Posted by MikeT23 on 1/29/2016 9:03:00 AM (view original):
To be honest, I was all ready to give tec **** when I started reading that quote but this, The way to handle the terrorist organization, like ISIS, is to go in after them, hunt them down, and eradicate them, could certainly be done with small teams.    Designate the target, send them in, take them out.   Unless, of course, tec sees a group of 500 and designates that as the target.   Snipers taking out leaders would work in that situation.  

A group of 500 would likely be an air strike.

I think some people are arguing here because they just feel like arguing.  BL, who can never be told he's wrong, is compelled to do so.  I would guess there's a psychological disorder in play that would explain his compulsion to do that.

Haha, dumbass.

Maybe you're the one who can never be told he's wrong.

Dude.  You're the one trying to tell me that I was referring to a full ground war when I wasn't.

Yeah, it's what we should be doing at this time.

Posted by tecwrg on 1/29/2016 9:39:00 AM (view original):
Dude.  You're the one trying to tell me that I was referring to a full ground war when I wasn't.

I didn't say anything about a ground war in this thread. Just a war.

You're the one trying to argue that "boots on the ground, go in and get [ISIS]" means something other than war.

Posted by bad_luck on 1/29/2016 11:13:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 1/29/2016 9:39:00 AM (view original):
Dude.  You're the one trying to tell me that I was referring to a full ground war when I wasn't.

I didn't say anything about a ground war in this thread. Just a war.

You're the one trying to argue that "boots on the ground, go in and get [ISIS]" means something other than war.

Is a Special Forces insertion operation to take out a specific target considered "war"?

Yes.  Remember our war with Pakistan?

Posted by tecwrg on 1/29/2016 11:29:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/29/2016 11:13:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 1/29/2016 9:39:00 AM (view original):
Dude.  You're the one trying to tell me that I was referring to a full ground war when I wasn't.

I didn't say anything about a ground war in this thread. Just a war.

You're the one trying to argue that "boots on the ground, go in and get [ISIS]" means something other than war.

Is a Special Forces insertion operation to take out a specific target considered "war"?

Is the specific target one person or a small group? Maybe, but probably not in most cases.

Or

Is the specific target a group that considers itself an independent state and controls large cities and significant chunks of two countries? That's a war. ISIS has something like 10,000 soldiers.

So what exactly IS your point?

Are you arguing that (a) we cannot defeat ISIS via a series of specifically targeted Special Forces missions and strategic air strikes, therefore my premise is wrong, or (b) I was indeed calling for a full scale war despite my insistence that I was not?

My point, slowpoke, is that a series of specifically targeted missions and air strikes against an army of 10,000 currently occupying an entire region would be a war.

Posted by bad_luck on 1/29/2016 2:06:00 PM (view original):
My point, slowpoke, is that a series of specifically targeted missions and air strikes against an army of 10,000 currently occupying an entire region would be a war.

I disagree.

How many US troops are put in harms way in that kind of a "war" as opposed to a full scale ground invasion kind of a war, as we had a decade ago in Afghanistan and Iraq?

The bottom line is that one can call it whatever they want . . . if an objective can be attained with minimal risk of US casualties, then it's probably the best way to proceed.

I'm not arguing whether or not it's god or bad. It may very well be the right move, but it's still a war.

If you say so.

After all, you are the expert on everything.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/29/2016 9:03:00 AM (view original):
To be honest, I was all ready to give tec **** when I started reading that quote but this, The way to handle the terrorist organization, like ISIS, is to go in after them, hunt them down, and eradicate them, could certainly be done with small teams.    Designate the target, send them in, take them out.   Unless, of course, tec sees a group of 500 and designates that as the target.   Snipers taking out leaders would work in that situation.  

I don't think this is true for ISIS at this point.  It's not just a terrorist organization, it's also a political entity, with control over substantial territory and large-scale military forces in addition to guerrilla militants.  Special ops aren't going to deal with a problem of that magnitude.  Even the 10,000 number somebody cited is way too low - it's probably at least 50,000 armed militants, with some claims as high as a quarter of a million or more...  The ISIS-controlled territory is roughly the size of Nebraska and contains millions of people.  How can you still feel that this is an enemy you would fight exclusively with small targeted actions?