4 ms·

That sounds to me like Equipment is not what's needed, since there is hardly anyone reliable we can give the equipment to. How about deploying a few millions so

That sounds to me like Equipment is not what's needed, since there is hardly anyone reliable we can give the equipment to. How about deploying a few millions soldiers? A few million sounds like a unreasonably large number, but on the other hand there were 4 million soldiers in Stalingrad alone and we should be able to treat this situation as urgently as things were handled in WWII. To me ISIS is right up there with the Nazis. So let's go all out and get this done with!

rdl 11y ago
The Kurds, at least in Iraq, have consistently been friends of the US, and at least compared to the other states in the region, a basically progressive and moderate government. (There are issues with Turkey and Iran w.r.t. Kurds in those countries as well as with the idea of Kurdistan, since it would potentially redraw their own borders.) Aside from some very specialized troops (combat controllers and maybe some other SOF; high level logistics people to interface with the rest of the supply chain; some trainers and advisors) you could probably equip the Kurdish forces with modern weapons to good effect. The biggest issue is bypassing the Iraqi central government basically admits that Iraq is/was/will always be a failure, and guarantees it. This might cause both Iran and KSA to intervene in the territory. This could lead to escalation; I'd personally be willing to accept the status quo in Syria if the alternative is a regional war.
- comrade1 11y ago
  The Kurds may be friends with the u.s. but the u.s. has not been friends with the Kurds. Our relationship with nato ally turkey has taken precedence and we've turned a blind eye to terrible actions by turkey against the Kurds.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- fapjacks 11y ago
  Your last paragraph is prophetic and extremely salient.
angersock 11y ago
To me ISIS is right up there with the Nazis. So let's go all out and get this done with! You know, it was only when really forced to deal with things that we intervened with the Nazis. They were decent business partners otherwise.
nemo 11y ago
"we should be able to treat this situation as urgently as things were handled in WWII." The US went into WW II because of Pearl Harbor. We didn't go in after Hitler had invaded most of Europe. We did send war supplies but didn't send troops. The urgency was when Japan committed a formal and very humiliating act of war. So that's probably not a great example of the US treating things with urgency. ISIS is odious, but given that we create the conditions for their existence due to previous rash military action, it would be wise to get a proper multilateral response with a full commitment and some actual hope to actually manage the aftermath with some chance of not having another horrifying group fill the power vacuum once we've stopped bombing. Realistically it's a hideous situation where if we grind ISIS into the dirt, we'll be elevating Iran's power in the region even more when we already got rid of Saddam's regime and replaced him with an Iranian puppet.

rdl 11y ago

The Kurds, at least in Iraq, have consistently been friends of the US, and at least compared to the other states in the region, a basically progressive and moderate government. (There are issues with Turkey and Iran w.r.t. Kurds in those countries as well as with the idea of Kurdistan, since it would potentially redraw their own borders.) Aside from some very specialized troops (combat controllers and maybe some other SOF; high level logistics people to interface with the rest of the supply chain; some trainers and advisors) you could probably equip the Kurdish forces with modern weapons to good effect. The biggest issue is bypassing the Iraqi central government basically admits that Iraq is/was/will always be a failure, and guarantees it. This might cause both Iran and KSA to intervene in the territory. This could lead to escalation; I'd personally be willing to accept the status quo in Syria if the alternative is a regional war.

comrade1 11y ago
The Kurds may be friends with the u.s. but the u.s. has not been friends with the Kurds. Our relationship with nato ally turkey has taken precedence and we've turned a blind eye to terrible actions by turkey against the Kurds.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
fapjacks 11y ago
Your last paragraph is prophetic and extremely salient.

angersock 11y ago

To me ISIS is right up there with the Nazis. So let's go all out and get this done with! You know, it was only when really forced to deal with things that we intervened with the Nazis. They were decent business partners otherwise.

nemo 11y ago

"we should be able to treat this situation as urgently as things were handled in WWII." The US went into WW II because of Pearl Harbor. We didn't go in after Hitler had invaded most of Europe. We did send war supplies but didn't send troops. The urgency was when Japan committed a formal and very humiliating act of war. So that's probably not a great example of the US treating things with urgency. ISIS is odious, but given that we create the conditions for their existence due to previous rash military action, it would be wise to get a proper multilateral response with a full commitment and some actual hope to actually manage the aftermath with some chance of not having another horrifying group fill the power vacuum once we've stopped bombing. Realistically it's a hideous situation where if we grind ISIS into the dirt, we'll be elevating Iran's power in the region even more when we already got rid of Saddam's regime and replaced him with an Iranian puppet.