= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
HungryHobo comments on [Link] A rational response to the Paris attacks and ISIS - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (275)
Um, most folks who have looked into this matter with any kind of effort/depth argue that putting boots on the ground is pretty much the only way of successfully challenging daesh. Air campaigns are showy and all, but they're inherently limited even for something like short-term containment. Doing nothing but air campaigns (the current approach) amounts to leaving the existing situation in place.
It's far far harder for a faction to defend itself when their enemies have massive air support and they do not.
Isis lose with or without boots on the ground if their current enemies in the region are simply given heavy air support and supplies.
Putting boots on the ground, Benefits:
More local control.
Better trained soldiers.
Cons:
Expense cash.
Expense lives.
Needing to run an occupation.
Difficulty of nation building due to resentment against your new state from local peoples about foreign occupiers.