(November 16, 2015 at 4:24 pm)paulpablo Wrote:(November 16, 2015 at 2:10 pm)Minimalist Wrote: The best outcome would be a negotiated settlement in Syria which will not include ISIS so they can continue to be bombed at will. The second best outcome would be that we learn that we cannot take our "one-size-fits-all" mentality and apply it to democracy in a land which is manifestly not ready for it.
But this is another part of the frustration for me. Military fighting against ISIS might be able to attack a few military points, but ISIS don't have a giant evil castle up on a hill which they dominate the innocent villagers from. From what I understand they blend in with innocent civilians.
The way I see it the military has two options about ways to fight and both are shit but both are probably happening right now.
2) The American classic method of bombing the fuck out of everything including a few weddings and camera men along the way. This is like trying to use a hammer to solve an arithmetic puzzle, finding out it doesn't work, then using more hammers.
3) Using the CIA to fund and arm an opposition to ISIS, which will probably result in an even crazier bunch of bastards running around with American weapons and funds.
When your only tool is a hammer everything looks like a nail.
We have already given up trying to arm an opposition. At the end we were down to 4-5 guys...which in military terms is chewed up squad. I wonder how many billions that cost?
