PDA

View Full Version : Donald Trump says it could take 30,000 U.S. troops to defeat ISIS



sparks82
03-11-2016, 02:59 PM
http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/election/2016/03/10/gop-debate-12-isis-va/81627892/

Agree or disagree?

I don't think we need that many. We do need some forces to go in and would be relatively easy. We know Daesh (I don't like to call them any of the other acronym names and they hate this name) is based in Raqqa. They don't really leave. It would be a lot easier than Iraq or Afghanistan because the fighters aren't majority local. The people there hate Daesh. They would definitely not fight them. They would point out where they all are located.

We could be in and out relatively quick and probably little to no casualties. Definitely we don't need thousands of troops. I would like for us to get out of that shithole of the world as quick as possible and stay out.

Mjölnir
03-11-2016, 03:07 PM
http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/election/2016/03/10/gop-debate-12-isis-va/81627892/

Agree or disagree?

I don't think we need that many. We do need some forces to go in and would be relatively easy. We know Daesh (I don't like to call them any of the other acronym names and they hate this name) is based in Raqqa. They don't really leave. It would be a lot easier than Iraq or Afghanistan because the fighters aren't majority local. The people there hate Daesh. They would definitely not fight them. They would point out where they all are located.

We could be in and out relatively quick and probably little to no casualties. Definitely we don't need thousands of troops. I would like for us to get out of that shithole of the world as quick as possible and stay out.

The number is likely close to what would be needed. Taking into account that for every combatant we have on the ground we will have 5-7 in some type of combat support role supply & logistics, transport, intel, etc. that is about 6,000 or so trigger pullers and all the associated support folks, understanding that we tend to implore the 'Powell Doctrine' and prefer overwhelming strike capabilities we would likely use a high force on force ratio.

The long term issue isn't killing them, that is relatively easy and if allowed we are fairly good at it. It is combating the radical mentality that they hold that is not solely isolated to the area. ISIS is one of the worst as far as radicalization, but killing them and not addressing what led to them is a much harder problem.

UncaRastus
03-11-2016, 03:20 PM
In the past, surges were used to defeat the enemy. That strategy worked pretty well. Putting on surges requires a buttload of troops, instead of just spreading out a few, over a large territory.

Do a blitzkrieg, with enough troops, airpower, combat arms, and tanks, seemed to be much more effective, rather than trying to teach a few (and largely failing in doing that), and putting out small patrols.

Each time that the US did a surge, the enemy was wiped out in the contested area.

Trying to do that with smaller units was not nearly as effective..

sparks82
03-11-2016, 04:16 PM
In the past, surges were used to defeat the enemy. That strategy worked pretty well. Putting on surges requires a buttload of troops, instead of just spreading out a few, over a large territory.

Do a blitzkrieg, with enough troops, airpower, combat arms, and tanks, seemed to be much more effective, rather than trying to teach a few (and largely failing in doing that), and putting out small patrols.

Each time that the US did a surge, the enemy was wiped out in the contested area.

Trying to do that with smaller units was not nearly as effective..

If the surges in the last 15 years had worked we wouldn't have Daesh or Al Qaeda or Boko Haram or any of these groups in existence. In fact, our presence in Iraq facilitated the creation of Daesh.

Killing them would slow things down. Of course you won't ever stop it. You can't kill an ideology.

UncaRastus
03-11-2016, 05:15 PM
The surges were not used to take the whole region, but to take certain parts of that region. They worked very well.

As to ideology, you are correct. We won't ever win, if we can't somehow find a way to crush the ideology of those that want to take the US down.

We seemed to find a way to do that, post WW2, to crush out the Nazi ideology. And then some guy named George Lincoln Rockwell started it up over here, in the US. The neo Nazi groups are doing well, over here, to this day.

Since the first bombing of the Twin Towers, back in 1993, the world began to become more and more anti USA. Not as if we didn't have enough hatred towards us in the first place.

So, then ...

How are we supposed to defeat this way of thinking? Once the fuse had been lit on the taking over of the USA, this movement has grown beyond our power to take it down, as a whole.

This is my opinion, only.

USN - Retired
03-11-2016, 05:31 PM
Perhaps if we pull all our military forces out of the middle east, then ISIS, al Qaeda, and other Islamic terrorist organizations will stop attacking us.

And while we are at it...

Our leadership should stop making an issue about the Ukraine and the South China Sea. I don't see why our country needs to be concerned about the Ukraine and the South China Sea.

sparks82
03-11-2016, 05:33 PM
The surges were not used to take the whole region, but to take certain parts of that region. They worked very well.

As to ideology, you are correct. We won't ever win, if we can't somehow find a way to crush the ideology of those that want to take the US down.

We seemed to find a way to do that, post WW2, to crush out the Nazi ideology. And then some guy named George Lincoln Rockwell started it up over here, in the US. The neo Nazi groups are doing well, over here, to this day.

Since the first bombing of the Twin Towers, back in 1993, the world began to become more and more anti USA. Not as if we didn't have enough hatred towards us in the first place.

So, then ...

How are we supposed to defeat this way of thinking? Once the fuse had been lit on the taking over of the USA, this movement has grown beyond our power to take it down, as a whole.

This is my opinion, only.

So then we didn't really eradicate the Nazi ideology...technically if you eradicate it no one would ever start it up again.

I'm just saying we could slow down Daesh and wouldn't need a mass amount of troops to do it. They're already having trouble paying their fighters right now. Maybe once people see more and more it's not very lucrative, they won't be able to recruit. I don't know. I saw it and thought this might make a good post since a lot of them on here are years old.

USN - Retired
03-11-2016, 05:34 PM
Since the first bombing of the Twin Towers, back in 1993, the world began to become more and more anti USA. Not as if we didn't have enough hatred towards us in the first place..

That's because our government (both Democrats and Republicans) is always meddling in other countries.

garhkal
03-11-2016, 05:56 PM
The number is likely close to what would be needed. Taking into account that for every combatant we have on the ground we will have 5-7 in some type of combat support role supply & logistics, transport, intel, etc. that is about 6,000 or so trigger pullers and all the associated support folks, understanding that we tend to implore the 'Powell Doctrine' and prefer overwhelming strike capabilities we would likely use a high force on force ratio.

The long term issue isn't killing them, that is relatively easy and if allowed we are fairly good at it. It is combating the radical mentality that they hold that is not solely isolated to the area. ISIS is one of the worst as far as radicalization, but killing them and not addressing what led to them is a much harder problem.

Very true. We can kill every member of ISIS/AQAP/AL shabbab/Boko Haram etc tomorrow. The next week there will be more wanting to do the same.. So until we get their OWN religion to address the issue, imo it won't ever change.

MikeKerriii
03-12-2016, 05:04 AM
The number is likely close to what would be needed. Taking into account that for every combatant we have on the ground we will have 5-7 in some type of combat support role supply & logistics, transport, intel, etc. that is about 6,000 or so trigger pullers and all the associated support folks, understanding that we tend to implore the 'Powell Doctrine' and prefer overwhelming strike capabilities we would likely use a high force on force ratio.

The long term issue isn't killing them, that is relatively easy and if allowed we are fairly good at it. It is combating the radical mentality that they hold that is not solely isolated to the area. ISIS is one of the worst as far as radicalization, but killing them and not addressing what led to them is a much harder problem.

I think you are making the Rumsfeld blunder, thinking that killing the initial enemy ends the war, We sat on Germany and Japan for years and that helped them put aside their previous barbarity,


I think the umber required would be a order of magnitude greater and take decades if it is even possible, since you will have to kill whatever replaces them, and what replaces that,