How would other US presidents have responded to the rise of IS?

[Tammuz]

From an American perspective there are, as I see it, two ends at how to deal with the Islamic State.

On one end, there is the option of simply proclaiming that IS is not our problem and leave it at that. The result would likely be even futher IS expansion, especially on Kurdish territory, but (for now) falling short of capturing either Damascus or Baghdad.

On the other end, there is the option of an all-out war in order to defeat and eradicate the group. This would include air force, ground troops and everythng else in a conventional war. IS would no doubt be defeated, but the problem of a power-vacuum and weak governments in Iraq and Syria would ensure that the warfare would continue, with other Jihadist groups joining the fray.

Obama seems to have gone for something in-between. A containment of sort. It seems to work. While IS hasn't lost any major city, it hasn't captures any major city since last summer, and notably they failed to capture Kobani. However IS is unlikely to disappear any time soon either, and will keep on committing atrocities.

If any other potential president had been in charge of the US when IS became a force to be reckoned with, how would they have acted? How would Bush have acted? McCain? Kerry? Clinton? Romney? We all know how Ron Paul would have acted.

 

[Harry Bosch]

From an American perspective there are, as I see it, two ends at how to deal with the Islamic State.

On one end, there is the option of simply proclaiming that IS is not our problem and leave it at that. The result would likely be even futher IS expansion, especially on Kurdish territory, but (for now) falling short of capturing either Damascus or Baghdad.

On the other end, there is the option of an all-out war in order to defeat and eradicate the group. This would include air force, ground troops and everythng else in a conventional war. IS would no doubt be defeated, but the problem of a power-vacuum and weak governments in Iraq and Syria would ensure that the warfare would continue, with other Jihadist groups joining the fray.

Obama seems to have gone for something in-between. A containment of sort. It seems to work. While IS hasn't lost any major city, it hasn't captures any major city since last summer, and notably they failed to capture Kobani. However IS is unlikely to disappear any time soon either, and will keep on committing atrocities.

If any other potential president had been in charge of the US when IS became a force to be reckoned with, how would they have acted? How would Bush have acted? McCain? Kerry? Clinton? Romney? We all know how Ron Paul would have acted.

I prefer option A. We tried option B. It resulted in 350 ISIS warriors conquering 200,000 IRAQi soldiers in Mosel with the best American weapons and training in the history of the planet. We'll only beat the Jihadists if we empower the Arab moderates. If we continue doing all their fighting for them, they won't rise up.

 

[tupac chopra]

On the other end, there is the option of an all-out war in order to defeat and eradicate the group. This would include air force, ground troops and everythng else in a conventional war. IS would no doubt be defeated, .

I think that is unlikely. When was the last time America won this sort of war?

 

[Tammuz]

On the other end, there is the option of an all-out war in order to defeat and eradicate the group. This would include air force, ground troops and everythng else in a conventional war. IS would no doubt be defeated, .

I think that is unlikely. When was the last time America won this sort of war?

IS is not like al-Qaeda. IS depends on being an actual state controlling territory, cities and towns. If it is just a guerilla, then the name "Islamic State" becomes very hollow.

And the original Iraqi insurgency, with the help of the Sunni tribes opposing al-Qaeda, was defeated. It was broken. The insurgency, and IS, only gained prominence later against when the Maliki government started to discriminate against Sunnis.

- - - Updated - - -

From an American perspective there are, as I see it, two ends at how to deal with the Islamic State.

On one end, there is the option of simply proclaiming that IS is not our problem and leave it at that. The result would likely be even futher IS expansion, especially on Kurdish territory, but (for now) falling short of capturing either Damascus or Baghdad.

On the other end, there is the option of an all-out war in order to defeat and eradicate the group. This would include air force, ground troops and everythng else in a conventional war. IS would no doubt be defeated, but the problem of a power-vacuum and weak governments in Iraq and Syria would ensure that the warfare would continue, with other Jihadist groups joining the fray.

Obama seems to have gone for something in-between. A containment of sort. It seems to work. While IS hasn't lost any major city, it hasn't captures any major city since last summer, and notably they failed to capture Kobani. However IS is unlikely to disappear any time soon either, and will keep on committing atrocities.

If any other potential president had been in charge of the US when IS became a force to be reckoned with, how would they have acted? How would Bush have acted? McCain? Kerry? Clinton? Romney? We all know how Ron Paul would have acted.

I prefer option A. We tried option B. It resulted in 350 ISIS warriors conquering 200,000 IRAQi soldiers in Mosel with the best American weapons and training in the history of the planet. We'll only beat the Jihadists if we empower the Arab moderates. If we continue doing all their fighting for them, they won't rise up.

When were American ground troops deployed against IS?

Those who actually do the heavy lifting of fighting against IS on the ground are Kurds.

 

[tupac chopra]

I think that is unlikely. When was the last time America won this sort of war?

IS is not like al-Qaeda. IS depends on being an actual state controlling territory, cities and towns. If it is just a guerilla, then the name "Islamic State" becomes very hollow.

And the original Iraqi insurgency, with the help of the Sunni tribes opposing al-Qaeda, was defeated. It was broken. The insurgency, and IS, only gained prominence later against when the Maliki government started to discriminate against Sunnis.

Ok, but this does not explain why there is "no doubt" they would be defeated by an army that can't seem to win any war.

 

[Duke Leto]

Reagan would have immediately pulled all American troops out of the area and started making shady backdoor deals with ISIS to fund Anti-Chavezists in Venezuela.

 

[Turambar]

Reagan would have immediately pulled all American troops out of the area and started making shady backdoor deals with ISIS to fund Anti-Chavezists in Venezuela.

LOL, good one.

Kennedy would have flown to Kurd held territory, deliver an uplifting speech about how America will never abandon the Kurds and close it with "Ich bin ein Kurd"

Truman would have dropped two or three atomic bombs on the largest urban centres controlled by ISIS, with complete disregard to the hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties.

Teddy Roosevelt would have personally lead a charge of US Marines into ISIS held territory atop a grizzly bear while shooting with an M1903 Springfield.

 

[SimpleDon]

From an American perspective there are, as I see it, two ends at how to deal with the Islamic State.

On one end, there is the option of simply proclaiming that IS is not our problem and leave it at that. The result would likely be even futher IS expansion, especially on Kurdish territory, but (for now) falling short of capturing either Damascus or Baghdad.

On the other end, there is the option of an all-out war in order to defeat and eradicate the group. This would include air force, ground troops and everythng else in a conventional war. IS would no doubt be defeated, but the problem of a power-vacuum and weak governments in Iraq and Syria would ensure that the warfare would continue, with other Jihadist groups joining the fray.

Obama seems to have gone for something in-between. A containment of sort. It seems to work. While IS hasn't lost any major city, it hasn't captures any major city since last summer, and notably they failed to capture Kobani. However IS is unlikely to disappear any time soon either, and will keep on committing atrocities.

If any other potential president had been in charge of the US when IS became a force to be reckoned with, how would they have acted? How would Bush have acted? McCain? Kerry? Clinton? Romney? We all know how Ron Paul would have acted.

I prefer option A. We tried option B. It resulted in 350 ISIS warriors conquering 200,000 IRAQi soldiers in Mosel with the best American weapons and training in the history of the planet. We'll only beat the Jihadists if we empower the Arab moderates. If we continue doing all their fighting for them, they won't rise up.

And the moderates have joined. The Jordanians and the Egyptians are fighting. The Turks are reluctant to help arm the Kruds, their terrorists, but they aren't noticeably helping IS against the Kruds either.

The first question for the US is defeating IS in the US's interest? I don't see anyone arguing this, the consensus seems to be that it is. So the next question is how is this best accomplished? The administration has decided that the best way is for the US to support the Iraqis and the moderates whenever and wherever it is needed.

That it is much better for everyone if those forces defeat IS rather than the US. The invasion of Iraq and subsequent occupation was a disaster for the US and for the Middle East. It is what made IS possible. This disaster is what limits our options in the Middle East.

I think that they are correct, that the middle course is the best of the options available to them.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I prefer option A. We tried option B. It resulted in 350 ISIS warriors conquering 200,000 IRAQi soldiers in Mosel with the best American weapons and training in the history of the planet. We'll only beat the Jihadists if we empower the Arab moderates. If we continue doing all their fighting for them, they won't rise up.

And the moderates have joined. The Jordanians and the Egyptians are fighting. The Turks are reluctant to help arm the Kruds, their terrorists, but they aren't noticeably helping IS against the Kruds either.

The first question for the US is defeating IS in the US's interest? I don't see anyone arguing this, the consensus seems to be that it is. So the next question is how is this best accomplished? The administration has decided that the best way is for the US to support the Iraqis and the moderates whenever and wherever it is needed.

That it is much better for everyone if those forces defeat IS rather than the US. The invasion of Iraq and subsequent occupation was a disaster for the US and for the Middle East. It is what made IS possible. This disaster is what limits our options in the Middle East.

I think that they are correct, that the middle course is the best of the options available to them.

Yes, I absolutely agree. The US could have invaded ISIS 6 months ago and destroyed them in days. But then we'd be committed to occupying their area for years. And we would have undermined the moderates and made it unnecessary for them to arm. And then we'd leave, and another ISIS group would arise. We have to further develop Arab allies to fight the Jihadists. We can't do it alone over the long term because it isn't our land. Obama is on the right course in the mid-east.

 

[untermensche]

The question for the world is: How to deal with the US?

The US created ISIS with it's unprovoked invasion of the Iraqi people.

Without all this massive US violence we wouldn't see anything like ISIS. It is a crazed violent response to violence. Something humans are prone to do.

The question is: How do we get the US to stop committing so much violence in the world?

How do we stop it?

 

[Axulus]

Bill Clintion would have responded to the rise depending on what the meaning of the word IS, is

 

[fromderinside]

Bill Clintion would have responded to the rise depending on what the meaning of the word IS, is

Not true. He would claim it depended on what the meaning of 'rise' is. He's nothing if not on topic.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes, I absolutely agree. The US could have invaded ISIS 6 months ago and destroyed them in days. But then we'd be committed to occupying their area for years. And we would have undermined the moderates and made it unnecessary for them to arm. And then we'd leave, and another ISIS group would arise. We have to further develop Arab allies to fight the Jihadists. We can't do it alone over the long term because it isn't our land. Obama is on the right course in the mid-east.

I disagree. We couldn't hope to destroy them in days--they would just lay down arms and pretend to be civilians. They would pop right back up anyplace we weren't watching closely enough.

 

[Draconis]

I think the best solution is to get the local arab powers to sort it out themselves, with some backing from the west where necessary.

we just don't want this to develop (further) into an Islam vs the West scrap.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And the moderates have joined. The Jordanians and the Egyptians are fighting. The Turks are reluctant to help arm the Kruds, their terrorists, but they aren't noticeably helping IS against the Kruds either.

The first question for the US is defeating IS in the US's interest? I don't see anyone arguing this, the consensus seems to be that it is. So the next question is how is this best accomplished? The administration has decided that the best way is for the US to support the Iraqis and the moderates whenever and wherever it is needed.

That it is much better for everyone if those forces defeat IS rather than the US. The invasion of Iraq and subsequent occupation was a disaster for the US and for the Middle East. It is what made IS possible. This disaster is what limits our options in the Middle East.

I think that they are correct, that the middle course is the best of the options available to them.

Yes, I absolutely agree. The US could have invaded ISIS 6 months ago and destroyed them in days.

Cool. When did our military develop beam transporters to make such a quick mobilization?

But then we'd be committed to occupying their area for years. And we would have undermined the moderates and made it unnecessary for them to arm. And then we'd leave, and another ISIS group would arise. We have to further develop Arab allies to fight the Jihadists. We can't do it alone over the long term because it isn't our land. Obama is on the right course in the mid-east.

I think that our boondoggle in Iraq should help gives us some perspective as to the value of military force in these sorts of situations. It wasn't until we got the locals involved that things ever bothered to improve.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Cool. When did our military develop beam transporters to make such a quick mobilization? I think that our boondoggle in Iraq should help gives us some perspective as to the value of military force in these sorts of situations. It wasn't until we got the locals involved that things ever bothered to improve.

Either you're not paying attention or you don't understand irony! I do not favor us ground troops re-taking Isis controlled areas. I prefer empowering Arab moderates to fix their country.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Jackson would have gotten blindly drunk, invaded them and forcibly relocated them and our non-white allies to Western Sahara.