The time frame I think for this action is less than 2 years, and possibly considerably less than that.

A position i have held since we first went into Iraq. As even that dolt McCain said, "i don't care if we are there for a hundred years, as long as it's not our kids dying"

Yes, we absolutely need to be back in Iraq, not just to combat ISIS, but to project power in the region. Like it or not, the world runs on oil, the Chinese and the Russians aren't exactly bashful about looking out for their national interests, neither should we.

Who will be the dominant faction on the ground is of more interest to me.

...the politics of the situation will make it untenable. No candidate for 2016 will make going back to Iraq a campaign slogan.  

To go back to Iraq in any appreciable numbers would be a tacit admission by this weakling of a POTUS that he was wrong to have ever left, and while Obama might be weak, he is still arrogant and I doubt his ego will allow him to do what's in the interest of the country.

Personally, i think by the time we get back there the damage will be so severe that even a competent POTUS will take years to un do the damage.

...have any skin in the game.  How many of Jack and GaG's relatives are going to have their boots on the ground if we go back to Iraq?

Sure we can send the army and it shouldn’t take them too long to kill at least those ISIS guys who are willing to fight a modern army. There are only about …what 10 to 20 thousand members of ISIS. Of course, we sacrifice a  new generation of young American men and woman who will be killed or maimed if we do this, as well as spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a new war.  Our army, however, can defeat these guys.

...Rand "The Dove" Paul.  Let's see if they walk it like they talk it.

My question is based more on history than my personal views on what we should do right now. History tells me we are going back and that it is just a question of when.

... are being taken far too lightly. Two years Jack? I believe we have a much shorter timetable.

... which brings to mind the question of how long before the more nefarious elements within the defense contractor networks begin negotiating service contracts with ISIS. They're already negotiating with the Russians and rogue elements within the British Isles.

In war, you have an objective, a strategy, and tactics. Strategy and tactics are pretty easy. It's the objective that I'm grappling with. When you think of a war in a traditional sense, you have an end to hostilities, somebody surrenders. We will never have a negotiation for peace, a surrender, or a cessation of hostilities with this threat. I do agree with Netanyahu when he said, "this threat will be coming to theater near you". Maybe that's the objective mari. This is a our new normal.  

Yohannes branded crosses and other symbols like the alpha and omega into their foreheads . When they killed a Christian he killed ten of them.  

Hegel said that ISIS is 'an imminent threat to every interest we have, whether it's in Iraq or anywhere else.” Do you believe that? Doesn’t that strike you as a really foolish and overblown statement to make about a bunch of guys riding around in pick up trucks?

instead of annoying me on the Board? All that raw sewage on the floor can’t be good for recruiting. LOL

...danger threshold?

on pay TV.

The tackle itself was clean, it was the Cowboy douchebag stepping over the Raiders player and pushing him back down that sparked the brawl.

you know the rest , something some one here Didn't get to do when they watched Saigon fall on TV . We are getting real close to exactly ten years since we kicked AQ in Iraq out of Fallujah and every where else in the T of D and sent them running off like the punk bitches they are. They know their little chapter is coming to and end because they can't hang .  

We will be oil surplus country in very short time and will be exporting.

ISIS is now on the borders of Turkey so this should be NATO led force at the behest of Turkey. I mean every NATO country should and must contribute proportionally according to the treaty.

my brother has been to Iraq twice and is currently training soldiers on the big island Hawaii.  Army boots on the ground is going to happen real soon.

Why? Since when did we become the army/police of the world. Maliki, an Iranian puppet, refused to sign off on the status of forces agreement because the Iranians wanted us out of Iraq. FYI, this agreement was negotiated initially by the Bush administration. Under "Normal" Diplomatic rules, if a host country wants you out, you leave ASAP.  

but the chances are, given a choice between the two, AND if the GOP controls at least one house of Congress, I would most likely vote for the Hildabeast.

I hope that meets your approval, I can only imagine all the sleepless nights I will have to suffer through if you don't.

As much as I detest her, I am confident that if she had been POTUS instead of Obama, we would still be in Iraq, and no one ever would have heard of ISIS, and as you rightfully point out, under Paul, our military would have been decimated and we would no longer the ability to "project force" in the region even if we had the political will to do so.

I served, and most of my family has served, I never thought of it as any kind of a big deal. IMO every kid should spend a couple of years in uniform. and by every kid that means everyone from the poorest Mexican immigrant to the richest Senator's son.

BTW in what branch did you serve?

You should go with St. Croix and watch a few of UCLA's games. Then you will understand the "raw sewage" reference.

We have been in both places for decades with no plans on ever leaving, and no one seems to be the least bit upset because our troops aren't dying.

Say what you want about Bush, but we had things pretty well under control despite his "ineptness" and If we had left 50,000 troops there the same way we did in Germany or Korea, ISIS would not be front page news today. No one every would have heard of them. It's a lot easier to keep cockroaches under control with routine spraying than it is to have to tent your house due to an infestation, what we have now is an infestation due to lack of spraying and I for one blame our current CIC.

When hostilities ended that was it, soldiers didn't keep dying from suicide bombers and snipers. Iraq is probably worse than Vietnam because the radicals are so ingrained into society. Staying there forever really won't work, it just builds more resentment in the younger generations. Holy war is hard for us to even grasp. In my opinion one side needs to prevail in Iraq for there to be lasting peace. We and the United Nations won't allow that to happen. I might be wrong but the radicals are very willing to die for their cause and that makes them almost impossible to repress short of genocide. I m not sure there is an easy answer but at up to 1 million per troup per year staying there forever really isn't cost effective. At some point the people of Iraq will have to want peace and fight for it if they are going to have it.  

Should the only people allowed to decide or have an opinion on "declaring war, etc" be those serving and their immediate families? That amounts to less than 4% of the population. Maybe add in veterans and we're still just short of 10%.

I don't expect ticker tape parades for out troops, but we have very strategic interests in this part of the world. We need to be able to project power in the region to protect those interests and keep the region from completely exploding into a firestorm of violence and civil war.

The fact of the matter is, we had a reasonable handle on things prior to Obama being bullied into ceding to what was actually Iran's demands, not those of the Iraqi people, and predictably the power vacuum that was created has been filled by ISIS. Obama is responsible for this mess, and if even the Hildabeast had been in the white house instead of him, I firmly believe things would have been much much different.

FDR was no hawk but he knew a threat when he saw one.

Do you think ISIS does now or will in the future represent such a threat to us that boots on the ground will be a necessity? Thanks.

...with NO exceptions for sons AND daughters of millionaires and politicians.  You'd be able to hear a pin drop for the lack of saber-rattling.

Nice try, ed. Not!

Yes, Obama, it can be argued, has looked weak, which was the catalyst for Isis insurgency. But, it was Bush who started the process of withdrawal, and Iraq is a sovereign country, who choose to have us leave. That set up a chance for Maliki to set up a government allowing all sides to participate and have say over how the country would adapt to the differing groups demands for it's land and wealth. He failed to do so; that is the true catalyst for the Isis insurgency, in my view. If he had done so, that would have been a win/win for us and them. However, we still win in Iraq, because of the insurgence of Isis, due to now Turkey and Iraq are allowing us to arm the Kurds, and are even open for them to become their own country. And, now it looks like there might be an opening for a new and fairer governing body. Now, we lose if we can't contain Isis before they become an imminent threat to us. Some argue they already are. Perhaps. Going after them in Syria is going to be tricky, and I don't think you're going to be getting any headlines describing the inside workings of how that's going to come about.  

and since I did serve, as did most of my family, I guess I have more "skin in the game" than you.

You can't have it both ways, although you usually do try

and I firmly believe that we still never should have left Iraq.

Nice try yourself there, NOT!!!

besides we still did a lot of saber-rattling even when virtually every able bodied man did his time in the service, including the sons of  millionaires and politicians. It never stopped this country from getting involved in conflicts all over the world.

I do agree that we should return to the draft with ZERO exceptions. If nothing else it might put an end to people still working for minimum wage at age thirty because they have never learned a skill. There is nothing at all wrong with serving your country and bettering yourself at the same time, until recently that was how it was done for millions of young men.

Who is going to pay for all of the post war costs that the VA will face?

...bets, and J.O.'s.  But if not, I'll be glad to let you interview me when you show me a signed contract from a publisher with a six-figure advance  for my authorized biography.

My friend from the Mideast predicted this would happen if we removed Saddam. He grew up in Iran. He was right. Hussein would have the leaders of Isis hanging from iron hooks in one of his dungeons before this even got started. It's the only way to run the place. It's too late for that now.

...never make disparaging remarks about the way Republican men look?  Don't you think Rand Paul's hair looks like he got a transplant from his pubic region?  That is, if he's not wearing a piece.

Not quite anyway.  

...nieces, nephews, godchildren or kids of lifelong friends.  That would be their "skin."

Bill O'Reilly always points to a nephew or cousin's son that he probably wouldn't recognize walking down the street as his "skin."

but the fact remains, righty or not, I would most likely still vote for her over Rand Paul.

which do your think she would prefer, my vote? or compliments about her appearance?

about the size increase required to draft everyone eligible?

...to be judged on their performance rather than their appearance.  Or else give equal time to the "beasts" among male politicians.

...Typical conservative, saying he said something when he said the opposite.  Hurry, there's still time to edit your other post!

I've been addressing the "skin" issue not the size of the military.  I say bring back the draft for young men and women.  Let the powers-that-be handle the issue of size.  They could always cut food stamps, welfare, Social Security and Medicare to pay for it.

I agreed with your premise. You must have missed that.

If we allowed drilling in Alaska national reserve, the need for foreign oil is almost zero. The middle east has nothing but oil to support their economy. Quit buying it and we can probably dictate change without leaving troops there indefinitely. Besides oil production should be a national security issue. If we cant produce enough oil here or economy is at risk, at least have the ability to produce enough oil in North America for us to operate normally.  
    I'm not an oil man but understand when we use 40% of the worlds oil every year we have more influence on the price/suppliers then we do.  

First off, it would take over five years to get up to even a million barrels a day if they were to open Anwar, barely five percent of our current consumption. Secondly we don't use 40% of the worlds oil, we use about 25%.  

Oil is a world wide commodity, and as the largest consumer the market controls us, not the other way around. At least not until we start producing more than we consume, and that day is still a long ways off.

Yet the fact remains we only get roughly 13% of our oil from the middle east. So if we can get 5% from Alaska we get closer, I thought  production could be 2 (10%) million barrels a day fairly quickly (4-7 yrs). Between Canada, Mexico and South America it's very conceivable to go without middle eastern oil. Even paying a premium to go without middle eastern oil is better than putting troops in Iraq for an endless length of time. I spent 2 years there and while I really do sympathize with the average Iraqi, I am not sure its worth the cost in lives and even more VA costs that we haven't even scratched the surface of yet.  
       
        I didn't research the 40% number (going off memory), it very well was 1/4. Apologies.

One of my biggest concerns regarding ISIS is President Obama. Whether or not Obama’s lack of concern for Iraq post Bush and whether or not he tried hard enough to pressure Maliki into a SOF agreement is water under the bridge. Same for his lack of attention to Syria. It allowed ISIS to flourish leading up to now but the problem at the present is Obama’s apparent attitude towards the situation.  He hates war at all cost and it shows. Some of the cost incurred by not engaging our enemies (such at ISIS) is created when he attempts to blame his political opponents for his inaction. It’s a diversion. He will use any excuse he thinks he can get away with to not engage. Engagement for Obama includes even saying the truth about ISIS. Just look at the difference in tone between Obama and his own military chiefs (e.g. Joint Chief of Staff and DOD Secretary). Of course our engagement of ISIS has changed very recently.

The terms of the withdrawal were negotiated by Bush. Obama simply followed them. He considered having our forces remain there longer in spite of that but Milaki would not grant them immunity from Iraqi justice if any "human rights violations" happened, a term we never, ever concede for the safety of our troops in ANY foreign engagement.  

Posted By: mattradd

Yes, Obama, it can be argued, has looked weak, which was the catalyst for Isis insurgency. But, it was Bush who started the process of withdrawal, and Iraq is a sovereign country, who choose to have us leave. That set up a chance for Maliki to set up a government allowing all sides to participate and have say over how the country would adapt to the differing groups demands for it's land and wealth. He failed to do so; that is the true catalyst for the Isis insurgency, in my view. If he had done so, that would have been a win/win for us and them. However, we still win in Iraq, because of the insurgence of Isis, due to now Turkey and Iraq are allowing us to arm the Kurds, and are even open for them to become their own country. And, now it looks like there might be an opening for a new and fairer governing body. Now, we lose if we can't contain Isis before they become an imminent threat to us. Some argue they already are. Perhaps. Going after them in Syria is going to be tricky, and I don't think you're going to be getting any headlines describing the inside workings of how that's going to come about.    
 

...where you said it or anything close.  You actually said the complete OPPOSITE: "There would remain millions without sons or daughters at or approaching draft age that would continue to have no skin in the game."

http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion_boards/viewmsg.asp?MessageID=233241&boardID=39&page=1#233241

I also answered your question about how to pay for it.  It should appeal to you as it's the right's answer of how to pay for everything:

http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion_boards/viewmsg.asp?MessageID=233251&boardID=39&page=1#233251

Try not subvocalizing when you read.  You'll have better reading comprehension.

When you proposed your "skin in the game" through draft, you did not define what that meant. I agreed with your concept and proceeded to come up with my own definition which ended up being slightly different than yours. Based on my definition (lacking any from you) I saw some holes in your "solution", making it only a partial solution. The analysis was all based on MY definition, not your (since it did not exist yet). What's the big deal here?  

but the major flaw in your argument is that while WE only get a small percentage of our oil from the region, oil is a world wide commodity. If ISIS were to seize the Iraqi oil fields or worse, if the entire region went into outright civil war the impact on oil prices would be dramatic and immediate. most likely sending the world into world wide recession, and even though OUR oil doesn't come from that part of the world the impact would be felt every bit as much as if it were.

It's like if you live in California, and there is a record freeze in Florida, YOUR oranges don't come from Florida, but I guarantee you the price for California oranges is still going to go through the roof. We no longer live in a vacuum. I do agree that we should do everything in our power to become energy self sufficient, but that doesn't mean that the ME won't still have very important strategic concerns for us.

As a side note, when I lived in Florida, I couldn't get a decent orange, and the only grapefruit worth eating were from Texas.