How to Shorten the War Against ISIS

Preface: This is admittedly a hair-brained idea, and is partly tongue-in-cheek. But then again, who's got a better idea for stopping the spread of ISIS terrorism ... while avoiding WWIII between Russia, the U.S. and NATO?

American military and intelligence types claim that the war against ISIS will last for 30 years. And see this.

On the other hand, anti-war activist David Swanson argues that war always results in bad outcomes, so war against ISIS is a bad idea.

After all, ISIS' "capital" city - Raqqa - has many civilians, universities and hospitals. Bombing too heavily would kill a lot of innocent people as well as ISIS terrorists.

Russia, Iran and China argue that war against ISIS is necessary to prevent further terrorism ... but Syria's leader Assad must be supported as best able to fight ISIS on-the-ground. They also argue that the Turks, Saudis and other Gulf tyrannies, and the U.S. and its allies are the main supporters of ISIS.

The U.S. and its allies argue that war against ISIS is necessary ... but that Assad has to be taken out in the process.

Who's right? What should be done?

Initially, it's obvious that ISIS' support should be cut off.  Since Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait - all close U.S. allies - have been supporting ISIS, we have to tell them to knock it off.

But I'm also not opposed to sending in a million troops into Raqqa to quickly finish off ISIS once and for all.  Only shoot at people who shoot first.  Arrest people who are with ISIS (ask the locals ... they'll know).

If an international coalition - including both states which want Assad gone and states which want to support Assad - form a coalition for the sole purpose of wiping out ISIS, we could get the job done very quickly.

The U.N. Security Council - made up of the U.S., UK, China, France, and Russian Federation, as well as various non-permanent members - could oversee the effort.

The U.S. couldn't dictate Russian policy or demand that Assad leave ... likewise, Russia couldn't dictate U.S. policy or demand that Assad stay.  We'd leave all of that for another day.

But everyone - the West, the Arab countries, China, everyone - sends in troops for the focused, limited purpose of eradicating ISIS.

Anyone who doesn't send troops will be declaring that they're with ISIS.  U.S. won't send in troops because the Russians won't commit to ousting Assad? Then the U.S. is supporting ISIS.

Russians won't send in troops because the U.S. won't commit to letting Assad stay? Then Russia is supporting ISIS.

This is bigger than Assad ... or other geopolitics. ISIS is dangerous, and launching terrorism worldwide.

A million troops could quickly sweep into Raqqa and restore an ISIS-free city.

What do you think?

Comments

No comments yet! Be the first to add yours.