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

[Ispanico]

I disagree with the sending of ground troops for now. It will mean the loss of a lot of lives to the fighting. We're not talking about some rebels with sticks and stones, they have advanced military gear, weapons and vehicles. Though they may not have the latest technology or the best training, there are still thousands and thousands of them with deadly weapons, and it's bound to cause a lot of casualties if ground troops are sent in.

Besides, the history of involvement in the Middle East has an extremely poor track record, and I believe sending in ground troops would only help to ignite the fire and help them get more supporters and recruits, further worsening the situation.

 

[DancingLady]

At this point I would say no. I am a little hesitant on this issue because I do not really understand what the leaders are wanting to do and how many troops they would be wanting to send. My gut reaction is to want to stay out of it entirely, but that could be my selfishness speaking. Most important question if we do go in, Do we have an exit plan?

 

[TommyVercetti]

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.

Agreed, that is the ideal scenario. HOWEVER, I don't think the containment phase is working at full force here. Even now, ISIS is receiving recruits from countries all around the world, even from the US. They manipulated angsty teenagers and turn them into fresh-faced young recruits through social media propaganda. It's no kept secret either. These new recruits still manage to go behind enemy lines. If people can pass trough containment, resources can too.

 

[xTinx]

When you talk about all-out war, you have to cover all surfaces. In addition to air and water defense, it's also necessary to dispatch ground troops. They'll serve as the front lines but at the same time a ruse. The bigger damage would come from drones and fighter jets. While ISIS terrorists are busy trying to ward off attack from the front, they won't have enough time to look up or watch their back.

 

[jonjonscove]

Yeah I think that ground control would give more opportunity to eliminate the enemy. And get more accurate targets.

 

[jonjonscove]

I would definitely go with the U.S. and the UK. I think that they have the best training and technology.

 

[Redheart]

Sending "Western" ground troops would make things worse.

It would be much better IMO for the Arab League to intervene. This would upset ISIS's plans to make the war against them appear to be a war against Islam. Their plans all along have been to draw in the U.S, the U.K and others then they'd try to convince all Muslims to join them to fight those whose desire is to destroy Islam. Those who'd believe their lies . . .

For that reason I believe, the only army which will eventually defeat ISIS must be an "Arab/Muslim" army.

 

[Gelsemium]

What do you mean by that Falcon, why do you think that if a ground invasion happens the Iraqi army will gain no experience? If they are able to create a joint force I see it precisely as the opposite.

 

[gmckee1985]

I have no idea why we haven't gone in there with ground troops yet. This president is just so hesitant. Our military personnel want to make a different yet the Commander in Chief won't give them the go ahead. It's very disappointing. Obama is allowing ISIS to gain more and more territory and I don't see that ending anytime soon, sadly.

 

[westmixxin]

I think it would be a horrible idea they pose no threat to us whatsoever. Whatever they do over there is the business of that country not the business of Americans. We're not the world's police every time something happens they look to us to change and infiltrate. Until they attack us directly we should let the situation resolve itself.

 

[mattattack]

I think that's what they want. I don't know as much about isis as I should, but if you read The Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright he explains that the purpose of Al Quaeda was to draw the west into a war and create as many martyrs as possible. These arent logical thinking enemies.

 

[003]

I will support all the ways to defeat the ISIS except nuclear and biological, as the two would leave no mercy for people even who are not ISIS. As much as possible the attack should be concentrated to the ISIS only and must include the least amount of pedestrians, if not none. And because ground troops, despite that less modern and more timely, target just their target, I think it'd still be appropriate this time.

 

[Pinoy Jade]

Ground troops are much better and i also support the team. It is because Airstrike kills lots of innocent people and many lives has been lost. The fact that many innocent people are being killed because of it. Ground troops create a better and effective way of eliminating the said ISIS group of terrorists.

 

[Scorpion]

Ground troops are much better and i also support the team. It is because Airstrike kills lots of innocent people and many lives has been lost. The fact that many innocent people are being killed because of it. Ground troops create a better and effective way of eliminating the said ISIS group of terrorists.

No need for ground troops at all. Just evacuate civilians and increase airstrikes and then deploy ground troops. Its not how you think, airstrikes are guided missiles and bombs. Its not free drop on an x-y location.

 

[Pinoy Jade]

No need for ground troops at all. Just evacuate civilians and increase airstrikes and then deploy ground troops. Its not how you think, airstrikes are guided missiles and bombs. Its not free drop on an x-y location.

Based on real life situations, airstrikes are indeed guided missiles though we cannot assure the safety and security of all innocent people. Innocent people are being sacrificed during the airstrike just to eliminate the ISIS group. Locations is being manipulated through coordinates though airstrike still just make worst of the ISIS groups making them more angry killing innocent people. THough i agree with your idea