To answer the question in the OP:

If we get rid of restrictive ROEs, yes.
If we don't get rid of restrictive ROEs, no.

So the policy decision rests on whether the objective is valuable enough to ease the ROE's to achieve it. IMO that's the appropriate discussion to have about every possible use of military force. And where military force must be shackled by restrictive ROE's, the solution is not an appropriate one for military force.

If we send in troops, it's with essentially unrestricted ROEs.
If we are not willing to have unrestricted ROEs, then we can't send in troops.
It's that simple.

Never fight a war that you don't intend to win. In to win, or don't go in.

(11-17-2015 11:53 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(11-17-2015 11:50 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(11-17-2015 11:46 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(11-17-2015 11:42 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(11-17-2015 11:39 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  This!

When obummer took office, they changed the rules of engagement on us. Thats why 75% of all of the deaths in the war have occurred under potus

My brother (Major - US Army) did 2 tours in the Middle East (Iraq & Afghanistan) and when he was there, he had to have a stupid orange plug in the barrel of his rifle while on base. Pretty obvious to anyone who might want to kill him. Also, the Africans (Ugandans, maybe?) who were guarding the US base (makes no sense) also had their guns plugged.

When was this? and yeah I remember the Ugandas, they wouldnt let us walk into the chow hall in TQ, an air force air base in Iraq, with our rifles, I always thought that was stupid.

It was a whole lot different once we got to Hurricane Point in Ramadi, where we were the only ones there

Iraq in 2010 (Dhi Qar Province)
Afghanistan in 2013 (Bagram)

Yeah, that was way after me. I was in Ramadi from September 2006 to May 2007.

Thank you for your service!

(11-17-2015 01:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  To answer the question in the OP:

If we get rid of restrictive ROEs, yes.
If we don't get rid of restrictive ROEs, no.

So the policy decision rests on whether the objective is valuable enough to ease the ROE's to achieve it. IMO that's the appropriate discussion to have about every possible use of military force. And where military force must be shackled by restrictive ROE's, the solution is not an appropriate one for military force.

rolling with the good guy/bad guy (bibble) argument....

if one is willing to accept murder as an acceptable means to an end, then true, that is plausible 'bad guy' collateral becomes acceptable by 'good guy'

if one is not willing, then no, it becomes more bbs fodder as more 'good guy' innocents die...

the premise now becomes defining acceptability...and there have been treaties signed in relative terms that define this....

I can only conclude that status quo tactics continue within the context you present

skipped steps for simplification and made assumptions...

Putin's has it right, "we will hunt them down on any part of the planet and punish them".

What a contrast to our impotent dolt that resides at 1600 PA Avenue.

(11-17-2015 01:46 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  Putin's has it right, "we will hunt them down on any part of the planet and punish them".

What a contrast to our impotent dolt that resides at 1600 PA Avenue.

Vlad had BlackJack and Backfire Strategic Bombers hit Targets in Syria last night. He's coming to play hard.

http://theaviationist.com/2015/11/17/rus...a-air-war/

(11-17-2015 02:12 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(11-17-2015 01:46 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  Putin's has it right, "we will hunt them down on any part of the planet and punish them".

What a contrast to our impotent dolt that resides at 1600 PA Avenue.

Vlad had BlackJack and Backfire Strategic Bombers hit Targets in Syria last night. He's coming to play hard.

http://theaviationist.com/2015/11/17/rus...a-air-war/

I always liked new toys too....

now is as good of time as any to unveil some real firepower.....

now if shock and awe would take out some villages, I'd really be happy....

they like eye for an eye???......time to do just that....

(11-17-2015 01:37 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(11-17-2015 01:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  To answer the question in the OP:

If we get rid of restrictive ROEs, yes.
If we don't get rid of restrictive ROEs, no.

So the policy decision rests on whether the objective is valuable enough to ease the ROE's to achieve it. IMO that's the appropriate discussion to have about every possible use of military force. And where military force must be shackled by restrictive ROE's, the solution is not an appropriate one for military force.

rolling with the good guy/bad guy (bibble) argument....

if one is willing to accept murder as an acceptable means to an end, then true, that is plausible 'bad guy' collateral becomes acceptable by 'good guy'

if one is not willing, then no, it becomes more bbs fodder as more 'good guy' innocents die...

the premise now becomes defining acceptability...and there have been treaties signed in relative terms that define this....

I can only conclude that status quo tactics continue within the context you present

skipped steps for simplification and made assumptions...

The thing is that the negotiated terms for an end to hostilities have delivered and are well known; convert or die. So it transcends notions of good and bad. It's about what kind of world do people want to live in.

Military solution for ISIS?

First of all we have to drive them into hiding by bombing them/killing them every time they get together in large groups. That means that every time they advance on any city in the world we dispatch armor of some sort to blow them all up. Think 200 daisy cutters raining down on an ISIS unit. Total carnage.

Then when they take to hiding, we relentlessly search and destroy.

It will take time, dedication, and lives to get it done correctly.

(11-17-2015 03:33 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  Military solution for ISIS?

First of all we have to drive them into hiding by bombing them/killing them every time they get together in large groups. That means that every time they advance on any city in the world we dispatch armor of some sort to blow them all up. Think 200 daisy cutters raining down on an ISIS unit. Total carnage.

Then when they take to hiding, we relentlessly search and destroy.

It will take time, dedication, and lives to get it done correctly.

This is a plan I can get behind.

(11-17-2015 03:27 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(11-17-2015 01:37 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(11-17-2015 01:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  To answer the question in the OP:

If we get rid of restrictive ROEs, yes.
If we don't get rid of restrictive ROEs, no.

So the policy decision rests on whether the objective is valuable enough to ease the ROE's to achieve it. IMO that's the appropriate discussion to have about every possible use of military force. And where military force must be shackled by restrictive ROE's, the solution is not an appropriate one for military force.

rolling with the good guy/bad guy (bibble) argument....

if one is willing to accept murder as an acceptable means to an end, then true, that is plausible 'bad guy' collateral becomes acceptable by 'good guy'

if one is not willing, then no, it becomes more bbs fodder as more 'good guy' innocents die...

the premise now becomes defining acceptability...and there have been treaties signed in relative terms that define this....

I can only conclude that status quo tactics continue within the context you present

skipped steps for simplification and made assumptions...

The thing is that the negotiated terms for an end to hostilities have delivered and are well known; convert or die. So it transcends notions of good and bad. It's about what kind of world do people want to live in.

hence, using good and bad as the preface to define that conclusion.....it's due to the lack of being able to to define "acceptable" as a culture other than what is currently documented and how does this change what currently exists....

I completely agree it goes beyond good and bad.....too many don't understand that....

one can't only want good or bad....they have to understand what it takes to achieve such....

Here's the elephant in the room. If you had a popular election among the people of western Iraq and eastern Syria, over the question of who should rule them, and the choices were a) Iraq, b) Syria, c) Iran, or d) ISIS, I'm guessing the results would be something like a) 20%, b) 20%, c) 5%, and d) 55%. Any efforts to oppose ISIS comes with the implicit problem of what happens after we impose an unpopular ruler upon the people. It's not like we haven't made that mistake a time or two in the past.

(11-17-2015 04:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Here's the elephant in the room. If you had a popular election among the people of western Iraq and eastern Syria, over the question of who should rule them, and the choices were a) Iraq, b) Syria, c) Iran, or d) ISIS, I'm guessing the results would be something like a) 20%, b) 20%, c) 5%, and d) 55%. Any efforts to oppose ISIS comes with the implicit problem of what happens after we impose an unpopular ruler upon the people. It's not like we haven't made that mistake a time or two in the past.

Time to go back to city-states instead of nations. The only problem is that they have better weapons now.

Vlad is playing propaganda on this. He has Strategic Bombers with a payload approximating 1.25 times that of a B-52 dropping stealth cruise missiles against ISIS targets that have zero air defense capability. Here's the video.

http://theaviationist.com/2015/11/17/rus...-in-syria/

Russians admitted the Sinai crash was a Bomb. Old news. But if you are going to bomb Jihadis who live in the Stone Age back to the Stone Age you don't need Stealth ALCM to do it.

You Carpet Bomb ISIS Towns and Installations with as many Dumb Iron Bombs as a BlackJack will carry. And that's a lot of Iron.

(11-17-2015 04:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Here's the elephant in the room. If you had a popular election among the people of western Iraq and eastern Syria, over the question of who should rule them, and the choices were a) Iraq, b) Syria, c) Iran, or d) ISIS, I'm guessing the results would be something like a) 20%, b) 20%, c) 5%, and d) 55%. Any efforts to oppose ISIS comes with the implicit problem of what happens after we impose an unpopular ruler upon the people. It's not like we haven't made that mistake a time or two in the past.

I agree with this....

now, help me with this logically.....if they've been fighting for xxxx yrs over all this bs, and there is no immediate end in sight, then how is isolated slaughter not the preferred move at this point from the coalition....is it the globe being able to voice humanitarian concerns instantaneously regardless of which side kills whom, how, or how many?

(11-17-2015 04:31 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  Vlad is playing propaganda on this. He has Strategic Bombers with a payload approximating 1.25 times that of a B-52 dropping stealth cruise missiles against ISIS targets that have zero air defense capability. Here's the video.

http://theaviationist.com/2015/11/17/rus...-in-syria/

Russians admitted the Sinai crash was a Bomb. Old news. But if you are going to bomb Jihadis who live in the Stone Age back to the Stone Age you don't need Stealth ALCM to do it.

You Carpet Bomb ISIS Towns and Installations with as many Dumb Iron Bombs as a BlackJack will carry. And that's a lot of Iron.

XACLY! it's time to wipe off that dust....they need to hear the rapture of that old testament book that got misplaced in the wrong cubby of new....

(11-17-2015 04:36 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(11-17-2015 04:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Here's the elephant in the room. If you had a popular election among the people of western Iraq and eastern Syria, over the question of who should rule them, and the choices were a) Iraq, b) Syria, c) Iran, or d) ISIS, I'm guessing the results would be something like a) 20%, b) 20%, c) 5%, and d) 55%. Any efforts to oppose ISIS comes with the implicit problem of what happens after we impose an unpopular ruler upon the people. It's not like we haven't made that mistake a time or two in the past.

I agree with this....

now, help me with this logically.....if they've been fighting for xxxx yrs over all this bs, and there is no immediate end in sight, then how is isolated slaughter not the preferred move at this point from the coalition....is it the globe being able to voice humanitarian concerns instantaneously regardless of which side kills whom, how, or how many?

You have to understand what ISIS is. It's basically the evolution of the Religious portion of Al Qaeda in Iraq and the Sunni Officers of Saddam's Republican Guard providing the Military capabilities.

The US knows who the major players are since we had them in Custody in Prisons in Iraq or had them under watch in 2003-2010.

Wholesale Carpet Bombing of Targets on a scale such as Dresden or Hamburg may well happen and is justified. But it won't be the US doing the Bombing.

"My brother and I will fight my cousin, my cousin and I will fight the world."

We still don't understand the implications of that.

(11-17-2015 11:23 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-17-2015 11:14 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(11-17-2015 11:11 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-17-2015 09:23 AM)Hitch Wrote:  

(11-17-2015 08:56 AM)Claw Wrote:  I would term my strategy Baby Hiroshmia.

I would recommend researching each dead terrorist and simply eradicating the village he grew up in. If he grew up in a city, eradicate his mosque and and 3-mile perimeter.

When the cost of their actions is more than they gain, they will quit.

You want it to stop? You have mama and daddy sending letters saying : "Don't do it son, or they will destroy our entire village. All of your family and friends will die. Are you trying to kill us, son? Come home."

Do this and you are done in 6 months. But you have to be ruthless and simply kill everyone. We don't have that will.

Everyone sees the irony of bombing civilians in retaliation for civilian bombings, right?

Actually I don't see the irony. In fact, civilians were largely a part of warfare for virtually all of human history aside from the last 40 years when ordinance became "smart" and during portions of the 1700s and 1800s in Europe during musket era warfare.

It's called collateral damage. It sucks.

The only way to get ISIS to stop using human shields and hiding in hospitals is to show them that the tactic won't work. How do we do that? Bomb the holy hell out of some of them, and show them that we HAVE the stomach for it, even if we don't. They'll change tactics.

I get it. The alternative is to send ground troops into the region and to then risk our soldiers to fight against terrorists who use human shields - which puts U.S. soldiers at even greater risk because their orders are to minimize civilian casualties. Truman weighed these factors greatly until he elected to go with the nukes on Japan. Germany was carpet bombed without mercy because Hitler refused to surrender when it was obvious that he was going to lose the war.

You're right, it does suck. But I don't know what the alternatives are unless you make the Middle East a "no go" zone where you shut your borders completely against anyone from the ME coming to the U.S. and forbid anyone from the U.S. from going to the ME. Maybe the goal should be to shut the borders completely. Blockade all ME nations from leaving their countries and trade, until they clean up their own Jihadi mess.

Hmm, even that wouldn't do it, you'd have to stop people from Pakistan, Indonesia, and a number of African countries too. I'm not sure where you'd draw the line.

(11-17-2015 04:50 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(11-17-2015 04:36 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(11-17-2015 04:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Here's the elephant in the room. If you had a popular election among the people of western Iraq and eastern Syria, over the question of who should rule them, and the choices were a) Iraq, b) Syria, c) Iran, or d) ISIS, I'm guessing the results would be something like a) 20%, b) 20%, c) 5%, and d) 55%. Any efforts to oppose ISIS comes with the implicit problem of what happens after we impose an unpopular ruler upon the people. It's not like we haven't made that mistake a time or two in the past.

I agree with this....

now, help me with this logically.....if they've been fighting for xxxx yrs over all this bs, and there is no immediate end in sight, then how is isolated slaughter not the preferred move at this point from the coalition....is it the globe being able to voice humanitarian concerns instantaneously regardless of which side kills whom, how, or how many?

You have to understand what ISIS is. It's basically the evolution of the Religious portion of Al Qaeda in Iraq and the Sunni Officers of Saddam's Republican Guard providing the Military capabilities.

The US knows who the major players are since we had them in Custody in Prisons in Iraq or had them under watch in 2003-2010.

Wholesale Carpet Bombing of Targets on a scale such as Dresden or Hamburg may well happen and is justified. But it won't be the US doing the Bombing.

see my response to your post in #75

the subtle debate (as I understand it) is about what is acceptable to the global population and can it actually happen....

one has already witnessed the media backlash from 'those' detainees....

hell, I would love to see zero in cheerleader drag whilst pushing for carpet slice and dice action by those that are in the zone....I'm easily in favor of the US not getting further engaged.....

it sucks I have to state this every single time....

am I missing something here?

This situation will be perpetual unless a truly merciless, violent, and combined assault on ISIS occurs. When I say merciless, I mean it in the most literal fashion. Period. Like it or not, that is what would have to happen.