Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Matthew wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
Just when you thought it couldn't get worse than beheading videos it does.

Honestly what can be done about these guys now?

Short of nuking them.

The answer is easy: A coalition of nations (US, Europe, Middle East) need to commit ground forces to battling ISIL. Air strikes alone will not win anything. Training local militias and ethnic groups to fight back will not win anything. Pretending it is Iraq's problem will not win anything. Those nations that have professional armies need to commit them to destroying ISIL on the ground.

The problem is that none of the nations that can fight ISIL on the ground want to. The US is tired of ground wars and lengthy occupations (despite both being requirements for victory here) as are our allies. We don't have the will for it, and our leaders don't have the desire to lose their jobs enough to push for it. So instead we leave ourselve nothing but half-measures that will ultimately accomplish feth all.

squidhills wrote:

 Matthew wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
Just when you thought it couldn't get worse than beheading videos it does.

Honestly what can be done about these guys now?

Short of nuking them.

The answer is easy: A coalition of nations (US, Europe, Middle East) need to commit ground forces to battling ISIL. Air strikes alone will not win anything. Training local militias and ethnic groups to fight back will not win anything. Pretending it is Iraq's problem will not win anything. Those nations that have professional armies need to commit them to destroying ISIL on the ground.

The problem is that none of the nations that can fight ISIL on the ground want to. The US is tired of ground wars and lengthy occupations (despite both being requirements for victory here) as are our allies. We don't have the will for it, and our leaders don't have the desire to lose their jobs enough to push for it. So instead we leave ourselve nothing but half-measures that will ultimately accomplish feth all.

I don't think it's that easy. The problem isn't ISIS - it's Islam. Everyone is seriously underestimating the extent to which Western Muslims support ISIS. The ones who vehemently oppose ISIS are simply doing so because they're the "other type of Muslims." If there was ever a time to do away with the policy of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" it's right fething now.

Killing these goons over there is kind of pointless. We need to focus on the problem at home.

Everyone is seriously underestimating the extent to which Western Muslims support ISIS

You' re kidding right?

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

squidhills wrote:

 Matthew wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
Just when you thought it couldn't get worse than beheading videos it does.

Honestly what can be done about these guys now?

Short of nuking them.

The answer is easy: A coalition of nations (US, Europe, Middle East) need to commit ground forces to battling ISIL. Air strikes alone will not win anything. Training local militias and ethnic groups to fight back will not win anything. Pretending it is Iraq's problem will not win anything. Those nations that have professional armies need to commit them to destroying ISIL on the ground.

The problem is that none of the nations that can fight ISIL on the ground want to. The US is tired of ground wars and lengthy occupations (despite both being requirements for victory here) as are our allies. We don't have the will for it, and our leaders don't have the desire to lose their jobs enough to push for it. So instead we leave ourselve nothing but half-measures that will ultimately accomplish feth all.

I don't think it's that easy. The problem isn't ISIS - it's Islam. Everyone is seriously underestimating the extent to which Western Muslims support ISIS. The ones who vehemently oppose ISIS are simply doing so because they're the "other type of Muslims." If there was ever a time to do away with the policy of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" it's right fething now.

Killing these goons over there is kind of pointless. We need to focus on the problem at home.

Um...

*whembly raises his hand*

What's the problem "at home" again?

 Matthew wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
Just when you thought it couldn't get worse than beheading videos it does.

Honestly what can be done about these guys now?

Short of nuking them.[/

Conquest, occupation and deliberate cultural indoctrination. But people don't tend to look very kindly on that sort of thing these days.

 Ratius wrote:

Everyone is seriously underestimating the extent to which Western Muslims support ISIS

You' re kidding right?

No.

Try interacting with some of these people on the issue, or look at the numbers of young Muslims in the West who go to fight with ISIS.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/07/world/isis-western-draw/

http://www.ibtimes.com/isis-recruitment-reaches-unprecedented-scale-15000-foreign-jihadists-joining-militant-1716684


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

squidhills wrote:

 Matthew wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
Just when you thought it couldn't get worse than beheading videos it does.

Honestly what can be done about these guys now?

Short of nuking them.

The answer is easy: A coalition of nations (US, Europe, Middle East) need to commit ground forces to battling ISIL. Air strikes alone will not win anything. Training local militias and ethnic groups to fight back will not win anything. Pretending it is Iraq's problem will not win anything. Those nations that have professional armies need to commit them to destroying ISIL on the ground.

The problem is that none of the nations that can fight ISIL on the ground want to. The US is tired of ground wars and lengthy occupations (despite both being requirements for victory here) as are our allies. We don't have the will for it, and our leaders don't have the desire to lose their jobs enough to push for it. So instead we leave ourselve nothing but half-measures that will ultimately accomplish feth all.

I don't think it's that easy. The problem isn't ISIS - it's Islam. Everyone is seriously underestimating the extent to which Western Muslims support ISIS. The ones who vehemently oppose ISIS are simply doing so because they're the "other type of Muslims." If there was ever a time to do away with the policy of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" it's right fething now.

Killing these goons over there is kind of pointless. We need to focus on the problem at home.

Um...

*whembly raises his hand*

What's the problem "at home" again?

Religious Muslims, usually Sunnis, given the fact that Islamic terrorism is far from generation-blind. That is, secular parents who come to the West to build better lives raise children who grow up to be extremists, through no fault of their own mind you. It's about influences, and a male Sunni Muslim teenager who keeps in contact with religious Muslims has the concept of Martyrdom thrown in his face constantly.

I wonder if there's any revealed stats on how many young Muslims join the police, fire or Western military's per day.

Or become local GP's, working to help those who walk in their door, whoever they are.

I imagine the number is rather high.

The answer is easy: A coalition of nations (US, Europe, Middle East) need to commit ground forces to battling ISIL.

F that.
1. Every time we go into the Middle East it gets worse.
2. Every time we go for a humnitarian mission in the ME or North Africa it gets worse.
3. I see the same nattering chickenhawks (not you-the guys on TV) saying we have to invade invade invade. These are the same chickenhawks who have never been in a war - usually draft dodgers in college or "deferments" and none of their relatives are in any way in danger. RIch man's war Poor man's fight. F them, hard.
3. Its always been crazy. Let it stay crazy without us.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
ISIS has crossed into the realm of unbelievable, cartoonish supervilliany. They are like Nod from Command & Conqueror.

Led by an alien posing as a mythological creature?

Eventually.

 Ketara wrote:

 Matthew wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
Just when you thought it couldn't get worse than beheading videos it does.

Honestly what can be done about these guys now?

Short of nuking them.[/

Conquest, occupation and deliberate cultural indoctrination. But people don't tend to look very kindly on that sort of thing these days.

What about the WW2 Japan route? Involves nuking though...

How did it work in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia?

 Frazzled wrote:
How did it work in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia?

Did we use Nukes? And do we have "a General Douglas A. MacArthur" dude to lead the reconstruction work?

No.

Try interacting with some of these people on the issue, or look at the numbers of young Muslims in the West who go to fight with ISIS.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/07/world/isis-western-draw/

http://www.ibtimes.com/isis-recruitment-reaches-unprecedented-scale-15000-foreign-jihadists-joining-militant-1716684

15000 out of a population of 1.5 billion hardly equates to a heavy backing for ISIS amongst Western Muslims.
As the articles state most of these are the old disillusioned youth going off to fight for a cause which gives their otherwise mundane lives some sort of meaning.
Exact same thing happened up North during the troubles. Its the worst sort of sweeping generalisation and helps nothing and no one to propagate it.

 Frazzled wrote:
How did it work in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia?

It didn't work because it wasn't actually attempted.

You can't pull punches. We didn't with Japan or Germany, and now they're some of the most peaceful nations on the planet.

Both countries went from being straightup warmongers to right upstanding members of the international community. All within a couple decades.

MMM yes...if only we had a firmer hand.

Like Hussein or Khaddafy? Like Assad? All you're really saying is we need to put dictatorships back in. Where's a colonel with a tank column when you need one.

Let them find their own dictators.

 Frazzled wrote:
MMM yes...if only we had a firmer hand.

Like Hussein or Khaddafy? Like Assad? All you're really saying is we need to put dictatorships back in. Where's a colonel with a tank column when you need one.

Let them find their own dictators.

Yah... no man.

MacArthur and allied forces totally changed their culture too. That's the missing ingredient to that peaceful sauce man.

Don't get me started on Dugout Doug.

How do you change their culture again? What if they don't want to change their culture?
How exactly are you going to change this culture:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2939529/Slaughtered-entertainment-Crowds-gather-watch-barbaric-murder-Jordanian-pilot-specially-erected-giant-screens-streets-Raqqa-CHEER-airman-goes-flames.html#ixzz3QoIKAUZg

We don't need to change their entire culture. Just the stone age barbarian aspects of it.

I actually agree with Fraz... too much lately for my liking.

However, the problem is they are attacking our allies, and we have to help our allies or why would anyone bother to be our ally?

 Grey Templar wrote:
We don't need to change their entire culture. Just the stone age barbarian aspects of it.

HOW?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:
I actually agree with Fraz... too much lately for my liking.

However, the problem is they are attacking our allies, and we have to help our allies or why would anyone bother to be our ally?

Turkey is helping ISIS. Are you going to nuke one ally to protect another?
Saudi Arabia helps AQ. Are you going to nuke one ally to protect another?
Ever since we started developing "allies" we've been in more and more wars.

But you make a fair argument. To what extent does that help go?

Didn't the Germans do some bad stuff in WWII?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
We don't need to change their entire culture. Just the stone age barbarian aspects of it.

HOW?

Well, lets look at Japan.

1) We thoroughly defeated all military forces.

2) A relatively long period of martial law, along with aid distribution.

3) A slow education in the values of democracy, targeting younger generations. And eventual shift towards self-governance enforced by military might.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Japan

 Frazzled wrote:
Don't get me started on Dugout Doug.

How do you change their culture again? What if they don't want to change their culture?
How exactly are you going to change this culture:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2939529/Slaughtered-entertainment-Crowds-gather-watch-barbaric-murder-Jordanian-pilot-specially-erected-giant-screens-streets-Raqqa-CHEER-airman-goes-flames.html#ixzz3QoIKAUZg

How did we change the Japanese culture who did this:




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre

I mean, it's well documented that they committed henious atrocities.

I'd proffer that these Japanese war crimes are not that different than what these terrorist have committed.

How did we do that to Japan?

To be fair, that would be more difficult in this case. The Japanese were more unified than this current foe, who are just as likely to fight themselves as outsiders.

But it would still ultimately be worthwhile in the long run. But nobody has the stomach for what needs to be done.

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
How did it work in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia?

Did we use Nukes? And do we have "a General Douglas A. MacArthur" dude to lead the reconstruction work?

So we nuke them, kill their entire military, occupy them and kill anyone that doesn't get with the program.
Yea that might do it.

So everyone up for that? Show of hands. Not you Whembly. And take off your gas mask. I've told you before you can't eat pizza with a gas mask on.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
To be fair, that would be more difficult in this case. The Japanese were more unified than this current foe, who are just as likely to fight themselves as outsiders.

But it would still ultimately be worthwhile in the long run. But nobody has the stomach for what needs to be done.

Why will it be worthwhile?

 Frazzled wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
To be fair, that would be more difficult in this case. The Japanese were more unified than this current foe, who are just as likely to fight themselves as outsiders.

But it would still ultimately be worthwhile in the long run. But nobody has the stomach for what needs to be done.

Why will it be worthwhile?

We avoid WW3 with a future Islamic super power intent on conquering the world and bring stability to a region that has never had it.

These guys can't fight their way out of a paper bag. Super power is just funny.


Note: terrorism works:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/04/us-officials-key-arab-ally-no-longer-flying-airstrikes-over-syria/

All it takes is someone to unite them. Things can change quickly, letting them stew indefinitely is playing some dangerous odds.

 Frazzled wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
How did it work in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia?

Did we use Nukes? And do we have "a General Douglas A. MacArthur" dude to lead the reconstruction work?

So we nuke them, kill their entire military, occupy them and kill anyone that doesn't get with the program.
Yea that might do it.

So everyone up for that? Show of hands. Not you Whembly. And take off your gas mask. I've told you before you can't eat pizza with a gas mask on.

*cough*

I'll respond anyways.

I'd rather that we didn't as it took a surprised attack on Peal Harbor to get us engaged in WW2.

I'd rather we just stay out of it and let the rest of the world deal with it.

I'd only get involved if the rest of the world begged the US to intervene and only then.

Only then, Zombie McArthur would be available as our engagements would be on our terms.

 Grey Templar wrote:
All it takes is someone to unite them. Things can change quickly, letting them stew indefinitely is playing some dangerous odds.

So occupying all of North Africa, the ME, and Central Asia wouldn't unite them? Does someone have a spare million troops sitting around?
We've played the "they're the next Hitler!!!!! game far too many times in my life.

F that. We have oceans.