ISIS: Who needs ground troops?

[KingOrfeo]

Obama wants an AUMF against ISIS. However, vette has been pissing and moaning because he wants one that won't authorize ground troops. Which might or might not be true:

On Thursday, Pelosi mentioned that language authorizing boots on the ground was another issue that was still under debate.

"I think it's going to be a challenge, but we will have a solution to it," she said.

If it is true, so what? Obama won, or rather determined the outcome of, the Libyan Civil War without ground troops. There was no need -- there were already Libyan troops on the ground fighting Gaddafi; they just needed a little air support to keep their rebellion alive.

Now look at ISIS. All their neighbors hate them. The Kurds hate them. The Turks hate them. The Iraqi Shi'ites hate them. Assad hates them. All other Syrian rebel factions hate them. The King of Jordan really hates them. Even al-Qaeda hates them. Practically everybody who does not hate them has already rushed off to join them -- but not nearly enough have. They can't hang. There's no need to send in American ground troops, all kinds of other ground troops will be butting in line for the chance to finish them off, and those troops probably don't even need our air support -- Jordan has an air force and ISIS does not.

 

[PoppingTom]

Dear Americans

Can we please expect you to not doing the same mistakes over and over?

Please not voting Bush again?

Please not playing the world police again and fuck all ISIS haters up with so much exceptionalism they become their supporters?


Thank you.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Kosovo's another example. Clinton achieved all his objectives there with air power alone.

He did commit ground troops in Somalia, and that . . . did not go so well.

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

As I have posted Bill Clinton authorized up 7000 American ground troops to be deployed in Kosovo, and a large NATO ground force was deployed there as well.

Conceded, but, Kosovar insurgents did most of the ground fighting. They lost 1,500 combat dead, the U.S. none (2 non-combat deaths). Compare Afghanistan -- we committed ground troops but they were mostly there to support the much more numerous forces of the Northern Alliance, which, with that support, finished off the Taliban right quick. It's always better to get others to do the fighting for you if you can. In this case, we can. Jordan seems determined to take out ISIS all by itself, and won't need to.

 

[unregistered]

 

[PoppingTom]

There were thousands of NATO troops present, good Lord.

The troops were only present at air strikes.

Sending ground troops to Kosovo was a politicum for most of the 22 NATO states, a lot denied support for the strikes if that would happen. Milosevic speculated for exactly that.

 

[BotanyBoy]

The troops were only present at air strikes.

Sending ground troops to Kosovo was a politicum for most of the 22 NATO states, a lot denied support for the strikes if that would happen. Milosevic speculated for exactly that.

You're arguing with a proponent of eternally engaging the US in a civil/religious war 14,000 miles away and a limited mild threat at best to the economic detriment of the nation....because freedom and stuff.

You can't win...you can only acknowledge the crazy.

 

[KingOrfeo]

It's always better to get others to do the fighting for you if you can.

Mind you, I don't mean mercenaries, it's always dangerous to rely on them, I mean people who are motivated to win that particular fight. Which the Jordanians are, in this case, and not they alone.

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

His point was, there were no ground troops. My point was and is, he's full of shit, there were thousands sent there.

But they didn't have to fight much. The Kosovars handled that.

Now Jordan, at present, has one badass King, a career special-forces officer. And he has a hard-on for ISIS. He can handle it.

 

[JohnnySavage]

Every AUMF should come with a requirement for a lottery style draft.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Every AUMF should come with a requirement for a lottery style draft.

Army don't want one. They're a lot pickier about recruits than they used to be, they won't take cons or addicts or HS dropouts. (Think about how easy that policy would make it to dodge a draft.)

 

[JohnnySavage]

Army don't want one. They're a lot pickier about recruits than they used to be, they won't take cons or addicts or HS dropouts. (Think about how easy that policy would make it to dodge a draft.)

Since when did anyone care what the army wants? They didn't want blacks, they didn't want women, they didn't want gays, they didn't want tanks. They will take what they are told to take.

If everyone between the ages 18-50 had skin in the game, we'd stop gallivanting all over the world flexing our dick.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

You should learn how to write with specificity. You said there were no ground troops.

What's that saying you use all of the time? You're picking fly shit out of pepper.

 

[BotanyBoy]

What's that saying you use all of the time? You're picking fly shit out of pepper.

That's only for who he deems a liburhul (everyone left of tyrannical bat shit RW theocrat) good conservatives like him don't have to hold themselves to the same standards they subject others. So much conservatism...so much personal responsibility.

 

[KingOrfeo]

KO, in case you missed it in the other thread.


Obama's War Authorization Limits Ground Forces
FEB 10, 2015 1:45 PM EST
By Josh Rogin

So? Who needs 'em?

 

[BotanyBoy]

So? Who needs 'em?

Vette is desperate for a holy war his party can bleed for welfare contracts...cut him some slack.

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

Just letting you know that I was right. He wants to be able to blame congress when the war on terror fails by saying, I didn't have ground troops authority.

Now, how do you know that's his thinking? Maybe it's just because getting authorization for ground troops would be an impossible political fight, and not one worth fighting. And what makes you think it will fail, WRT ISIS? See the OP.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Just letting you know that I was right. He wants to be able to blame congress when the war on terror fails by saying, I didn't have ground troops authority.

Hey moron, in order for that to fly he would have to ask for them and congress refuse. Which is likely considering anything the President wants to do the GOP is "agin' it", no matter what.

I'm betting they vote against his AUMF no matter what.

 

[unregistered]

 

[BotanyBoy]

Because ground troops are the only way they are going to be defeated.

Didn't work the 13 years prior....

Got any reason to think it will work now?

Oh wait.....that would require you to do more than chant "Freedumb" as you thump your war drum and beg for moar contracts.