Will Trump Lead the US into a new Ground War?

The US historically tends to go to war. Trump will not pursue diplomatic solutions. I say YES.

 

Well technically we're already in a war, and furthermore, war with other countries is pretty much going to happen within the next couple presidencies. I'm by no means a Trump supporter, but it won't be right to say that he will "lead" us into a war.

 

We already have boots on the ground.

 

I think he will avoid the types of wars we've engaged in recently, and focus more so on the big picture. Lots of trade wars with China, not so many covert coups in the Middle East. Still militaristic, but without the same motives as the neoconservatives on left and right.

 

No. If USA build that wall in southern border nothing will happen outland's war.

 

The question isn't if, but how many. Personally, I think Trumpanzees' kids should go first...

 

I would rather have a ground war with ISIS than a nuclear war with Russia.

 

Trolling thread. Very unseemly.

 

Except Putin ain't stupid enough to get into a one-on-one fight with a country that can match him. ISIS, on the other hand...

 

If Trump has one (ONE) core-competency it is knowing how to build businesses. With the experience of turning millions into billions of dollars, we are betting that he knows how to do what is necessary to restore and encourage a REAL economy (not the half-assed, "socialism-lite" Obama has as his 'legacy').

But Trump does not imagine himself as some kind of idiotic "President Warlord" who's going to go blustering around drawing "red lines" to try to bully people with. Obama tried that and it is said that Vladimir Putin nearly collapsed in gales of laughter when he was first told about it.

If anything, Trump seems willing to work WITH Russia to destroy violent, radical Islam everywhere in the world... and how many of us would be against that?!

BTW, anyone who has been observing anything having to do with warfare in the world for about the last 90 years knows that wars are won with AIR POWER. We don't have to engage in any more stupid, useless, miserable "ground wars" in order to completely remove violent Islam from human experience....

 

Even war-mongering Americans are getting leery of grand, trillion dollar Bush-style invasions. Destablizing entire regions, and then there is the collateral damage back home with our veterans, like strangled wives, broken violence and gun violence. And the occasional massacre like yesterday in Ft. Lauderdale airport.

 

Without a doubt. The rich get MEGA rich with wars. Obama currently has us spread into 7 countries with wars; many with drones alone which makes the Bushs filthy rich as investors into the drone age of war.

 

You sound like the guys saying that "the bombers will always get through" in 1939. Or the ones who confidently predicted quick and easy victories in Korea and Vietnam.

The ONLY war ever won from the air is the Serbian incursions.

If we are going to defeat ISIS decisively from the air I can't help but wonder why it hasn't happened yet. Isn't constant pounding by three of the world's great powers enough? Or could it be that tossing explosives down on an enemy where a few thousands are dispersed over millions of square miles is somewhat less effective than you think it might be?

In any case I think Trump will have us full boots and balls on the ground in several areas by the end of this year. Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Iran will be just 4 with naval/air engagements in the South China sea. The man is like a child with toys.

 

BS. Except for Bosnia, every single war and/or "police action" in the 20th and 21st centuries has been won by ground troops. Air power is in support of ground troops, no more no less. The only way a war would be decided by air power is if it went nuclear.

 

I think there is a possibility that he might engage us in a short ground war to eliminate ISIS from Syria and Iraq, but then get out quickly.

I don't think Trump wants to nation-build. I don't think he wants to interfere with other nations' problems, like who is going to run Syria for example. I don't think he is interested in occupying countries.

 

Nah, they have draft dodger blood in them from their coward daddy.

 

Good opportunity to atone for their father's sins then, amirite? Isn't that the conservative way to do things?

 

A short ground war and get out quickly? Like vietnam? Like Iraq II? Operation Barbarossa? The Schlieffen plan? How many short wars and get out quickly with out immediate ramifications do you know of throughout history? I truly hope someone in this new government is versed in history. There's no such thing as a short war and get out quickly.

I think Trump is interested in one thing, looking tough to overcome his numerous insecurities. He's likely going to waste trillions on defense and will make veiled threats via his twitter. We have a recipe for disaster. A guy who has never served or done a single manly thing in his entire life looking to prove to the world he's a tough guy, who also happens to have his finger on the literal button.

 

Well this thread is asking us all to speculate, and that's all I did. Hell, I don't know what's going to happen.

My impression of Trump is that he does want to destroy ISIS. So does Obama. The only question really is how we do it. Do we do it the long way - using air power and indigenous troops on the ground? Or do we do it the short way by having our troops just crush them in a few months? My impression of Trump is that he wants his focus during his term to be on the economy, not wars. I don't think he is interested in swaggering around the world just looking for an excuse to get into another war. By the same token, I don't know if he will be willing to continue a years-long slow war against ISIS. He seems like the type who might want to just get this over with and move on.

Our involvement in Syria has been a disaster. The sooner ISIS and AQ are eliminated from that country, the better. The sooner peace is restored, the better.

Anyways ... Congress will have to weigh in on the matter if there is going to be any dramatic change in approach. We'll see.

 

Historically it's always America's deplorables who end up fighting America's wars.

 

Only against terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan. US troops will fight this evil.

 

No one knows what Trump will do as he does not even know, but I do not have much faith in his ability to avoid warfare given his temperament and intellect.

 

It is better with another holy war than terrorists???

 

I want the Wall if not we can take another country a war begun unless again. But I want the Wall first job Trump do after he is in white house then we wait for home country war.

 

I said you WIN wars with Air Power, gentlemen, not use an air force for mop-up after stupidly inserting thousands of troops to enforce "regime change" using "nation building" and wasting hundreds of billions dollars. Oh, and getting thousands of good American military personnel killed for no damned good reason at all! Think: how did we destroy the Third Reich? We bombed them from the AIR, day and night, destroying their ability even to function as a nation. And how did we destroy the Empire of Japan? Do you really need to be coached on that...?

Sure, after the war was already won, we sent in ground troops in both Germany and Japan to keep the victory secured and the post-war situation stable,but we WON the wars in the air! Think: if Hitler had used concentrated AIR POWER in the very beginning during the invasion of Russia, he'd have taken Moscow and Stalingrad. If he'd kept the Luftwaffe tightly focused on military targets in Britain instead of resorting to wide-scale, indiscriminate bombing of civilians, he'd have won an air war over England in about three additional weeks (according to experts). BTW, who did all this fighting "on the ground" in England? Not the Germans!

In the case of Islamo-Nazis, it's even easier to employ air power for a decisive victory because the enemy has no air force. We would simply need to bomb the living (*)(*)(*)(*) out their strongholds, supply depots, and troop concentrations, with no "nuclear" weapons needed at all. And, no, I'm not talking about little pissant "surgical strikes" where we agonize over every piece of ordnance used. I'm talking about discovering and then utterly destroying all of their power centers and collection points, wiping them out! Then AFTER all that's done, we send in the ground troops to "keep the victory secured and the post-war situation stable"... BUT, only for a limited period of time. None of this horse (*)(*)(*)(*) of trying to "win hearts and minds" or doing any "nation-building". What a stupid pantload of crap that was.... We go in, wipe out the Islamo-Nazis, and then tell whoever survives that they can worship whoever or whatever they like, but if they ever mount a terror threat to the United States again, we'll go back in and keep on doing the same damned thing for as long as it takes, as often as it takes. Then, we leave them alone....

Still think we need to have a big "ground force" to do that? We've tried that repeatedly since World War II and look what it has gotten us!