Why won't coalition deploy troops against ISIS?

[Falcon29]

Very simple question. Global media on daily basis runs programs dedicated to 'danger' of ISIS to non-Muslims in the ongoing 24/7 demonetization campaign against Islam. Yet the coalition is doing nothing to overthrow ISIS. They can easily deploy 20k troops in Syria and the operation will take maximum two months. At most coalition will lose 100-200 troops. And this operation will be financed easily by the coalition. Yet we keep hearing excuses by the coalition or simply West evades explanation to this question.

But when it comes to Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, they organize a whole coup to topple the government, murder 1,000 plus activists in the streets of Cairo and persecute/dismantle the whole movements social strucutre in Egypt within a year. And if the West wants to attack the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine(Hamas), they make arrangements to supply Israel with munitions, intelligence within a few days and give green light for ground operation in Gaza. With all of this, somehow these bullshitters want to make it as if they are powerless against ISIS. And somehow ISIS leader after takeover of Mosul goes into public, delivers 1 hour sermon and miraculously not tracked at all.

 

[Vassnti]

Simple the moment US boots hit the ground every man and his dog is screaming kill them.

"A Shia cleric loyal to anti-US cleric Moqtada al Sadr has warned that the 300 US military advisers en route to Iraq will be attacked."

In a sermon from Baghdad's Sadr City district, Nassir al Saedi threatened what he called "the occupier", saying: "We will be ready for you if you are back."

300 gets death threats can you imagine o 20,000 troops arrived/?

 

[Falcon29]

Simple the moment US boots hit the ground every man and his dog is screaming kill them.

"A Shia cleric loyal to anti-US cleric Moqtada al Sadr has warned that the 300 US military advisers en route to Iraq will be attacked."

In a sermon from Baghdad's Sadr City district, Nassir al Saedi threatened what he called "the occupier", saying: "We will be ready for you if you are back."

300 gets death threats can you imagine o 20,000 troops arrived/?

This post makes it clear how unfamiliar you are with ME politics. These Shia militias say such things for domestic consumption purposes. They have contact with US and cooperate militarily.
:
"Liberating even a span of the Iraqi territories from the ISIL terrorists' hands is impossible without the popular forces' partnership and we don’t attach any importance to the Americans' opposition," Karim al-Nouri, a commander and spokesman of the popular forces, told FNA.
.....

Pretty much means include us in operations since we want to control all of Iraq. Just sending usual message they always do.

 

[Vassnti]

This post makes it clear how unfamiliar you are with ME politics. These Shia militias say such things for domestic consumption purposes. They have contact with US and cooperate militarily.

Bill Roggio | March 25, 2015 | admin@longwarjournal.org | @billroggio

The US-led military Coalition in Iraq is openly supporting Iranian-backed Shiite militias and Iraqi forces who are battling Islamic State fighters entrenched in Tikrit. Many of the Shiite militia commanders are listed by the US as Specially Designated Global Terrorists, and one militia is listed as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. Many of the commanders and militias are responsible for killing US, Coailition, and Iraqi troops and civilians during the occupation of Iraq.

Many of the militia killed coalition troop previously, i am sure they would have no problem with doing so again. That they currently recive US airsupport doesnt mean anyone is friends. My feeble understanding of ME politics would lead me to belive there are no permenant allies and the people you support today may well be to ones shooting at you tomorrow.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

Assad hasn't asked for coalition help.

 

[anon45]

Assad hasn't asked for coalition help.

we dont give 2 shits about assad's permission in areas he doesn't control, its lack of political will. No one wants to put troops on the ground, its political suicide. That's why we have the SDF and special ops.

 

[Airdef95]

Very simple question. Global media on daily basis runs programs dedicated to 'danger' of ISIS to non-Muslims in the ongoing 24/7 demonetization campaign against Islam. Yet the coalition is doing nothing to overthrow ISIS. They can easily deploy 20k troops in Syria and the operation will take maximum two months. At most coalition will lose 100-200 troops. And this operation will be financed easily by the coalition. Yet we keep hearing excuses by the coalition or simply West evades explanation to this question.

But when it comes to Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, they organize a whole coup to topple the government, murder 1,000 plus activists in the streets of Cairo and persecute/dismantle the whole movements social strucutre in Egypt within a year. And if the West wants to attack the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine(Hamas), they make arrangements to supply Israel with munitions, intelligence within a few days and give green light for ground operation in Gaza. With all of this, somehow these bullshitters want to make it as if they are powerless against ISIS. And somehow ISIS leader after takeover of Mosul goes into public, delivers 1 hour sermon and miraculously not tracked at all.

True.
A similar question here arises that how come a coalition of more than 60 countries is ineffective against ISIL.. When in the 1990's America didn't wait for a second to fight fiercely against its rival USSR and what happened next changed everything.
How the whole world buys their lame excuses easily when on the other hand we see Pakistan fighting TTP terrorists in FATA. Single country fighting against terrorism and the operation is successful as well. So its true that it is the will to fight that determines the outcome of a war. On the other side there is Russia as well and all i've been hearing from the news is "air strikes" "more air strikes" and "intensified air strikes". I seriously think they need to revise their strategy in fighting against ISIS since more and more airstrikes are only bringing serious harm to the Innocent Syrians. They have been destroying their homes, roads, killing their loved ones. Even the Syrians are complaining about these airstrikes but i am not seeing anything against it on the media.
A good suggestion would be to deploy troops in Syria but obviously they wont do that. Even Turkey being an Islamic country is attacking Kurdish men who fights against ISIL. All are they doing is giving sweet candies to who whole world and dragging the issues. I wonder what exactly they want.

 

[Archie]

Because the west no longer has the stomach for another 10 year long war that will eat up 1 Trillion+ Dollars and will end in a stalemate

Iraq should not have been attacked in the first place
Crippling economic sanctions would have been enough to Arm twist the Bathist

Similar to what has happened with Iran

War is not the right way to get rid of dictators, coz the resulting shitstorm often results in a worse off situation

 

[!eon]

Simple the moment US boots hit the ground every man and his dog is screaming kill them.

"A Shia cleric loyal to anti-US cleric Moqtada al Sadr has warned that the 300 US military advisers en route to Iraq will be attacked."

In a sermon from Baghdad's Sadr City district, Nassir al Saedi threatened what he called "the occupier", saying: "We will be ready for you if you are back."

300 gets death threats can you imagine o 20,000 troops arrived/?

Of course, media is not without owners and then owners are not without donors and supporters.
NOT every time what you see might actually be happening out there. In case of Syria, media's positions are very ugly.

It was Iran and Shia clerics of Iraq who enjoyed most benefits from US attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan. They got rid of their enemies i.e. Saddam and Taliban. Now, they are very powerful group playing proxy wars in whole region.

 

[500]

Very simple question. Global media on daily basis runs programs dedicated to 'danger' of ISIS to non-Muslims in the ongoing 24/7 demonetization campaign against Islam. Yet the coalition is doing nothing to overthrow ISIS. They can easily deploy 20k troops in Syria and the operation will take maximum two months. At most coalition will lose 100-200 troops. And this operation will be financed easily by the coalition. Yet we keep hearing excuses by the coalition or simply West evades explanation to this question.

But when it comes to Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, they organize a whole coup to topple the government, murder 1,000 plus activists in the streets of Cairo and persecute/dismantle the whole movements social strucutre in Egypt within a year. And if the West wants to attack the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine(Hamas), they make arrangements to supply Israel with munitions, intelligence within a few days and give green light for ground operation in Gaza. With all of this, somehow these bullshitters want to make it as if they are powerless against ISIS. And somehow ISIS leader after takeover of Mosul goes into public, delivers 1 hour sermon and miraculously not tracked at all.

What are u babbling? Not a single westerner fought neither for Egypt not for Israel, on the other hand air campaign against ISIS involves tens of thousands Americans and Europeans.

 

[Falcon29]

What are u babbling? Not a single westerner fought neither for Egypt not for Israel, on the other hand air campaign against ISIS involves tens of thousands Americans and Europeans.

Israel is no independent state, it follows US command. If it even has military communication with Russia in Syria it has to reveal details to the US. If it attacks Palestinians or annexes more Palestinian territory the green light first comes from the US. If it will assist Egyptian generals in toppling democratic MB government it happens with US heading the secretive efforts. Which weren't so secret weeks after MB was toppled. They don't need to deploy anybody, they do everything for Israel.

 

[T-Rex]

Because the west no longer has the stomach for another 10 year long war that will eat up 1 Trillion+ Dollars and will end in a stalemate

Iraq should not have been attacked in the first place
Crippling economic sanctions would have been enough to Arm twist the Bathist

Similar to what has happened with Iran

War is not the right way to get rid of dictators, coz the resulting shitstorm often results in a worse off situation

Speaking for dictatorship but very cleverly! Nobody is putting the boots on the ground for nobody wants Deash completely gone, they just want to be seen doing something against it. If this terrorist organization disappears who will play the bogeyman, how will they make the whole Muslim World a great terror suspect?

 

[raptor22]

Simple the moment US boots hit the ground every man and his dog is screaming kill them.

"A Shia cleric loyal to anti-US cleric Moqtada al Sadr has warned that the 300 US military advisers en route to Iraq will be attacked."

In a sermon from Baghdad's Sadr City district, Nassir al Saedi threatened what he called "the occupier", saying: "We will be ready for you if you are back."

300 gets death threats can you imagine o 20,000 troops arrived/?

First of all there is already around 500 American counselors in Iraq ... moreover I would be glad to assure thou that entering any country borders or air space without permission and auturization would have the same result ... isn't Iraq an independent country? don't you have ask their permission ? not only Shia cleric but also the Iraqi prime minister and Iraqi people said the same thing ...
Who are American to decide to send weapons to Iraqi Sunnis or Kurds without consulting the Baghdad?

 

[Archie]

Speaking for dictatorship but very cleverly! Nobody is putting the boots on the ground for nobody wants Deash completely gone, they just want to be seen doing something against it. If this terrorist organization disappears who will play the bogeyman, how will they make the whole Muslim World a great terror suspect?

I am not speaking for Dictators
But I am sure you will agree that Libya was better under Gaddafi , Iraq was better under Saddam and Pakistan was better under Musharraf

 

[T-Rex]

I am not speaking for Dictators
But I am sure you will agree that Libya was better under Gaddafi , Iraq was better under Saddam and Pakistan was better under Musharraf

As I said, very cleverly you're speaking for dictatorship.