mariacostel wrote on Nov 18
th, 2015 at 2:53pm:
crocodile wrote on Nov 18
th, 2015 at 12:42pm:
Kytro wrote on Nov 18
th, 2015 at 10:21am:
Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 18
th, 2015 at 10:07am:
Kytro wrote on Nov 18
th, 2015 at 10:00am:
Increasing civilian casualties will consume political capital, which is why there is reluctance. At some point the deaths will begin increase domestic pressure.
What else can you do? Besides, most of those civilians that the leadership is surrounding themselves with are families or supporters of IS terrorists. Everyone else has fled. Two birds, one stone.
The issue is that what fills the power vacuum? The states in the area seem entirely incapable of maintaining control.
Political realities exist regardless of the consequences.
Yes, that's arguably where the problem started in the first place.
But can you imagine ANYONE worse than ISIS replacing them?
Uncle is not prepared to take that risk. Back in 2003, it couldn't imagine anyone worse than Saddam.
Mounting a full-scale invasion to kill off ISIL without a plan is not a very smart thing to do. Even the air strikes are tokenistic. It's like trying to get rid of cockroaches in your house by stepping on them, one by one. When they die, of course, they lay their eggs. More appear.
This is exactly what happened during the US occupation of Iraq. Uncle simply attracted al Qaida to a new front. Al Qaida then went about their business, getting tough on Iraqis. Uncle "saved" the people of Iraq by drawing in al Qaida, and then ISIL. If Uncle goes in, there will be a new ISIL, and an ISIL after that.
The only way to get rid of ISIL and secure the region is by placing this task in the hands of Sunni Muslims. All Uncle can do is attract more jihadists, create more carnage and instability. Instability does not just mean the regular beheadings and suicide bombings in Iraq and Syria. As Paris showed, along with Lebanon and Turkey in the weeks before, the instability is global.
A big occupying force can't win this sort of war. Defeating ISIL will require far more than military means. This is a war of ideas more than it's a war of bullets and bombs.
The superior opponent waits for the right conditions. If we've learned anything in the past half century, it's this: the size of your firepower is not the deciding factor in war.