"Though faced with a global terrorism crisis, Official Washington can’t get beyond its neocon-led “tough-guy-gal” rhetoric. But another option – financial sanctions on Saudi Arabia – might help finally shut down the covert supply of money and arms to Al Qaeda and the Islamic State, [URL="https://consortiumnews.com/2015/11/23/hitting-saudi-arabia-where-it-hurts/"] writes Robert Parry.[/URL]"

[QUOTE]As the Islamic State and Al Qaeda enter a grim competition to see who can kill more civilians around the world, the fate of Western Civilization as we’ve known it arguably hangs in the balance. It will not take much more terror for the European Union to begin cracking up and for the United States to transform itself into a full-scale surveillance state.


Yet, in the face of this crisis, many of the same people who set us on this road to destruction continue to dominate – and indeed frame – the public debate. For instance, Official Washington’s neocons still insist on their recipe for “regime change” in countries that [URL="https://consortiumnews.com/2015/11/09/how-israel-out-foxed-us-presidents-4/"][U]they targeted 20 years ago[/U][/URL]. They also [URL="https://consortiumnews.com/2014/03/02/what-neocons-want-from-ukraine-crisis/"][U]demand a new Cold War with Russia[/U][/URL] in defense of [URL="https://consortiumnews.com/2015/11/13/carpetbagging-crony-capitalism-in-ukraine/"][U]a corrupt right-wing regime in Ukraine[/U][/URL], further destabilizing Europe and disrupting U.S.-Russian cooperation in Syria.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;417893]Solving the ISIS problem is doable. But the world lacks the political will.

Send in a million troops. This would require a draft within the US and probably elsewhere.[/QUOTE]

Uh, we did that - not quite a million, but that order of magnitude - *twice* in Iraq in the past 25 years. How'd that work out for us? How do you think ISIS came about? Sheesh.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;417949]Uh, we did that - not quite a million, but that order of magnitude - *twice* in Iraq in the past 25 years. How'd that work out for us? How do you think ISIS came about? Sheesh.[/QUOTE]

It was not "that order of magnitude".

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;417950]It was not "that order of magnitude".[/QUOTE]

See:

[url]https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R40682.pdf[/url]

It maxed out at 150K.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;417950]It was not "that order of magnitude".[/QUOTE]

[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War]First Iraq War[/url]: 956,600 coalition troops, including 700,000 U.S. Troops

[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War]Second Iraq War[/url]: 176,000 coalition troops at peak, plus over 1 million coalition-allied (Iraqi security forces, paramilitary and police, Kurdish border guard).

Precise numbers aside, please provide rationale for your claim that 'doing even more' in the same vein would not create more problems than it solves, as multiple previous such episodes have vividly demonstrated. Also, since you are so fond of telling folks to 'do their homework' before spouting off in math threads, I'm calling on you to do *your* homework here and supplement the above two 'spreading American values' exercises with 'estimated number of Iraqis killed' in each and tell us whether you think the cost in 'little brown lives' was worth it. Or do you, like the recently featured U.S. drone killa extraordinaire, consider such people 'fun-sized terrorists'?

[QUOTE=ewmayer;417960][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War]First Iraq War[/url]: 956,600 coalition troops, including 700,000 U.S. Troops

[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War]Second Iraq War[/url]: 176,000 coalition troops at peak, plus over 1 million coalition-allied (Iraqi security forces, paramilitary and police, Kurdish border guard).

Precise numbers aside, please provide rationale for your claim that 'doing even more' in the same vein would not create more problems than it solves,
[/QUOTE]

The only stated goal: get rid of ISIS. This was the only question at hand,

Future problems that may occur are extraneous to that goal. [but they need to be considered].

The stated goal was not "put a peaceful, stable government in place", which I agree
is impossible in the current circumstances.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;417999]The only stated goal: get rid of ISIS. This was the only question at hand,

Future problems that may occur are extraneous to that goal. [but they need to be considered].

The stated goal was not "put a peaceful, stable government in place", which I agree
is impossible in the current circumstances.[/QUOTE]

Note also that in English

"get rid of ISIS" is different from "get rid of ISIS without creating equal or greater problems" which in
turn is different from "get rid of ISIS without causing other problems" (i.e. it may create LESSER problems).

I assume that if someone means one of the latter two quoted goals they would say it and not leave it
as an implicit assumption.

And yes, getting rid of ISIS may (probably will) create other problems. But if they are
lesser problems it will be worth it.

As for "collateral damage", the death of Middle Easterners is quite rightly their concern.
Deaths of Americans and their allies is quite rightly our concern.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;418000]Note also that in English

"get rid of ISIS" is different from "get rid of ISIS without creating equal or greater problems" which in
turn is different from "get rid of ISIS without causing other problems" (i.e. it may create LESSER problems).

I assume that if someone means one of the latter two quoted goals they would say it and not leave it
as an implicit assumption.

And yes, getting rid of ISIS may (probably will) create other problems. But if they are
lesser problems it will be worth it.

As for "collateral damage", the death of Middle Easterners is quite rightly their concern.
Deaths of Americans and their allies is quite rightly our concern.[/QUOTE]

I am not going to get upset over "collateral damage". Especially if it is a result
of ISIS mingling with non-combatants.

But we should [b]absolutely[/b] seek to minimize it as a matter of policy.

The "Donald" suggestion of deliberately going after families is criminal and sub-human.

Air strikes will not defeat ISIS and carry a much higher risk of error than
does having troops on the ground. Ground troops can at least see who is
carrying weapons and can identify e.g. hospitals.

A political solution seems impossible.

Does anyone have a suggestion other than a massive troop assault?

BTW, what should be the policy when ISIS troops deliberately hide in
places such as civilian hospitals?

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;418015]Does anyone have a suggestion other than a massive troop assault?[/QUOTE]The simple question we ask is how many (American*) lives is it worth to accomplish your goal?

1?
100?
1,000?
10,000?
More?

Once you have a number, then we can talk.

[SIZE=1]*We are not implying that American lives are worth more than other lives.[/SIZE]

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;418020]The simple question we ask is how many (American*) lives is it worth to accomplish your goal?

1?
100?
1,000?
10,000?
More?

Once you have a number, then we can talk.

[SIZE=1]*We are not implying that American lives are worth more than other lives.[/SIZE][/QUOTE]

I can't put a number on it. Any answer that I give would be arbitrary.

The answer would depend on how much participation there is from other countries and the U.N.

I expect that if there is a Paris-like attack in the U.S., the answer would be quite large by
popular sentiment.

Note that we had damn few casualties during the Gulf War, which was a serious effort.

We have put forth nothing close to that effort against ISIS.

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;418020]The simple question we ask is how many (American*) lives is it worth to accomplish your goal?

1?
100?
1,000?
10,000?
More?

Once you have a number, then we can talk.

[SIZE=1]*We are not implying that American lives are worth more than other lives.[/SIZE][/QUOTE]

BTW, While I answered your question, (as best I could) you avoided mine:

What alternative is there other than a very large ground assault?