An interesting take on the "war" with ISIS. What do you think? Is this something that can be solved militarily?

Capt Whitney Davis — Fri, 20 Feb 2015 15:01:52 -0500

Personally, I agree with the excerpt that Mr. Fallows publishes here. Mr. Bowers take is certainly more nuanced with respect to cultural and religious issues in the Middle East than most I have read.

I am very curious as to what everyone here thinks regarding the possibility of a military defeat of ISIS, the repercussions and long term effects of such action, and whether they can be defeated politically.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/on-the-impossibility-of-fighting-isis/385530/

On the Impossibility of Fighting ISIS

"I have come to the conclusion that there is no military solution to this issue that can be generated by the U.S. But I believe there is a political solution." How to think about the next war, as we consider getting into it.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Feb 20 at 2015 4:04 PM

Capt Richard I P. — Fri, 20 Feb 2015 16:04:12 -0500

Anything can be solved with force. Or without it. It's all about costs and benefits. The pure force solution to a problem like this means lots and lots and LOTS of death. And it would cost a lot. A mix of kinetic and non kinetic is usually selected. I think the big debate is over what the mix should be.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 20 at 2015 7:33 PM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 20 Feb 2015 19:33:17 -0500

I generally agree with Brower's take on the situation. Re-defining the borders to match the Sunni/Shiite split makes sense to me. We're never going to change that division, so if we try to do that by bombing ISIS into oblivion, we're only going to alienate Sunnis and embolden Shiites.

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Feb 21 at 2015 11:28 AM

Cpl Jeff N. — Sat, 21 Feb 2015 11:28:10 -0500

Capt Whitney Davis. There is a lot of supposition in this article and seemingly misplaced ideas and concepts. There are the two statements below for example. It is clear we have no strategy and it is clear that air power will not win the day. Anyone with an ounce of military historical perspective knows that. The only exception to air power completely conquering an enemy might be nuclear and we all know that will never happen.

"I simply do not understand our strategy, assuming we really have one. If our goal is defeating ISIS's ideology and its support of international terrorism this cannot be done by indirect fire, PERIOD!"

"The use of air power is our only feasible military option"

Then there is this one:

"Terrorism is murder, whether it is in Paris, Copenhagen, or any U.S. town."

Terrorism is not necessarily murder. They are acts (which can include murder) designed to have a political/social effect. That is, to change the course of events to the terrorists ways and to create instability in the people they terrorize.

Then this one. The reality is we do not have the political leadership/desire to dispatch ISIS. We do have the military technology and capability. We should not confuse the two. We are where we are in Iraq because of failed political leadership here and in Iraq.

"Worse, the so-called hawks push for deeper involvement irrespective of military reality. They live in a fantasy world of U.S. military exceptionalism."

My opinion on the article, another rambling commentary.