jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (6 posts)

Is the U.S. containment policy enough to combat ISIS? Why or why not?

  1. AlexTomczuk profile image70
    AlexTomczukposted 2 years ago

    Given the controversy surrounding the actions of ISIS and its latest territorial gains, I'd like to gather public opinion regarding US strategy against ISIS. Currently, there are some thousands of military advisors in the Middle East and the US is relying heavily on drone strikes; but, is this enough?

    Should the US put "boots on the ground" and essentially invade regions controlled by ISIS, like that of Syria and Iraq? What are the implications of invading a country with enemies on numerous fronts? Will the aftermath be a broken country that succumbs to poverty and eventually radical ideals? The terrible efforts to rebuild a "democracy" following the invasion of Iraq contributed to the birthing of ISIS. Have we reached a point in time where the unspeakable actions of the terrorist organization warrant a full-scale military campaign? In contrast, would you support the continued reliance of drone strikes while increasing our humanitarian relief to the Middle East?

    I'd like to hear your opinions and the above questions are posed to create an informative discussion. I urge you to listen to this debate:

    http://intelligencesquaredus.org/debate … -defeated.

    1. rhamson profile image77
      rhamsonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      This has been and still is a political problem. By overthrowing Saddam Hussein we destabilized the region and this is the result. We all thought of Hussein as a brutal and inhumane monster but we now see the element he was fighting up close and in our face. With the constant on and off again love affair between ISIS and the Taliban and remnants of Al Qaeda, we should just let them hash it out for themselves. But knowing the US we will not even let that sit as we strive to find another dictator we can install to our liking.

      1. AlexTomczuk profile image70
        AlexTomczukposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        I agree. The US should supply efforts to fight ISIS, but moderate Muslims need to step up. The Sunni dominated countries need to take a stand against the fundamentalism rising in their religion.

        I'd really like to see an increase in humanitarian relief through the acceptance of refugees and increased efforts to provide medical supplies and other necessities. I find poverty to be a motivating factor in the growing support of groups, like ISIS. Fortunately, Al-Qaeda has denounced any ties to ISIS and has condemned their actions.

        1. rhamson profile image77
          rhamsonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          I think the Iraqi, Syrian region should be starved of any support from the world powers with regards to their violent actions except to destroy any terroristic activity outside the Iraq and Syrian region. Allow the refugees to move out of the region and resettle, and put sanctions against any other countries supplying arms, supplies or money. Destroy their capabilities to produce any oil for sale and let them hash it out for themselves. Let them figure it out for themselves and when they want to join the world again in a peaceful way slowly roll the support back in place. If the people remaining in the region wish to live and operate under such a starved and desolate regime then they should be allowed to do so.

  2. ahorseback profile image60
    ahorsebackposted 2 years ago

    This ALL comes down to our political influences around the world AND how they evolve  in the future .  No  , no more boots on the ground !    All we need is Intelligence  and Drones  ,I believe  these two alone will be controlling the morphing of our socio-political -economic influences of the "our" future .
    Imagine , no longer having to  provide the 'policing ' of the world ,     Do all of it from the air , as far as I'm concerned .

  3. Kathleen Cochran profile image81
    Kathleen Cochranposted 2 years ago

    I think Rhamson's plan sounds like it is worth a try.  Especially since we are out of options. 

    Should the US put "boots on the ground" and essentially invade regions controlled by ISIS, like that of Syria and Iraq?  We can't.  Our military is rung out. 14 years of war will do that.  We couldn't mount an invasion any more than we could in Iraq (after the shock and awe wore off) because you can't just "go to war with the Army you have" circa D. Rumsfeld.  You go with overwhelming strength and the resources to get you to your desired outcome.  That's what we learned from Vietnam.  That is how we were so successful in Desert Storm.  Then we systematically dismantled the largest, best trained and equipped all-volunteer fighting force on the planet.  Then?  We went to war on two fronts for a decade.  A strong military is not just how you win wars.  It is how you keep the peace.   

    We need time to rebuild.  We need to stop using up our military and their families like they are nothing more than a bottomless box of Kleenex.  We need more of everything and that takes time.  Whatever buys us that time, that's what we need to do.  Simply put:  Unless you are willing to go be the boots on the ground yourself, stop suggesting it.