Islamic State areas of control in Syria and Iraq
VOA: Experts: Bullets, Bombs, Optimism Not Enough to Destroy Islamic State
WASHINGTON—Fear of Islamic State terror attacks on American and European soil has pushed the U.S., Britain and Germany to expand and intensify their military actions and airstrikes against the extremists.
But more bombs, while important, are not going to be enough to defeat Islamic State, said Barry Pavel, Director of the Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security.
“Hitting more targets, that’s a good thing,” Pavel acknowledged. “And the only way to do that is to increase the tempo of military operations. Every little bit helps.”
WNU Editor: I think everyone knows what needs to be done .... a deployment of hundreds of thousands of troops (maybe a million), trillions of dollars, an occupation as hard and as strict (if not stricter) as it was in Germany after the Second World War, and a presence that will remain in the Middle East for decades. But there is no political or public will for such a course of action .... hence this debate continues on "what needs to be done" .... which all comes down to on "how can we best contain the situation".
Update: The pretend war: why bombing Isil won't solve the problem: The deployment of our military might in Syria will exacerbate regional disorder – and it will solve nothing (Andrew J. Bacevich, Spectator).
6 comments:
Hundreds of thousands of fighting men to just hang around the area for a couple of years and then go home again. ISIS published its battle strategy some time ago and faced with those odds they will hide their weapons, shave off their beards, meld into local society and wait until the West leaves. In the interim there will be bombings and shootouts in the Western world and the Mid East.
Such an occupation mirroring the German's would violate about every single Human Rights act ever written...
Unfortunately, I agree - removing the rule of law, savage action - executions and arrests without proof or trial... (similar to the strongmen who lead such nations before the US' involvement) but even then, would it quell the insurgency that would follow?
All in all, that would never happen. Such a region would require harsh population control which would be illegal by many ratified international law agreements.
If armies were to be deployed, Iraq 2.0 would follow, where the West would dominate the conventional aspect of war, but utterly fail in keeping any resemblance of peace.
Interesting discussion regardless.
Honestly from a Syrian perspective a Russian invasion and occupation would probably be the best possible outcome. Because we could do it materially if we really wanted to, and we wouldn't mess up as much as the West would. Compare Putin in Chechnya with Bush in Iraq. The outcome - Assad or a replacement Assad with a different face plus his Iraqi equivalent, in conjunction with some local warlords who see which way the wind is blowing, would still be nasty but it would be vastly preferable to what is happening now. Thing is, Putin wouldn't do this. And Putin would be right from a Russian perspective, even if his reasons would be different. I don't want my fellow citizens to fight and die just to save the Middle East.
Or admit that assad isnt the anti christ tebuild rearm and re equip him . Work in tangent with syria and putin give the kurds a state within syria as part of the deal and tske control of turkeys borders
Daniel
The overwhelming majority of Russians are Orthodox Christians .
Russia has a moral obligation to their people .Russia shout not sale their soul to release the devil.
Correct daniel at least thats how l see it lol
Post a Comment