To The Daily Sun,
This is in response to Stephen Patten's letter of this date concerning U.S. ground involvement against ISIS/ISIL.
The ISIL's last letter refers to the Servant, which is accepted as wherever the eastern Mediterranean washes ashore. It's still the same group.
As a newly commissioned 2nd Lieutenant from Norwich University, my first assignment was a little over a mile south of the Koran DMZA in 1967. During my tour, I had no combat experience as my job was to assure that the ammo, gasoline, and food was sent and delivered to whichever troops of my 7th Cavalry squadron went up north to do "barrier duty"; i.e., keep the North Koreans north of the DMZ; very hard to right an Asian on his home turf.
During that time a number of North Korean commanders slipped south between my 2nd Infantry Division and the Republic of (South) Korea (ROK) battle groups stationed nearby; the North Koreans were spotted by a Korea National policeman as they were converging around the Blue House, where the president resides.
Discovered, the NK's did what mayhem they could, then headed back north. Only one man, a lieutenant, did not die on the return trip; the others were found, victims of exposure. The lieutenant was a prisoner of the ROK. God help him.
I am going to re-subscribe to the Army Times so I can look up what is going on with the army, especially in ROK. Mr. Patten makes the next important point about ISIS on its home turf; "They are too well-trained and organized." Not just trained, but battle-trained.
In the early stages of our involvement in Vietnam, according to the book, "We Were Soldiers Then and Young", the communist's armies in Vietnam invited battle with U.S. forces in order to learn the U.S. tactics and develop tactics to circumvent them. My readings tell me that the VC and NVA were successful, although the Tet offences of 1968 ended the VC as a fighting force. The end of America in Vietnam illustrates my earlier point: it's hard fighting an Asian on his home turf.
The United States is ending involvement in two wars. We do not have a standing war-experienced military, especially on the ground, other than those who have had served in ground combat in our previous wars; most important is war-experienced.
Only war-experienced soldiers are most effective on the battlefield, and it's time for the U.S. and the E.U. to demand that the countries threatened by ISIS put their people in the field and learn how to fight. They'll be the combat experienced.
As for Syria, fighting ISIS as well as engaging in a Civil War, I have nothing to say except, "America, stand clear!"
As for American, French, and other anti-ISIS air strikes, I think it's a help for the defenders. However, what I read about ISIS burning alive a captured Lebanese (fellow Islamic) pilot, God help an American pilot in one falls into their hands.
It's important that I cannot even begin to suggest a non-Islamic solution to this invasion, because that's what it is: an invasion. If the people of the lands being besieged do not respond in force to the attacks they will not survive; they must learn enemy tactics and train to beat their tactics.
The one positive step that America can do is give the Kunds everything they need to fight ISIS.
America does not have enough combat-experienced ground troops to beat ISIS.