Sounds Heroic, But GOP Cowers When Asked for ISIS Plan

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 24, 2015 1:58 AM GMT
    NYT: A picture has emerged of a field of declared and likely candidates that sound hawkish about fighting the Islamic State, yet are reluctant and even evasive when it comes to laying out detailed plans.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/24/us/politics/republican-rivals-skirt-specifics-on-plan-to-fight-isis.html?ref=politics
  • jeepguySD

    Posts: 651

    May 24, 2015 1:04 PM GMT
    The simple fact is that ISIL can only be defeated on the ground. Air power alone cannot eliminate this insidious threat. I think every politician knows that. However, the candidates also know that the majority of American voters do not want to see US forces committed on the ground again. Simultaneously, voters perceive (correctly) ISIL as a real threat and they abhor ISIL's savagery. So, politicians feel that they must talk tough about the threat, but the only solution with a hope of success -- forces on the ground -- is political poison. As such, I'm not surprised by the blustering, both bellicose and vacuous, coming from so many candidates.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 24, 2015 7:23 PM GMT
    ^
    I tend to agree jeepguy. My heart says we shouldn't touch the place with a barge pole, in spite of the emotional temptation to do so, but my head says eventually we (the West) are going to have to go in and deal with ISIS on the ground, in order to ensure our own security.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 24, 2015 7:51 PM GMT
    Progressive Liberals returning to the good old days of 1940:

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 24, 2015 8:22 PM GMT
    ^
    Who's trying to rewrite history now? Two words: Pearl Harbor.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 24, 2015 8:47 PM GMT
    It's time for the US to pull completely out of there and let the middle east fight this out. We're creating a common enemy... US, everytime. We arm one side, 5 years later that side turns on us. We arm the rebels in one country, in another country those rebels attack us or abandon us. We overthrow one regime and try to stand up our version of democracy there, it crumbles the second we leave. We'd have to forever occupy each country and police the rebellions, each time creating a new anti-US enemy out of the children of those we killed. We kill A LOT of innocent people too. At best it is a LOSE-LOSE situation. The war will be here very, very soon. My dumb opinion.
  • jeepguySD

    Posts: 651

    May 25, 2015 12:25 PM GMT
    Ex_Mil8 said^
    I tend to agree jeepguy. My heart says we shouldn't touch the place with a barge pole, in spite of the emotional temptation to do so, but my head says eventually we (the West) are going to have to go in and deal with ISIS on the ground, in order to ensure our own security.


    I'm afraid that you're right. Regional forces don't seem up to the task of even defending their own countries, much less confronting a regional threat, like ISIL. What's more, sectarian divisions makes an effective coalition of Middle Eastern-only forces almost impossible.