BrianBM

A Question for Middle eastern cognoscenti

Rate this topic

31 posts in this topic

Putting aside the probable near-term massacre of the Kurds for the moment, a question of intelligence gathering.

 

Do we need a significant presence on the ground in Syria to have deep intelligence on ISIS?  (And I don't know how many people a "significance presence" would require.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's time our people stopped dying over there.

 

Put THEIR boots and THEIR ears on the ground, and if we have reason to trust them, we'll send over an occasional missile or two where they tell us the bad guys are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 mins ago, Heron25 said:

Isis is low tech.   Need coalition support of troops not just us. 

There has been a coalition. As of earlier this year, France had about 1000 troops and the Brits had some too. Not sure about now.

Edited by patchyfog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 mins ago, patchyfog said:

There has been a coalition. France (about 1000) and the UK (??) still have troops there, but who knows what they'll do now.

 

'Bout time to let someone else take the lead for a while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 mins ago, JoeyZac said:

 

'Bout time to let someone else take the lead for a while.

I suppose so, by default, cuz your man doesn't have a clue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 mins ago, patchyfog said:

I suppose so, by default, cuz your man doesn't have a clue.

But a whole bunch of families will have their serving sons and daughters home safe and sound for ThanksGiving, they will have a clue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 mins ago, patchyfog said:

I suppose so, by default, cuz your man doesn't have a clue.

 

We don't have a crystal ball, so there's no way to know what would happen, but I wonder if you'd be willing to say that to the wife/kids/parents of the soldiers who DON'T die over there in the upcoming months because Trump pulled them out.

 

It's really easy for everyone to say what we should be doing out there when it's not their family member who could die at any time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I cant say I'm against pulling out of Syria, I think Trump needed to sell this to the American people.  I'm not so sure we will ever stabilize Syria and if we did, what the big door prize is for doing so but I still think it should have been considered and debated

 

Granted if you did interviews on the street 90% wouldnt even know we were there or could find Syria on a map.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JimG said:

I'm not so sure we will ever stabilize Syria

The People in the middle East & Africa have been Killing Each Other, engaged in Tribal Warfare for thousand's of years, it is foolish to think that the USA of anyone can stop it.

I never understood the whole Syria/Iraq/Lybia intervention, We should have made a deal with Assad instead of trying to oust him (Covertly by supporting freedom fighters or in any other way), Makes me wonder if there is any truth to all the conspiracy theories about people wanting to overthrow  Assad, Saddam & Khadafy to run Oil/Gas pipelines through Syria/Iraq/Lybia.

Sometimes a strongman dictator is the only option to keep the bloodshed to a minimum. 

Trump doesn't think we could ever change a thing there & he is probably right, It's been almost 2 Decades that we have been on the ground in the region & nothing has been accomplished, nothing that is that B52's alone could not have done better.   

Edited by garrr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, BrianBM said:

Putting aside the probable near-term massacre of the Kurds for the moment, a question of intelligence gathering.

 

Do we need a significant presence on the ground in Syria to have deep intelligence on ISIS?  (And I don't know how many people a "significance presence" would require.)

I wonder how "deep" our intelligence on ISIS is now?  IMO we don't need a significant presence.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Kurds have proven pretty adept at protecting themselves over the years, or they wouldn't be here today.

Nothing has changed in that regard by our actions.

 

How many of our soldiers should die to save one Kurd life? Just trying to get an acceptable ratio.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, BrianBM said:

Putting aside the probable near-term massacre of the Kurds for the moment, a question of intelligence gathering.

 

Do we need a significant presence on the ground in Syria to have deep intelligence on ISIS?  (And I don't know how many people a "significance presence" would require.)

No we don't.

 

we just need to make sure those people don't come here with the intention of harming this country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.