What do you think of simply taking their leaders out with drones? Seems to've been reasonably effective for the Obama administration.
A drone strike in principle wouldn't be wrong, but the way you proposed it is a terrible idea.
Just stop for a second and think. The structure of islamic terrorism isn't like a military or a state. The terrorists all operate independently in small cells spread around the world. Now if you cut off the head, clearly those people will panic. What the fuck do you think will happen? We'd have a second paris, matter of fact multiple uncoordinated attacks on Europe and the United States.
Since no one read my long ass post anyway I will just sum it up in a three step plan:
1) Stop all delivery of weapons from both Europe and the US to UAE and Turkey. Those states actively equip IS military. Support Kurdish troops and rebel troops so that the change can happen from within. If kurdish and syrian military wins more and more battles with the IS it sends a completely different message than if we bomb them. Where do you think all that hatred for the western world stems from?..
2) The NATO needs to officially declare a no-tolerance policy for Russias, Turkeys and UAE's support for the islamic state (and the assad regime). They need to threaten an embargo. It doesn't matter whether or not they actually pull through with it, he idea here is to destabilize and demoralize. A lot of IS recruits are young and undecisive, they'll get cold feet when they see their project fail. We also need to tackle their money sources. The three main sources of income from the IS are money streams from UAE and Turkey, Heroin trade and tolls and taxes they put on the general population. Two of those can easily be tackled. If UAE see their oil prices dropping even a bit they'll think twice about supporting IS. Stopping the heroin trade of course isn't possible, but we should at least try since the police in the respective countries is completely incapacitated.
3) Now that IS recruits are demoralized, the main money sources and therefore military power is threatened internal conflict will break out. This is the moment where you have to strike. If you set an example at such a time, a retaliation will be far less likely. I agree a drone strike wouldn't be a terrible idea there, neither would a stealth bomber attack. As long as it's not gas or ground troops...
heh Turkey sorta fine))
i guess it sort of is relatively to the other examples but the wording made me pause reading for a few seconds
also the key word in my stop pretending comment was 'you'
you as in USA
i agree with the point you've made fully
im just being an ass
You been watching the news lately? Turkey is barely any better than the other "islamic" countries, they're just more stable. They regularily get rid of Erdogan's critics, they still actively support the mass-slaughter of kurds, they still supply terrorists. I don't see how that's "fine". It's just the tip of the iceberg.
Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Palestine, Libya, Afghanistan
Their populace's "peaceful Muslims" also seem to serve terrorists as either meatshields(which let them get pissy at the US about civilian casualties despite clearly using/abusing civilians) or recruiting pools.
I'm sure there are some Muslim countries like Turkey that are sorta fine but for the most part it doesn't seem like a great idea to leave the countries that are the main sources/havens of Islamic terrorism to their own devices at this point.
I wrote a long ass post, but it got deleted so I'll just sum up my main points.
"They just end up electing terrorists anyway!"
Syria has never been a democracy. Bashar Al-Assads father was "elected" president with 99.6% of all votes (this should tell you something) after he "cleansed" the entire former administration. The sole fact that he had his son appointed to president without any democratic process should tell you that we are not talking about a democracy here.
The sovereign state of Iraq was founded in 1958. It only lasted 5 years before it was overthrown by the Baaht-Party. We are talking about the highest military executives here, this was a coup, not a democratical process. The Baath party was the smallest party in congress and would have never won a vote. 1963 was also the date Hussein was made vice-president. We are talking about a dictatorship here, supported by US money and weapons. No one ever elected them.
Would you also say "Latin America just isn't ready for democracy!" because Chile and Bolivia were overthrown with the help of US money in the '70s? Your point is moot. Those countries never elected terrorists, because those countries never elected anyone. The elections there are a sham and have been for decades. You literally cannot know whether or not Syria or Iraq would elect a terrorist, because for the last 40 years they haven't been in the position to elect anyone.