So the fight with ISIS or ISIL, whatever you want to call it, continues to confuse me a little. They are constantly bombing areas that they think will deter or eliminate the ISIS militants, but all I hear is that the places they are bombing are empty buildings and small groups and compounds. I don't understand how our leaders think we can defeat an enemy like this in the manner that they are using. I do believe that bombing does help greatly if we hit them, and we need to keep doing it, but it can't be all that's done. I am not a military expert or a veteran, and I certainly thank them for what they do, but I think that if you want to fight an enemy that acts like a cockroach, then you need to use some “raid”. I honestly think that if they don't get some troops on the ground to actually kill the scum that they are fighting, then its waisting time and money, and many people will continue to be slaughtered by them. I am sure that there are political aspects of this campaign that I do not understand, but it doesn't seam like we are slowing them down much. We attack their oil in hopes to cut off their revenue stream, but we know that this is not the only stream of income that they utilize. We try to cut them off before they reach borders of towns, but after all the bombing efforts, they appear to be there anyway.
I saw an article that says despite U.S. air strikes, ISIS draw nearer to Baghdad. It is my understanding that Baghdad is a pretty big population, and if they get in there and start killing, it will be a big loss, and not to mention the amount of people they could recruit. Another article headline states, U.S. strategy in tatters as militants march on, and mentions that 10000 militants are at the gates of Baghdad. It is a scary thing to think of, and I could not imagine being there under those circumstances.
We have past military leaders, and experts, and even a couple of former presidents saying that we waited too long to start fighting them, and that this could take 30 years. This could be a long drawn out “war” or “military action” or whatever they are calling it, and I don't think that ISIS should be underestimated by any means. In my opinion, I think that if we don't get troops on the ground with the “permission” to kill, that this air campaign is just not going to be enough. I do think that it could turn into another Vietnam type war, as in you wont know who is the enemy is on the ground. There is no perfect answer for how to approach a fight like this, but I have to think “you gotta be kidding” when what we are doing isn't working and our leaders do not show any signs of changing our strategy.
I saw an article that says despite U.S. air strikes, ISIS draw nearer to Baghdad. It is my understanding that Baghdad is a pretty big population, and if they get in there and start killing, it will be a big loss, and not to mention the amount of people they could recruit. Another article headline states, U.S. strategy in tatters as militants march on, and mentions that 10000 militants are at the gates of Baghdad. It is a scary thing to think of, and I could not imagine being there under those circumstances.
We have past military leaders, and experts, and even a couple of former presidents saying that we waited too long to start fighting them, and that this could take 30 years. This could be a long drawn out “war” or “military action” or whatever they are calling it, and I don't think that ISIS should be underestimated by any means. In my opinion, I think that if we don't get troops on the ground with the “permission” to kill, that this air campaign is just not going to be enough. I do think that it could turn into another Vietnam type war, as in you wont know who is the enemy is on the ground. There is no perfect answer for how to approach a fight like this, but I have to think “you gotta be kidding” when what we are doing isn't working and our leaders do not show any signs of changing our strategy.