Would you support the use of ground troops to fight ISIS?

[Rowe992]

I want to know what you think about the UN sending in ground troops to fight against ISIS in Syria and Iraq. I would support the move because I think the airstrikes alone is not enough to repel them. They need to get rid of them once and for all and ground troops is the only way I see possible.

 

[Gelsemium]

This is the extreme case in which I would have to say yes, I would support them because ISIS are really causing too much damage and I think that ground troops is the most effective way to stop them.

 

[Brady2121]

ISIS is becoming a pretty big issue. So I do believe ground troops would be the most effective way to solve the problem.

 

[vegito12]

The ISIS have shown no mercy and enjoy killing anyone they get their hands on and this should awake them and take the belief no one can stop them and all should submit to them. They have became a concern and need to be stopped before they invade other countries, and cause mayhem and cause war against Muslim people. Some people have started to think all Muslims support this and are like this and has caused tension in countries they live in.

 

[Gelsemium]

I think that there are several reasons why ground troops aren't advancing just now. The first one is that it means a huge expense and the loss of lives. As for second, I think many countries might fear retaliations.

 

[timelord731]

No, I would not. Not unless ISIS attacks US soil.

 

[orangesunset]

Maybe overthrowing Saddah Hussien wasn't such a bright idea after all. Atleast the guy kept these fanatics under control. Maybe we should pull out of the area, within a couple of years a guy like Hussien will take over again, and put things back in order. We seem to be having a really bad track record with intervention, and in almost every case it makes things worse.

 

[Gelsemium]

Yeah, I agree with you on that. What do we prefer really, those people fighting Saddam or fighting our countries? We should have thought about that before.

 

[drc65]

I think the presence of ground troops would help ISIS to recruit more people. During the Iraq war I read many articles about how the presence of US soldiers lead to increased terrorist recruitment. Think about it this way, if there were Chinese soldiers walking around US soil, the US military would receive more recruits to help fight what appears as an invasion.

 

[stevesxs9]

Terrorist organizations such as ISIS don't have any rules when it comes war. Therefore they follow the rules of the Geneva Convention. So you must use any and every tactic to defeat them, from ground troops to any kind of special surveillance available.

 

[Shimus]

I'm with the "no" side, but if they continue we may not have a choice. The world is becoming outraged. If they see us coming or expect platoons, they will murder even more innocents than we know. We should use UAVs and similar bait-and-switch tactics to lure them to a town, draw them out (with a squad of soldiers) and have that squad fall back after painting them with air-to-ground missiles. Or similar traps and targets. They want a full-scale war on the ground, that's why they're doing what they are.

 

[Gelsemium]

I really don't get what ISIS are going for, they are doing whatever they feel like it, but at the same time there isn't a strong reaction. I mean, eventually the less we talk about them the better, that might be a strategy.

 

[Falcon29]

They can be beat with air power alone. Doing ground invasion is giving them what they want. It will help propagate their narrative to the Arab public. Imagine if such ground invasion extended into Syria(not only Iraq), and other Syrian opposition groups somehow got involved. It would upset a lot of people/nations.

The Iraqi troops/militias are deploying strategy of siege. They want to make ISIS in state of desperation but also shell cities in the process. They wait until they feel confident to advance. On ground they are afraid to advance though. Once they overcome that fear then it can be done.

So bottomline, US is deploying war of atrittion strategy. They aren't sucking up economy, at same time stopping ISIS's advances and helping offensive against them whilst trying to keep air power at moderate rate. Because Obama administration is well aware that heavy firepower will get sympathy for IS. So it's being handled well. I don't know why some people are in a rush.

Media campaign is most crucial factor. This is why we get Arab allies to help denounce them and decrease their popularity.

 

[TommyVercetti]

I don't think they can be beat easily with just conventional tactics. All the good that'll do is get our boys killed in the process. We need another plan of attack, and that involves international allegiances along the their borders of control. In fact, that is what the government is doing right now. All the news outlets are reporting a multitude of peace talks and dialogs in the region. I think it's only a matter of time.

 

[Falcon29]

I don't think they can be beat easily with just conventional tactics. All the good that'll do is get our boys killed in the process. We need another plan of attack, and that involves international allegiances along the their borders of control. In fact, that is what the government is doing right now. All the news outlets are reporting a multitude of peace talks and dialogs in the region. I think it's only a matter of time.

Keywords:

Containment/Attrition/Patience.

Strategy in the beginning was to contain ISIS from going on more offensives. After that was achieved, it was war of attrition where they forced ISIS into using up more of its resources and manpower. We are in still in this phase but also in last phase. Which is to have patience with strategy. It isn't shock and awe campaign, that doesn't work with militias. Attrition does. The planners know what they're doing much more than we do. Thyeve is mapped out timeline as well. And concluded troops arent needed.

Also a factor that plays into this is Iraqi army. If we do ground invasion, Iraqi army will gain no experience or able to prevent similiar occurrence in future. Which would mean another wasted effort. Its better to shoulder responsibility on Iraqi army so they can prevent this in future.