Why fight ISIS?

[Longhorn]

He's too busy sticking his face on trees and cheese crackers

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Before dealing with them I'd rather find out why, otherwise considered sane people from foreign countries are flying over to join their mindless cruelty.

Many are sold an idealized vision of what living Under a 'caliphate' is like. Several people from the UK who have gone over and then come back have said that for people at the bottom life is a nightmare, destitution, poverty, race and murder an every day occurrence. several girls from the UK have gone over with the hope of being brides to fighters, only to realise they are actually joining a glorified gang rape culture where they are abused, at least according to some defectors.

[The Grand Nudger]

So...those girls got what they were dreaming off, then?  We fight because we have agreed to, we have made commitments, and because there is money in it (both for soldiers and those who call for their deployment). That's the usual reason.

[Saxmoof]

Surely as soon as they try to fight against one of the countries in the area they'll be destroyed, right?

You mean, like Syria and Iraq?

There must be a stable country in the area that's capable of fighting them and in more immediate danger from them than we are, what about Iran? I'm not saying no-one should fight them, I just don't see how we can improve the situation

And if you want to fully destroy them and make sure they don't come back then surely at some point we have to send in ground troops and then stay there indefinitely, that's hardly a good solution

[Anomalocaris]

Before dealing with them I'd rather find out why, otherwise considered sane people from foreign countries are flying over to join their mindless cruelty.

Because a sizeable portion of any population naturally have escapist power fantasies involving violence and cruelties.   When section of the population become disaffected by the prevailing social, economic, political conditions, the portion of those with escapist power fantasies involving violence and cruelties will Be tempted to respond to opportunities to act out such fantasies.   The temptation can be magnified if the opportunity for violence and cruelty can be protrayed as being in service of something grander than the petty concerns of ordinary moralities and human sympathies. 

[The Grand Nudger]

You mean, like Syria and Iraq?

There must be a stable country in the area that's capable of fighting them and in more immediate danger from them than we are, what about Iran? I'm not saying no-one should fight them, I just don't see how we can improve the situation

And if you want to fully destroy them and make sure they don't come back then surely at some point we have to send in ground troops and then stay there indefinitely, that's hardly a good solution

Counterproductive to our interests and wasteful of past action.  Iraq was supposed to be a bulwark against Iran.  What sense would it make to invite Iran, now, to overrun Iraq...even if they could and were interested? -One- of the reasons to deal with ISIS ourselves, currently, is to retain some measure of control as to who fills the vacuum in the region.

[Saxmoof]

So we either go in there ourselves and stay there indefinitely with our finger plugging the dam, or we fund/arm/train some other group to fight ISIS - who could we help control the region without brutal, sectarian war flaring up again the minute we stop helping them? (these questions aren't rhetorical, i'm genuinely asking, I haven't heard these questions answered in the media)

You say it's counter-productive to our interests but what are those interests, obviously power and money but the official line is that we're fighting evil and stopping the spread of radical Islam, there's plenty of evil and plenty of radical Islam in the world, if we're fighting religious barbarism then there's a few other Muslim countries we should be invading, we can't fight all of it. And it can't be in our interest to spend however much money we're going to end up spending fighting ISIS, can it?

The argument that it's our mess to clean up is the most persuasive imo, maybe if we keep fucking up and making the situation worse and worse there'll come a time where we can say, "ok, this couldn't possibly be any worse, it's perfect for more war and nation building! there's nothing to lose!"

[Minimalist]

or we fund/arm/train some other group to fight ISIS

We don't seem to be very good at that.  I'm old enough to remember how the S. Vietnamese army packed it in and ran like rabbits, too.

We have a track record of recruiting track teams.

[Anomalocaris]

So we either go in there ourselves and stay there indefinitely with our finger plugging the dam, or we fund/arm/train some other group to fight ISIS - who could we help control the region without brutal, sectarian war flaring up again the minute we stop helping them? (these questions aren't rhetorical, i'm genuinely asking, I haven't heard these questions answered in the media)

You say it's counter-productive to our interests but what are those interests, obviously power and money but the official line is that we're fighting evil and stopping the spread of radical Islam, there's plenty of evil and plenty of radical Islam in the world, if we're fighting religious barbarism then there's a few other Muslim countries we should be invading, we can't fight all of it. And it can't be in our interest to spend however much money we're going to end up spending fighting ISIS, can it?

The argument that it's our mess to clean up is the most persuasive imo, maybe if we keep fucking up and making the situation worse and worse there'll come a time where we can say, "ok, this couldn't possibly be any worse, it's perfect for more war and nation building! there's nothing to lose!"

America's self perceived interest in the region is to maintain balance of power between states and religious sects so everybody's attentions and Machiavellian energies are primarily focused on smiling and backstabbing each other,  with as little energy and attention as possible being free to divert in our direction, or the direction of Israel.   American would further like this balance of power to be so arranged that is it is unstable by itself and can only be made somewhat stable with considerable American participation.   This way at least some party would be beholden to the U.S. and willing to do our bidding.

We have no interest in letting anyone grow so big that their have spare energy and resource to pursue independent foreign policy objectives besides just barely keeping up with their neighbors, which given how much of an unwanted outsider we and Israel happen to be, would be to direct against us or Israel in one way or another.   We also have no interest in the U.S. not being placed to meddle in the region when we like however we like, even if our departure does really promise peace, stability and prosperity.

[Saxmoof]

And that's the safer option 

At least I think it is, I haven't heard an alternative to those two plans I described. Although Donald Trump apparently has a foolproof plan, and he's really rich so he must have a good idea