Why is nobody bombing ISIS???

[DetlefK]

I'm talking
* bridges
* railway
* pipelines
* gas-depots
* anything looking like industry and metal-workshops
* radio-masts, telephone-lines
* anything resembling military material

ISIS is bascially an occupying army. That means, that civilians and military installations are strictly separated from each other for fear of sabotage. The risk of civilian casualties would be low.

As an occupying army, ISIS depends on a network of supply-depots and occupied infrastructure. And they need that big-time, because they are fielding the equivalent to mechanized infantry. That means, they need gas, they need bullets.

Why is nobody bombing the supply-lines of ISIS? Let's blow up everything that has any relationship to refined fuel in their territory and we'll see how they keep fighting over villages in a no-man's-land.

[Warren Stupidity]

1. "ISIS is bascially an occupying army"

no it isn't. Please define "occupying army" such that it covers ISIS.

[cheapdate]

2. Let me make sure I've got this correct.

You're suggesting that the United States should begin bombing,

" * bridges
* railway
* pipelines
* gas-depots
* anything looking like industry and metal-workshops
* radio-masts, telephone-lines
* anything resembling military material "

in Iraq?

[Agnosticsherbet]

5. About half of the Islamic States territory is in Syria. We would be attacking Syria, also.

[TwilightGardener]

3. When we start bombing them, we are opening up a new front with new enemies.

So far they have not attacked Americans or American interests, most likely because when they do, they'll be attacked in return, and set back. My feeling is that they're going to continue to take and hold whatever territory they can, tighten their grip, without directly confronting the US or any other country with a military (besides Iraq/Syria and their embattled crap of militaries) until they decide they're strong enough to do so. There's also the possibility that ISIS is somehow being supported/encouraged in ways we can't see as regular citizens, but that the CIA/Pentagon sees. I think we're just watching where it all goes in Iraq, picking up intelligence, figuring out who's really doing what.

[Agnosticsherbet]

4. As disgusting as they are, we are not at war with them, or Syria, or Iraq.

Bombing them in Syria would be an act of war on what passes as a Syrian government. I doubt, considering our rocky relations with that regime, they would allow it, and their ally in Moscow, would oppose our involvement.

Bombing them in Iraq would require becoming involved, once again, in a bottomless pit of blood. Because Iran is allied with the Iraqi regime, it will tend to cause allies in he Gulf states an Saudi Arabia less than happy with us.

We should engage with Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, and Gulf States. They are neighbors of the Islamic Caliphate, and are directly threatened by them. We should consult with the UN.

This not something we can do alone.

[Comrade Grumpy]

9. Actually, we are at war with Syria. We just haven't declared it. And we're using proxies.

The CIA for the past few years has been helping arm and train "good rebels."

And Obama just asked for $500 million for more.

The effort to overthrow the Assad regime has given ISIS breathing space.

[Agnosticsherbet]

10. Actually, we are not at war with Syria.

There is an enormous difference between smuggling weapons, medical supplies, and food into Syria, and sending the Air Force with bombers to bomb what infrastructure remains in Iraq and Syria into dust.

At minimum, that difference would amount to ten million dollars a day and 25,000 dead non-combatants.

If war is necessary against ISIS, it should be the countries in the region that make that decision and pursue that type of diplomacy. If they can not do it alone, they can send diplomats to the UN to seek assistance.

[Comrade Grumpy]

13. Semantics. Our policy is to overthrow Assad. We have been intervening...

...with training, supplies, and military equipment. And we intend to ramp it up.

No, the US has not taken direct military action against the Assad regime. Obama was smart enough to walk back from that last year.

[TheKentuckian]

11. Breathing space and material support, directly and intentionally or not.

These folks are not very absorbed with the borders we see nor our dumb ass geopolitical "chess moves", at least as we perceive them.

[Comrade Grumpy]

6. ISIS is the bastard godson of our earlier interventions.

Working with the Saudis and the Pakistanis to export wahhabism to Pakistan and Afghanistan so the Islamist crazies could help us fuck with the Russians.

Out of that, Al Qaeda (and others) emerged.

Then, overthrowing Saddam's Sunni regime in Iraq, and Al Qaeda in Iraq emerged. Remember Zarkawi?

Then, allying ourselves with the anti-Assad forces in Syria gave breathing room for more Al Qaeda affiliates to emerge there.

Now, some of the Iraqi and Syrian Al Qaeda elements have merged to form the Islamic State. This is a horrid development. These guys are ultra-violent, ultra-reactionary, love to execute prisoners and brag about it.

Personally, I think the US should get out of the way and let an Iran-Iraq-Syria alliance smash them to pieces.

[Lurks Often]

7. Who would you suggest?

Last edited Sun Aug 3, 2014, 07:55 PM - Edit history (1)

I don't remember Iraq inviting those countries to use their militaries in Iraq, so it would be an act of war for Turkey, Iran or Syria to attack ISIS in Iraq and Syria has it's own problems with it's civil war right now.

Iraq is not going to bomb the targets you suggest because that is civilian infrastructure and they are going to need that intact after ISIS is dealt with, presuming they can do it.

As for air attacks against ISIS, the Iraqi Air Force doesn't currently have aircraft capable of ground attacks, although there are rumors that Russia has or will supply some SU-25 "Frogfoot" ground attack planes.

I don't much think that the US going back into Iraq is going to be very popular politically and I sure don't see it happening, if it does, before the November election.

Based on your post, you don't seem to have any real knowledge whatsoever on how to handle a situation that currently occurring in Iraq.

[JCMach1]

8. You don't understand the war... ISIS is backed by the Saudis

and Gulf states...

Hamas is aligned with Iran, the Shiites and the Muslim Brotherhood...

Israel is doing the Saudis dirty work here.

[flamingdem]

12. So Hamas are the moderates in the region

at least relative to ISIS. ouch

[JCMach1]

21. IT's all relative...

[GeorgeGist]

14. Who would you suggest do the bombing?

[Comrade Grumpy]

15. Iran. It's the local regional power. And ISIS would put them all to the sword.

[kelliekat44]

16. Here is what the US and Israel ought to worry about: everything that happens in the ME is connected

Just wait for the other shoe to drop. I fear when Obama is out of office we will be sending our loved ones back into the fray.

[Johnyawl]

17. When ISIS takes over all of Syria and begins confronting Israel...

...The Israelis will bomb them savagely and relentlessly. And the majority on DU will sit around and complain about the Israelis.

[Warren Stupidity]

19. Perhaps we ought to stop aiding them in their efforts to take over Syria then.

Wouldn't you agree?

[Johnyawl]

22. Absolutely.

More blowback to US meddling. We created the Taliban and Al Queda by trying to thwart the Soviets in Aghanistan in 1980, now we've participated in creating possibly an even worse monster by trying to get rid of Assad. (Who by the way while bad for his own people was absolutely no threat to us or Israel.)

If the Kurds can't rally and stop them, Iran will get involved to protect the Iraqi Shites. An Iranian victory over ISIS would create all kinds of headaches for the US, Saudis and Israel over the next 10 to 20 years.

An ISIS military victory over Iran would be disastrous.

[Warren Stupidity]

18. Yet another drive by posting.

[RandiFan1290]

20. The 'publicons and the Democrats spent billions arming Iraq

and helping them become a 'Democracy' in the region. I'm sure they'll be fine.