- Joined
- Jun 21, 2007
- Messages
- 4,656
- Reaction score
- 643
- Location
- Suburbia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
ISIS is an Ideology, that must be defeated forever. There must be developed multiple permanent guardians of Islam, to counter the ideology of radical Jihad. There must be many allies of the West, and guardians of non-militant Islam, developed and permanently. That is why it is important for the Islamic factions in Iraq, to develop effective means of identifying and converting or killing Islamic Militants of all types, especially ISIS.
Trump is correct that theoretically many ISIS could be killed if collateral damage of civilian casualties were ignored. But Civilian casualties work against the development of Anti-Jihad forces, that can prevent, convert or eliminate the power and attraction of ISIS an other Islamic Militant groups.
"The Islamic State was able to carve out a sprawling territory across Iraq and Syria through military dominance over 126 key places. But the group’s momentum has slowed over the past year, and it has lost its hold on nearly half of those locations.As the militant group has been squeezed in Iraq and Syria, there are signs that it has been shifting its focus from controlling territory to executing terror attacks in Iraq and abroad.
[h=2]Out of 10 Cities, the Islamic
State Remains in Five[/h]
The group has been forced out of about 56 places where it once had control, including five major cities, since it made rapid advances across the two countries in 2014."
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/06/18/world/middleeast/isis-control-places-cities.html?_r=0
Obama's plan is working.
"Quick Takes: Obama Has a Plan for Defeating ISIS…and It’s Working"
"For a while now, the main contribution of some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have made in the fight against ISIL is to criticize this administration and me for not using the phrase “radical Islam.” That’s the key, they tell us — we can’t beat ISIL unless we call them “radical Islamists.” What exactly would using this label accomplish? What exactly would it change? Would it make ISIL less committed to trying to kill Americans? Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this? The answer is none of the above. Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away. This is a political distraction. Since before I was President, I’ve been clear about how extremist groups have perverted Islam to justify terrorism. As President, I have repeatedly called on our Muslim friends and allies at home and around the world to work with us to reject this twisted interpretation of one of the world’s great religions."
Washington Monthly | Quick Takes: Obama Has a Plan for Defeating ISIS?and It?s Working
"The U.S. military headquarters here is outfitted with maps showing a "forward line of troops" — a FLOT, in military-speak — that divides northern Iraq's Kurdish region from territory held by the Islamic State group. The line is precisely drawn, following the contours of specific roads and berms. A mere 40 miles west, the terrain is pocked with trenches, fighting positions, razor wire and armed checkpoints"
"The new plan calls for fighting the terror group like a conventional enemy, relying on traditional military tactics such as maneuver-style warfare and attrition. This has replaced last year’s approach, dubbed the “Iraq First Strategy," which was widely criticized as ineffective, especially after ISIS fighters seized the city of Ramadi in May. Instead, the U.S. and its allies now intend to confront the extremist group and its force of about 30,000 fighters, targeting their strongholds and resources across Iraq and Syria simultaneously.
Publicly the Obama administration says its strategy to defeat ISIS has not changed significantly, but realities on the ground and discussions at home indicate otherwise. Details about the shift became clear during the past several weeks, after a series of interviews that Military Times conducted with top commanders in Iraq, senior defense officials in Washington and outside military experts keenly familiar with the Pentagon's war..."
This is the Pentagon's new strategy to defeat ISIS
//
Trump is correct that theoretically many ISIS could be killed if collateral damage of civilian casualties were ignored. But Civilian casualties work against the development of Anti-Jihad forces, that can prevent, convert or eliminate the power and attraction of ISIS an other Islamic Militant groups.
"The Islamic State was able to carve out a sprawling territory across Iraq and Syria through military dominance over 126 key places. But the group’s momentum has slowed over the past year, and it has lost its hold on nearly half of those locations.As the militant group has been squeezed in Iraq and Syria, there are signs that it has been shifting its focus from controlling territory to executing terror attacks in Iraq and abroad.
[h=2]Out of 10 Cities, the Islamic
State Remains in Five[/h]
The group has been forced out of about 56 places where it once had control, including five major cities, since it made rapid advances across the two countries in 2014."
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/06/18/world/middleeast/isis-control-places-cities.html?_r=0
Obama's plan is working.
"Quick Takes: Obama Has a Plan for Defeating ISIS…and It’s Working"
"For a while now, the main contribution of some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have made in the fight against ISIL is to criticize this administration and me for not using the phrase “radical Islam.” That’s the key, they tell us — we can’t beat ISIL unless we call them “radical Islamists.” What exactly would using this label accomplish? What exactly would it change? Would it make ISIL less committed to trying to kill Americans? Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this? The answer is none of the above. Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away. This is a political distraction. Since before I was President, I’ve been clear about how extremist groups have perverted Islam to justify terrorism. As President, I have repeatedly called on our Muslim friends and allies at home and around the world to work with us to reject this twisted interpretation of one of the world’s great religions."
Washington Monthly | Quick Takes: Obama Has a Plan for Defeating ISIS?and It?s Working
"The U.S. military headquarters here is outfitted with maps showing a "forward line of troops" — a FLOT, in military-speak — that divides northern Iraq's Kurdish region from territory held by the Islamic State group. The line is precisely drawn, following the contours of specific roads and berms. A mere 40 miles west, the terrain is pocked with trenches, fighting positions, razor wire and armed checkpoints"
"The new plan calls for fighting the terror group like a conventional enemy, relying on traditional military tactics such as maneuver-style warfare and attrition. This has replaced last year’s approach, dubbed the “Iraq First Strategy," which was widely criticized as ineffective, especially after ISIS fighters seized the city of Ramadi in May. Instead, the U.S. and its allies now intend to confront the extremist group and its force of about 30,000 fighters, targeting their strongholds and resources across Iraq and Syria simultaneously.
Publicly the Obama administration says its strategy to defeat ISIS has not changed significantly, but realities on the ground and discussions at home indicate otherwise. Details about the shift became clear during the past several weeks, after a series of interviews that Military Times conducted with top commanders in Iraq, senior defense officials in Washington and outside military experts keenly familiar with the Pentagon's war..."
This is the Pentagon's new strategy to defeat ISIS
//