Skip to main content

FM
Former Member

Washington (CNN)Donald Trump's assertion that the United States has "no choice" but to send 20,000 to 30,000 combat troops to fight ISIS in the Middle East raises a slew of complicated questions, military analysts said Friday.

It also represents an about-face.

In October, Trump spoke of potential perils.

"Everybody that's touched the Middle East, they've gotten bogged down," Trump said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "I don't want to see the United States get bogged down. We've spent now $2 trillion in Iraq, probably a trillion in Afghanistan. We're destroying our country."

At the CNN-hosted debate Thursday night, the Republican presidential front-runner sounded a different note.

"We really have no choice. We have to knock out ISIS," he said. "I would listen to the generals, but I'm hearing numbers of 20,000 to 30,000."

Ohio Gov. John Kasich took the same position on the fight against ISIS, saying, "You have to be on the ground."

And Texas Sen. Ted Cruz urged that "we need to put whatever ground power is needed."

But military analysts say sending U.S. troops to fight ISIS raises complex issues, some of them strategic, many political and others simply logistical.

Replies sorted oldest to newest

yuji22 posted:

Thanks for your contribution but you and your opinion are of no value to Donald Trump.

Of course it is of no value to him or to you. He is oblivious to the reality that 2 times more people have voted against him than for him. Even with low turnout of dems. Hilliary numbers crushes his. On the national level he will be skewered. He has no depth.

FM

Yuji, what's playing out in the Middle East is civil war pure and simple. Terrorism is seen as acts in the West and these are conducted by cells of terror groups in the countries where these acts are perpetrated. The big terror group was Al Qaeda which has been downgraded. Al Nusra in Syria, Al Shaabab in Somalia and smaller groups have not had reach outside of their theater. ISIS is mostly domestic and is really Saddam Baathoists fighting Shiites and now the ruling Alawies in Syria. The Paris bombing, the San Bernadino and the other acts of late can be considered "inspired" rather than "planned and executed" by ISIS or Al Qaeda affiliates.

 

Syria has a humanitarian crisis and Europe is grappling wit refugees.

 

Now, what's the US to do, and does it require a strongman? Is Obama weak or strong? I contend that he's doing the smart thing.

 

Think about the following, Yuji.

The US does a lot of things for the world without fanfare. Keeping shipping lanes open and free from piracy if nothing to sneeze at. It costs a lot of money but only the US has the wherewithal to do it. Giving the world a GPS infrastructure for commerce and other activities using its space satellites in no mean thing either. The US is the world’s first responder to natural disasters and genocide.

The US military spends a lot to keep its bases all around the globe including south Korea, Japan, Germany and in the Middle East.

The US President can say anything about America’s obligations or lack thereof with the rest of the world, but it’s nuclear armaments and intelligence (costing a lot to upkeep) are still the hammer that keep the wolves at the door. The US keeps world peace by its presence alone. It does not have to walk into every playground and backyard to make its presence felt.

When it comes to trade and finance sanctions no one is better positioned to enforce it than the US – just ask Iran and Russia.

Obama knows the Middle East wars are mere civil wars. Assad’s Alawite is the US’s only hope sans Assad and an embrace of moderate Sunnis to the exclusion of Islamicists and Brotherhood, and Al-Nusra and ISIS. The only proxy war (and hence one layer removed) is Iran and Israel, and Obama knows Israel can take care of business. Obama knows the Ukraine is like America’s Monroe Doctrine in Latin America, and he wisely stays out of that jive except the theatrical mouthings of civil decency and the sanctions.

Obama is one smart dude. Unwittingly, Trump has the same thinking. He will carry the big stick and use it only when it meets the yardstick (no pun intended). Regan did likewise. He was just like Obama in that sense.

So don't go thinking that the Obama has curled up and gone weak. HE still got the Big Stick!

Kari
Prashad posted:

Trump has got to be the stupidest man. Those killers would love the opportunity to fight American troops on the ground.

Way back in 1990 These were the advise of many regarding fighting Iraq over the Kuwait invasion!!

Fighting ISIS must be Multi-pronged and knocking them out militarily must be part of the cocktail!!

Trump is very practical and realistic.

FM

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×