No ground troops
Is the much vaunted Islamic State merely a house of cards?
Much is made of the vast amount of territory ISIS controls. Yet the number of Islamic State fighting men is only 20,000 by the most generous estimate.
The Islamic State also is described as the wealthiest terror organization in the world after looting a billion dollars from captured banks. But soldiers need to be paid, clothed, fed, transported, trained, armed and provided with medical care. All things considered, that billion dollars is pocket change.
And fewer than a dozen U.S. airstrikes, so far, have rocked the so-called “caliphate” back on its terrorist heels.
What's more, the Islamic State is engaged against a veteran Syrian Army, the hand-bitten Kurds and an Iraqi army that alone outnumbers the terrorists by 10 to one.
American politicians who demand that the U.S. get more involved in this strictly Muslim nightmare deserve to be excoriated. The Iraq war, which began more than 10 years ago, was an aberration that opened Pandora's sectarian box. It was an inarguable mistake that proved deadly for nearly 4,500 American soldiers.
Shedding any more American blood in the sand will never redeem the chaos our own jingoistic politicians have fatally created.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Majority defied
- Missile defense, not talks
- Positive & healthy ...
- Thanks for the coverage
- Russia, not Rice
- ... Or free-riding fad?
- Goodell’s ‘pick-six’
- Hiring in Westmoreland II
- Ferguson & contradictions
- Sticker shock
- More answers, please