Senators, themselves veterans, are calling for an American led ground war in Syria. Do you agree?

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 17 Nov 2015 12:25:53 -0500

Senate Armed Service Committee member, Republican presidential candidate, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, speaks on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Oct. 27, 2015.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Nov 17 at 2015 12:28 PM

Capt Seid Waddell — Tue, 17 Nov 2015 12:28:15 -0500

Yes. We should lead a coalition to wipe them out in the very near term.

Response by 1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 17 at 2015 12:28 PM

1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 17 Nov 2015 12:28:29 -0500

I really think the country needs to believe that:

1. A ground war will end this BS
2. the country will get behind it.

Otherwise no. We can not continue to send our sons and daughters to fix everyone's problems.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Nov 17 at 2015 1:05 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Tue, 17 Nov 2015 13:05:50 -0500

We do not need to be decisively engaged in another ME country.

Response by SGT Dave Tracy made Nov 17 at 2015 1:19 PM

SGT Dave Tracy — Tue, 17 Nov 2015 13:19:42 -0500

The world in general, and the US in particular, have little stomach for a ground war--particularly back again in the Middle East--which is why the fallacy of a “sanitary” air war is more supportable. Wars are settled on the ground with a win, loss or (historically rare) stalemate.

If we are concerned about winning against ISIS, troops are needed; and I say this not just as a biased former grunt. I would challenge anyone to name a war won without somebody's boots on the ground. The closest example I can even think of is defeating Japan in WW2 with “The Bomb”. However, boots were needed to weaken the enemy fighting forces; to advance The Bomb close enough for the planes to carry it; and to occupy the defeated country.

I have mused about the idea of a new version of the American Volunteer Group (AVG). Not so much like modern mercenaries or random one-off, ex-military types volunteering to fight ISIS, but like the “Flying Tigers” of old. Professional military personnel, paid, supplied and supported “Fighting Tigers” that could act as a proxy army to the air war coalition; funded by affected nations and wealthy patrons.

But that’s just random musings, and it won't happen.

Response by COL Vincent Stoneking made Nov 17 at 2015 11:30 PM

COL Vincent Stoneking — Tue, 17 Nov 2015 23:30:59 -0500

No. Because, in addition to the points raised by 1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member, there is are two questions that would have to have a satisfactory answer:
1. On WHOSE side? Answers limited to actual organizations that could govern in the aftermath. You can answer on the U.S. side, but only if you are OK with fifty years of occupation, minimum.
2. What is our desired end state? A specific end state that is realistically achievable with the forces (to include allies) that we can bring to the table for the amount of time we can keep them. (This makes "the U.S. side" answer to the first question a non-starter for me, because nobody is going to support an generational occupation.)

Without satisfactory answers to those questions, there is no reason to assume that we will improve the situation.