to defeat ISIS. Is he right? Does he truly understand how war works?
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/11/politics/donald-trump-30000-troops-isis/
>>67093462
One atom bomb would be enough.
It depends on how you use your resources.
>literally sending American troops into a death trap
just when you thought he couldn't get any stupider
"IS" is already being defeated, their capital Raqqa, is divided between 2 competing factions, and if you follow the Syrian war, you'd know that they're rapidly losing ground. They are a meme that is running out of steam, quickly.
>>67093462
If our military's shackles were taken off they could do it with under 10 thousand. No fucking joke.
>>67093462
He was talking about killing families of ISIS not just ISIS. He understands war if that's true.
>>67093698
>you'd know that they're rapidly losing ground.
BS, where are they "rapidly losing ground"? You mean those tiny specs of land in Aleppo and Rojavan? I have been following the war in Syria pretty much daily for years. If there is one true constant it is that the further you go in time, the less really changes.
>>67093462
he just knows ISIS is weaker than they pretend they are
Trump is pretty red pilled and im sure he slipped when he said that.
Its been going around for a while that the ISIS threat gets artificially blown up.
Anyone with a brain knows they can basically get rekt at any moment in time.
Look what the US did to the Iraq in 2003.
Does anyone really think they will have ANY problems stumping ISIS?
They just don't want to.
>>67093462
If we were to declare no holds bar total war? hell even 10k ought to do it as long as theres non of that stabilize the region crap
>we go in
>we glass and kill everything
>we go out
>let nature takes its course
>>67093923
>ISIS is literally bombing targets in Ankara, Beirut, Baghdad, Kabul, and Sirte
>conquering Raqqa will defeat them
it's time to stop posting
>>67093729
Absolutely this. It is impossible to win against an insurgency with our current SOP.
>>67094071
Ok, dude, let's assume some general laws stay in place, so no massive war crimes, no nukes, no plundering and raping. But you guys can go in, kill ISIS and not hold territory.
Is 20-30k enough?
>>67093912
Um they're about to lose palmyra for one.
>>67093462
News flash you idiot, trump is a fucking privileged hack, all these kids on this board supporting him because he fills the daddy void. Seriously use your brain, its not that hard.
>>67093462
Two pilots is enough.
Any amount of troops required would be for the cleanup after victory.
>>67094572
>Um they're about to lose palmyra for one.
They have said that for months. You do know, ISIS only conquered Palmyra last year... and it was said it is going to be reconquered ever since the Russians intervened. Nothing happened.
>>67094523
As long as we can kill the civilians that are harboring ISIS and civilians who are being used as shields by ISIS then its doable, hell we might even test new weapons in the field like that rumored variable strike fighter and powerarmors
The US can go in, kick ass, and leave.
We proved that in the first gulf war.
no sticking around in attempt to nation build.
>>67094829
That's literally what Obama did in Libya, numbnut.
>>67094640
>privileged
>>67094824
when the fuck am i getting my full suit of T-45D?
>>67094932
you're supporting a hack mate a fucking two bit hack, he will ruin your great country. Also he is privileged, he is not in touch with the world.
Its pretty easy to kill ISIS if you cut the saudi/cia funding.
>>67094071
>non of that stabilize the region crap
Do you want a repeat of WWII? Because that's what happens if you defeat a country then don't properly follow up with an occupation.
>>67095125
hear theyre looking for civilian test volunteers for the powersuit program but if you wait you can get one when we annex canada
>>67095480
Problem is that these people are not the uniformed german army they are rebels and terrorists and the only way to secure peace is to either surrender to them or scorched earth policy
>>67094925
Nope. We didn't kill Saddam in Desert Storm. Libya was a huge fuck up.
>>67094161
obviously you can not stop spread out terrorist cells but destroying isis in its core and taking control over Syria is incredibly easy for the US military
anyone who believes otherwise is delusional AF
>>67093462
>Does he truly understand how war works?
He has no idea, and if he's elected he's going to learn the hard way.
>>67095770
You're a few months behind the times, bruv. ISIS has already metastasized to Libya and Afghanistan, which is why USAF and special forces are stepping up operations in both theatres.
From an Army officer currently on 5th tour in Afghanistan, I can say it's extremely easy for US military to fight large numbers of conventional, uniformed adversaries (training, organizational, technological advantages) and it's easy for special forces to destroy/disrupt small terrorists cells. This is called "clearing" and yes, it can probably be done with 30,000 troops from all branches.
On the other hand, it is extremely difficult to conduct the follow on "hold" mission, where we retain all the ground we've secured. This requires large numbers of troops, well into the hundreds of thousands. If we cannot hold ground then it doesn't matter how many bombs we drop or how many insurgents we kill on a daily basis, more will come out of the wood work to fill in the gaps.
There are only three real ways to defeat ISIS for good:
1. Form a coalition consisting of hundreds of thousands of troops, build thousands of small bases and out posts all over ISIS territory and spend trillions of trillions of dollars sustaining operations and preventing them from reforming, indefinitely.
2. Empower the local governance and populace to resist ISIS themselves without relying on foreign aid.
3. Combination of the two but introduce societal and economic reforms to deter people turning to terrorists activities in first place.
1 is impractical, 2 is most realistic, 3 is best but would require generations of focused effort.
>>67096019
>2. Empower the local governance and populace to resist ISIS
A lot of the local population, at least the strong ones and many local Sunni leaders, very much support ISIS.
>>67093729
Our jew masters would never willingly allow this, sadly
>>67093912
Schnauze halten, Mehmet.
>>67096019
>2. Empower the local governance and populace to resist ISIS themselves without relying on foreign aid.
Hasn't this been a massive failure in Afghanistan? Have RSM trainers made any progress with the previously untrainable Afghan army?
>>67096454
>Schnauze halten, Mehmet.
Doesn't change facts, Muhammad. Your ISIS buddies are going to be killed, but it will be hard.
>>67093462
to be fair, no presidental candidate knows how war works.
>>67093462
The difference is Trump will carry out his attacks with brutal efficiency with complete disregard for the cucknited nations, he will steam roll these sand niggers.
>>67096250
I'm sure some support ISIS which is to be expected, but Syria and Iraq as countries are in shambles. Those supporters of ISIS won't be able to economically survive off black market oil sales forever.
>>67096512
Mixed results. I was in Helmand yesterday and there are definitely some badass ANA units out there who will absolutely take the fight to ISIS and Taliban and mop the floor with them. There are plenty of issues as well that we simply can't fix no matter how much training and assistance we provide (lack of unifying national identity and values, societal acceptance of corruption, general lacksidasical attitude / no sense of urgency, inability to sustain equipment, low pay due to inefficient economy, etc). Still, we have to do our best and give the Afghans a fighting chance to hold their country together.
Syria's already beginning to overrun ISIS. The US could take them out within a matter of months.
>>67093462
isis is a boogeyman
>>67094925
Trump would allow Assad to remain to manage the insane asylum
>>67093462
Well the SAA led coalition is currently pushing back Isis and thats with 0 american troops
>>67097331
tell that to the dead cucks in paris
>>67097218
>I'm sure some support ISIS which is to be expected, but Syria and Iraq as countries are in shambles. Those supporters of ISIS won't be able to economically survive off black market oil sales forever.
When ISIS advanced towards Mosul with 800 - 1000 soldiers in June 2014 nearly 2 years ago, they were just doing one of those "Blitzkrieg raids" they had been doing in the months before. They were facing 30,000 Iraqi soldiers with good equipment.
There was no way they could take that city, no where in hell. That is also why America didn't react initially.
And boy ISIS was surprised that the leaders in the city of Mosul greeted them as liberators and said they had 20,000 armed people's support and that they will bribe the Iraqi army soldiers to leave.
And so Mosul was taken by 1000 ISIS soldiers... and 20,000 local supporters with very little casualities, while the Iraqi army lost 2500 Humvees and thousands of soldiers... not from ISIS fire, but from local supporters' fire.
>>67093462
Isis is only 30.000 guys, its why everyone is pissed at the arab countries for not dealing with their own shit.
>>67097947
>Isis is only 30.000 guys, its why everyone is pissed at the arab countries for not dealing with their own shit.
The 30,000 soldiers claim is wrong. ISIS has a population of about 8 million under its control and has probably around 1 million hardcore supporters (including brainwashed kids) and could probably mobilize 100,000 to 250,000 soldiers in case of an all out war (including tens of thousands of kids who would be used as suicide bombers).
>>67093698
Big problem, though, is that Al Qaeda is using them as a smoke screen and building back up to greater than before, coming off as a more moderate alternative and getting hella people that would have never touched them before.
>>67093698
Thank based Russia for that.
>>67094829
>The US can go in, kick ass, and leave.
That is what we did in Iraq too.
Guess what that got us? Our current fucking situation. You think doing it again won't result in even WORSE assholes rising to power? Do you have the mental capacity of a goldfish?
>>67098389
>>67098389
Not the first time around. Not in 91
>>67093462
If the UNSC could come to an agreement that Assad would stay in power and that a coalition of UNSC troops would clear out Syria of terrorists then leave, the job could be done in a week.
>>67098389
Nah what we've learned from out middle east adventures is that democracy doesn't work, and supporting/installing secular dictators is the best way to keep them under control.
>>67098389
we never left iraq and we should have killed everyone
>>67093462
Yes. 20,000 to 30,000 troops would be enough if he allows them to have very loose Rules of Engagement. If he restricts them to what they had in Afghanistan towards the end then things would go to shit.
If he doesn't worry about civilian casualties then he should be able to clear them out in about 2 months.
>>67098866
Remember when they tried it with China? The communists won back then.
>>67094640
A small loan of a million dollars is not privileged, bucko.
>>67093912
They're losing population centers, which is essentially the most important part of the country. Europe and America has lost it's population centers to niggers and liberals, we have to take them back.
>>67099108
The entire ME as it was before 9/11 was a product of our creation. We just need to oppress the shit out of them rather than free the shit out of them.
>>67094523
Absolutely not, it took 13,500 troops to take Fallujah.
>>67093672
oh wow, a leaf trying to talk about combat
>>67096955
This worries me, germandubsman
It has been a long while since we had a president with combat experience
>>67099247
>They're losing population centers
Which ones? Aleppo? Aleppo was pretty much held by Al Qaeda and the Islamic Front and their allies, ISIS is located more to the East and North of Aleppo.
Which "population centers" have they lost?
>>67099361
>Absolutely not, it took 13,500 troops to take Fallujah.
So? I think Trump's point was, how many US troops will be required. Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UK, France etc. have all said they would commit troops if America leads. Russia too. I guess you can get to 150,000 to 200,000 n a coalition with Americans doing the front line fighting together with the Brits and the rest doing the occupying.
Ben Carson knows much more about all this good stuff than even Trump-sama.
https://youtu.be/O5grtI5lSnA
>>67093462
20k or 30k combat troops is more than enough if they are just going to kill ISIS and destroy their support structure. Leaving bullshit about nation building out.
>>67099560
They've captured dozens of villages, Homs, Jaffa, they're attacking Raqqa and Palmyra right now. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I really doubt a coalition of troops will do anything, Turkish troops are I'm going to assume shit. Qatar, and Saudi Arabia I'm sure are. The UK and France can fight but why bother? I think we can let them kill each other, unless we plan on deporting these fucking refugees back as soon as it stabilizes.
>>67099801
20-30k combat troops is an absolutely massive logistical operation, for each regiment you take an logistic group forward meaning another 800+ men for each roughly 20,k combat troops, then you need all the chow-halls, air-wingers, all those mechanics etc etc. That gets fucking big fast.
>>67099857
>Correct me if I'm wrong.
You are wrong.
Palmyra was only taken by ISIS a few months back and they still hold it.
Raqqa? Who is attacking Raqqa? The Kurds? Definitely not Assad or the Russians or hte Americas, Raqqa is 100% under ISIS control.
>>67099857
>I really doubt a coalition of troops will do anything, Turkish troops are I'm going to assume shit.
You are wrong again. Turkey is very much able to occupy and hold land. The same with other countries down there. America and Britain are good at frontline fighting, but they really do not want to send 250,000 soldiers to occupy free territory, they want the Kurds and the Turks and the Saudis and the Qataris etc. to occupy those territories they free. That is entirely possible. Actually, in Iraq, you can have the Iraqi army to occupy land that is freed by America.
>>67100038
>20-30k combat troops is an absolutely massive logistical operation, for each regiment you take an logistic group forward meaning another 800+ men for each roughly 20,k combat troops, then you need all the chow-halls, air-wingers, all those mechanics etc etc. That gets fucking big fast.
Depends on what your deployment strategy is.
Look at the French foreign legion. They are operating with very limited logistic support in the field. It is their way of fighting, each fighting group is pretty much self supported logistically. The US could take a similar approach, which could cut back massively on the logistics - especially if the US does not go in for an occupying mission, but just for a fighting mission with others doing the occupying.
>>67100257
Those troops are already staged in the area awaiting deployment with massive naval support.
watch this goyim
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAeoW2IS3g0
>>67096019
>2. Empower the local governance and populace to resist ISIS themselves without relying on foreign aid.
This has worked so well in the past, I wonder what could go wrong.
>>67093729
shits like,
>"we're taking fire..
>"what's the rules of engagement here.."
>dead.
thanks obongo
>>67093462
he just said go with however many the generals think but he's heard 30k would be good
>>67093729
Fucking this, so much of this AND BRRRRRRRRRRTTTTTTTRRRRRRBBBBRRRŔRRRRRTTTTT
