Fox News Poll: Majority Supports Ground Troops To Battle ISIS If Airstrikes Not Enough -- FOX News
Americans are clearly behind President Obama in the battle against ISIS. Still, they have a number of worries.
According to a Fox News national poll on terrorism and ISIS, voters think:
- The United States is at war with ISIS, but we don’t have a clear strategy for winning.
- Bombing ISIS is a good start, but it won’t finish the job.
- Obama should send ground troops if that’s what it takes to defeat ISIS - and it probably will be.
- The U.S. military has become less effective under Obama.
- It’s crazy to tell the enemy your plans.
Read more ....
My Comment: If past conflicts are any indication .... when the body bags start coming back home .... this support evaporates.
7 comments:
Excuse me while beat this dead horse some more. What is always missed in these polls is Americans are more than willing to go dig these guys out and finish them off, but are not willing to support any more wars that are not waged to win. This is what most Americans think and support, unfortunately this Administration (ideologically) and our upper political cadre (spineless, except for the pursuit of power) are not capable of fighting to win. So I don't know what to think beyond ground forces will committed piecemeal without a clear national objective of victory and we'll relive another fiasco.
Could not have said it any better James. You go to war to win, to occupy, to punish those who made the mess in the first palce, to rebuild, and to make sure that it does not happen again.
If not .... stay home.
I agree with James, and would offer the following additional thoughts:
1. The poll's finding that the American people would support ground troops show that the American people recognize (a) the threat ISIS presents to us, and (b) that ISIS must be destroyed. I don't think that Americans really want ground troops introduced into Iraq and Syria.
2. We cannot want Iraq and Syria to be free of ISIS more than the locals. Ultimately, the locals must be willing to fight, and perhaps die, if they don't want to be ruled by the caliphate. As my prior posts have said, I believe that the situation in the Middle East is analogous to the Thirty Yeas War.
3. Most of the locals, and their Governments, prefer to fight ISIS to the last American. They will fight ISIS themselves only if they believe that the United States won't do it for them. Amazingly, the Obama Administration seems to recognize this.
4. The air campaign has forced ISIS to change their tactics to be less "conventional". Even with the Western air campaign, the locals struggle to contain, let alone advance against, ISIS. Without the air campaign, I fear that ISIS would now control even more territory than it does.The air campaign has also damaged ISIS' ability to generate money. The black market for ISIS oil will continue, and oil sales will continue, but the damage to the refineries, etc. will crimp ISIS' revenues by reducing the flow. This is good.
5. The neighboring powers are beginning to realize that the West will not fight ISIS for them. Two examples: Iran recently admitted that it has soldiers in Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq already. Turkey's Parliament today approved use of Turkish troops in both Iraq and Syria.
6. None of the players are Western boy scouts who would set up a nice country like Finland. There are almost no good guys in this fight, including the neighbors. Moreover, the neighbors are in this to advance their national interests; for them, fighting ISIS is not the most important objective that trumps everything else.
7. It is not possible to defeat ISIS using Western force at a cost in blood and money that Western citizens are willing to pay. I personally am not willing to pay it. A more accurate way to describe the air campaign is that it provides an air force for the factions in Syria and Iraq, and for the neighbors, that enables their ground troops to take on ISIS on better terms. This channels the fight and, hopefully, contains it because most of the players' energy will be absorbed in the region. That is better than having that energy directed against us.
Thank you for your input Publius. You always have a knack to summarize and analyze everything nicely .... a quality that is always (sadly) a struggle for me. But I keep on trying.
Publius,
I like the Thirty Years War analogy. I think we'll also see a rise of the Free companies again as a mix to this brew. Turkey I think is acting like they'll join to 1) get world opinion off their backs 2) Send a message to the Kurds 3) Be in a position to snap up any deals that fall their way. Other than that not much, I just don't see the other actors wanting a return of Mehmet and a lot of low round furniture. The Iranians well they have to do something pretty or they lose Assad, Hezbollah, and a lot of money and effort. The wild card on US opinion is if ISIS gets a hold of an American troopie and executes him publicly, then I really don't know what would be the outcome.
It should read "the Iranians well they need to something pretty quick"
I agree with almost everything said except occupy and rebuild. Occupying a country should be as limited as possible. Rebuilding doesn't work in country's like Afghanistan and Iraq, if anything we should bill them. If we go to war and shed blood and treasure for any of these damn country's we should be compensated.
Post a Comment