. I don't think vacillation (caused by lack of will) will necessarily result in the utter destruction of western civilization because at some point, we will be forced to wage an all-out war of survival against Islam (might as well throw Islam into the mix for it is spawning the terrorists). I believe it will be won but it will be much more costly than if the lessons of WWII had been learned.
All part of the plan. Many people claim it was his ignorance which allowed this to happen. No, it was his INTENT.
All these U.S. Airstrikes now are just a facade.... and a bit of a pique by Biraq, because they haven't yet named HIM Caliph.
Ok, that last paragraph is just my fantasy, but the previous one... You can take that to the bank.
Active Duty ping.
After withdrawing, we will be back there fighting, boots on the ground, with the enemy using our equipment.
I am certain of this.
From JV to cancer. That’s progress, I guess.
The Muslim jihadists Assad supported in Iraq have morphed into the worst terrorists Syria has ever known. And Assad presumably knows a bit more about the region than any American ever could. Fact is - it's a roll of the dice. Assad supported the Muslim jihadists to make the US presence there so uncomfortable that we would balk at invading Syria. Once GI's left Iraq, those jihadists turned their attention to him. But that's the real world for you - you're never competing against just one opponent, but one opponent after another. Just ask any small business owner.
Amusing sidenote - I saw one episode of the F/X series Tyrant and was hooked. It's a mashup of the ruling families of several Arab countries. Given what we know about how dangerous life in these these countries is for the rulers, due to the ever-present threat of assassination, it's wall-to-wall tension in every episode.
You're thinking Star Wars. In real life, countries stay out of expensive wars until they are dragged in. And even then, they put in the absolute minimum they can, on the premise that somebody else could better afford to contribute to the cause.
strange map, try to divide that into homogeneous countries...
"I'm going to kill them all, Sir."
The likelihood is very low
Let us rent some of those ore ships that move between China and Brazil, draft all those welfare and send them over with rifles and MRE’s. Millions of them.
If they refuse, no more benefits.
Their mission is to eliminate Islam.
A thought:
Nuclear weapons. Particularly the neutron bombs that we have built. Reassemble them and use them.
Another thought:
Why have we developed and constructed them if we have no intention of using them to protect ourselves? The neutron bomb seems like the weapon to use in this situation. ISIS wants to fight America by sawing off heads of Americans -- well, lets demonstrate to ISIS and the entire world what price they'll be paying.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.