Jordan pilot hostage Moaz al-Kasasbeh 'burned alive'

[Ian]

So Warren, you'd like to see the US re-invade Iraq, and put troops into Syria? Is that what you're saying? If so, explain why that is so wise. If not, you need to clarify your thoughts, other than automatically being against whatever Obama happens to be doing.

[Warren Dew]

Believe it or not, Ian, waiting for Jordan or Saudi Arabia to provide the ground troops, as I suggested earlier, is not the same thing as the U.S. reinvading Iraq and putting troops in Syria. I do understand how U.S. government employees might think Jordanian or Saudi ground troops are U.S. ground troops, but it's not actually true.

[pErvinalia]

You implied rhetorically that the US rather than Arabs should have boots on the ground.

[piscator]

So Warren, you'd like to see the US re-invade Iraq, and put troops into Syria? Is that what you're saying? If so, explain why that is so wise. If not, you need to clarify your thoughts, other than automatically being against whatever Obama happens to be doing.

Because they make too juicy a target for a self-respecting America hatin' muj to pass up. Hence the finite number of assholes capable of both travel and bombing is inexorably drawn to the sandbox, instead of to san francisco.

[Ian]

You implied rhetorically that the US rather than Arabs should have boots on the ground.

You did, Warren. And waiting for local countries to send troops is pretty much what I had said.

I just don't think they will.

[Warren Dew]

You implied rhetorically that the US rather than Arabs should have boots on the ground.

You did, Warren.

I notice you're unable to quote where I did. Looks like a misreading on your part.

[JimC]

You implied rhetorically that the US rather than Arabs should have boots on the ground.

You did, Warren.

I notice you're unable to quote where I did. Looks like a misreading on your part.

I have to agree with Warren here that he implied no such thing, rhetorically or otherwise. Here are the relevant parts of his earlier post:

If Obama would actually answer that question, and explain why it's better to have local boots on the ground rather than U.S. boots that will be looked on as oppressors, those complaints would go away...

...Everyone understands that airstrikes without ground forces are pointless - let alone at a low enough operational tempo, of less than two per day, that it's clear they are only for show rather than for effect. No one is pointing out that there are perfectly valid reasons for the lack of intervention, and that's what needs to be explained.

No support for US boots on ground here...

[Ian]

I may have misread. I think it's understandable though, since Warren began his response to me by criticizing the Obama administration over its toughness towards ISIS, then launched into an argument for the need for boots on the ground.

Well, the US has bombed the bejesus out of ISIS day in and day out for over six months. It's produced some good results too, in terms of halting their advance albeit not definitively rolling them back. Ground fores are needed for that, besides what the Kurds and Iraqis can muster, but the US can't snap its fingers and make Turkey and others invade. Nor will they.

So, what more do conservative critics want from this administration, if not ground troops? The answer is nothing: they criticize because they don't know what else to do. It's their default stance to anything and everything this President does, even when their own ideas are similar to his. Pitiful.

[Hermit]

Yeah. Right. Great progress was made with aerial bombing in Vietnam too. I heard that on the news reports on a daily basis for years. It's obviously still working as well as it always did.

[JimC]

Yeah. Right. Great progress was made with aerial bombing in Vietnam too. I heard that on the news reports on a daily basis for years. It's obviously still working as well as it always did.

I think there are a number of important differences here. North Korea was a real, functioning state, with a lot of logistical support from the USSR and China. ISIS is a wannabe state, trying to exert control by terror in a region where they do not have the complete support that the North Vietnamese government obtained from most of its people. From what I gather, bombing of ISIS transport severely hampered their ability to exert power and expand. Now there are no longer as many clear targets, the ability of the bombing to further degrade them may be limited, but it will still prevent them from easily dominating their territory.

[Ian]

Yeah. Right. Great progress was made with aerial bombing in Vietnam too. I heard that on the news reports on a daily basis for years. It's obviously still working as well as it always did.

Obviously, eh? And you know this from reading intelligence reports, or from a cynicism you learned 45 years ago?

[Hermit]

No, Ian. I learnt this by looking at results. Please list the wars that have been won without boots on the ground.

[Ian]

I didn't say won, I said results. ISIS would almost certainly have Baghdad and probably much more if airstrikes didn't set them back. They're on the defensive now. And I did say earlier that ground troops would be needed. I just don't want them to be ours.

[piscator]

I want them to be Iranians.

[Ian]

I want them to be Iranians.

I want them to be Mongolians.