Forum Thread

The Real Problem With Trump's plan for the Middle East

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 8 Posts
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    During the last GOP debate in an effort to seem more presidential trump answered a number of foreign policy questions .The scariest part of this was when he started to explain is plans for Iraq and Syria ,which involves putting almost 25,000-35,000 troops on the ground .This "plan" seems to be taken right out of the Rumsfeld play book and is guaranteed to solve almost nothing .While I hesitate to say that the answer to the problems in the middle east is sending in troops , i know for a fact sending 25,000 troops wont fix a single problem in the area and simply result in more american casualties .If the United States is going to commit more troops to the region it needs to be a sizable enough force so that it can safely and effectively control the region and complete its goals .The original estimate of troops need to effectively control Iraq is 400,000 by General Tommy Franks in 2002. A large part of the U.S failure in Iraq was its inability to secure and protect the state after the disbandment of the regime . Now that ISIS has become the new issue in the area its going to be much harder to permanently remove them with out and large force that is able to provide safety and effective public goods that the government hasn't .Only though an effective policing and managing of the area can any true peace be achieved .
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    NotJacksonsparty Wrote: During the last GOP debate in an effort to seem more presidential trump answered a number of foreign policy questions .The scariest part of this was when he started to explain is plans for Iraq and Syria ,which involves putting almost 25,000-35,000 troops on the ground .This "plan" seems to be taken right out of the Rumsfeld play book and is guaranteed to solve almost nothing .While I hesitate to say that the answer to the problems in the middle east is sending in troops , i know for a fact sending 25,000 troops wont fix a single problem in the area and simply result in more american casualties .If the United States is going to commit more troops to the region it needs to be a sizable enough force so that it can safely and effectively control the region and complete its goals .The original estimate of troops need to effectively control Iraq is 400,000 by General Tommy Franks in 2002. A large part of the U.S failure in Iraq was its inability to secure and protect the state after the disbandment of the regime . Now that ISIS has become the new issue in the area its going to be much harder to permanently remove them with out and large force that is able to provide safety and effective public goods that the government hasn't .Only though an effective policing and managing of the area can any true peace be achieved .
    Not the right answer. The solution is never more force . People here forget that we have not won any wars since WWII and neither will "win" this one. So the big question is evaded, lets say that we "win"(what?) what then? Iraq and Syria are then just rubble and Europe is invaded with refugees. So ready for a new dictator? Or do you want a forever occupation like we are now doing in Afghanistan or our border control and bases all over the world costing trillions since 1948 in Korea? Why do you think our "debt" is trillions due to all our fantastic wars which only produced plenty of "wounded warriors" but nothing else? The only solution is let others do the fighting; not the US. We are poking our noses way too much in the rest of the world and always get the bloody noses. For instance Obama is shortly traveling to Britain to convince the Brits to stay in the EU. Is it any of our business? Let the UK decide that for themselves. We should stop all our meddling in the world it will mostly backfire, just check history. Let China built their islands and let ISIS be ISIS and have the whole rich middle east countries deal with that. We've got enough protection and problems here to solve; look at the price of your airline ticket half is for the TSA. Of course a couple individual fanatics may slip through and kill a few, however that is peanuts compared to what we kill ourselves with our great gun control system and our love for heroin.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Notjacksonsparty said : ""Only though an effective policing and managing of the area can any true peace be achieve".

    The probable result of effective policing and managing is a growing expansion of focussed radicalism. The radicals will take advantage of the "imprisonment" to identify the USA as the dictatorial enemy. Winning battles does not change minds. Most often it resolves differences with a vengeance. Resolution to peace requires time, understanding and compensation. When victory requires a change in beliefs then the victor owes compensation in the form of example and education demonstrating the better way. Forcing a peace never works. History demonstrates the fickleness for support. How many battles are between former allies. In the case of the USA how many enemies have we initially created and empowered. Instead of defeating opposition leaders convert their followers. But what does the USA have to offer. We find it hard to justify helping our own. Electing Bernie would be a signal to the world that the USA has respect for people. Lead by example.

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote:

    Notjacksonsparty said : ""Only though an effective policing and managing of the area can any true peace be achieve".

    The probable result of effective policing and managing is a growing expansion of focussed radicalism. The radicals will take advantage of the "imprisonment" to identify the USA as the dictatorial enemy. Winning battles does not change minds. Most often it resolves differences with a vengeance. Resolution to peace requires time, understanding and compensation. When victory requires a change in beliefs then the victor owes compensation in the form of example and education demonstrating the better way. Forcing a peace never works. History demonstrates the fickleness for support. How many battles are between former allies. In the case of the USA how many enemies have we initially created and empowered. Instead of defeating opposition leaders convert their followers. But what does the USA have to offer. We find it hard to justify helping our own. Electing Bernie would be a signal to the world that the USA has respect for people. Lead by example.

    Yes, Chet. indeed "lead by example" What does our "non existing culture" export? Military greatness? Is that all? Let's first try to run our country properly before we "invade or bomb" others.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    The main problem with our foreign policy (to date for the 21st century) is that people can wage war (anywhere) & with no real sacrifice on their own part, but just sitting on the sidelines cheering or booing the efforts of others. They have to have skin in the game -- or a dog in the fight -- in order to be a REAL War. What if they had to send their first-born son over to the battlefield? Or bet 50% of their estate on the outcome of a single day's skirmishes in the Middle Eastern sand dunes? How do you measure success? If somebody lets the "enemy" run off with $billions of dollars worth of military equipment, "made in the USA" --- then they should be "docked" 2 full year's pay (at least). This IS NOT A GAME. How do you run a war if none of the co-operating soldiers can speak our language? -- What do they use? -- Pig Latin? -- Inquiring Minds Want to Know.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    eternal flame Wrote: The main problem with our foreign policy (to date for the 21st century) is that people can wage war (anywhere) & with no real sacrifice on their own part, but just sitting on the sidelines cheering or booing the efforts of others. They have to have skin in the game -- or a dog in the fight -- in order to be a REAL War. What if they had to send their first-born son over to the battlefield? Or bet 50% of their estate on the outcome of a single day's skirmishes in the Middle Eastern sand dunes? How do you measure success? If somebody lets the "enemy" run off with $billions of dollars worth of military equipment, "made in the USA" --- then they should be "docked" 2 full year's pay (at least). This IS NOT A GAME. How do you run a war if none of the co-operating soldiers can speak our language? -- What do they use? -- Pig Latin? -- Inquiring Minds Want to Know.
    Eternal, read my piece; lets first fix things at home; Trump did not rise because we are so smart; we did not even want to participate in WWI only the last year of that war we entered. Before that time the US did not meddle as much as today in other countries because it has gone to their heads (the same as with Trump) since we helped with winning WWII and won none after that, which gives this country an inferiority complex. Since that time we have become an arrogant naïve country, who thinks we know it all and can run the whole world; forget it, the world is a lot bigger than this island, ask China etc.
  • Independent
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    strongly suggest reading joseph nye, jr's "the future of power" regarding hard power, soft power and the evolution of both. we have a strong misconception in this country that having the "strongest military" in the world means that we can act in whatever manner we wish and achieve the results that we wish. that we cannot look at the middle east (including libya) and see the absolute untruth of this belief is somewhat amazing but then again not really when exceptionalism is thrown into the mix. democracies do not go to war with each other any more which is true but also irrelevant. the biggest problem is that the impact of non-state actors has skyrocketed and hard power alone cannot stop that. thus trump's or anyone else's bleating about sending troops in without careful consideration of soft power, coalitions and a host of other factors means more chaos. and if there is anything we do not need it is more chaos.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Modern times demand satisfaction instantly. Tools that support quick resolutions use death and destruction. Our diplomacy for conflict resolution relies on our terms and tools. Ultimatums backed with the threat of military action don't provide solutions. At best they are cease fires.