Are Any Us Forces Battling Isis Or Just Bombing

Who exactly are the US and her allies bombing in Syria?

The US has been trying to bomb ISIS targets.  Thus far, the US has tried to avoid bombing the Syrian regime, even though we support some rebel groups fighting Assad. N this is different from what the Rusdians are doing, which is to bomb all opponents of Assad, be they ISIS or not.  That's is what is at the root of the Russia/Syria tension. Russia was bombing anti Assad forces supported by Turkey. This has been pissing off Turkey, but when the Russians actually flew in Tudkish airspace to bomb Rebels supported by Turkey, the Turks shot them down.  The US has tried hard to avoid such entwinements.

Should the US try to bomb ISIS into oblivion and just accept civilians deaths as an inevitable consequence of war?

Note that the question originally asked was:Question added by Davo Hilti.Should the US try to bomb ISIS into oblivian and just accept civilians deaths as an inevitable consequence of war?-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Basically because there is absolutely no support for this type of war.First of all, it would be a war crime. Civilians are to be protected as much as possible from military adventures.The proposal is unethical, immoral and illegal.It is also, incidentally, a bad idea, both militarily and strategically. From a military standpoint, given that Daesh is intermixed with the population, and has no central industrial installations, no command center, and no concentrated military, bombing would not work. So it is also impossible.From a strategic standpoint, the end result of such bombing would be to further radicalize the populace and drive them to form further violent rebellions.Also, the publicity resulting from these actions would give inspiration and propaganda aid to terrorist and anti-government groups around the world.So there is not a speck of sanity in this proposal.

Why isn't Syria bombing ISIS? Why do France and the US need to come in and do it?

lol, the media really has been misinforming people since this question is so often asked. Assad and the Russians are bombing every rebel force in their zone of influence. Some are ISIS, but most are unaligned rebel forces. (Well they used to be aligned with the U.S., but Obama abandoned them as soon as Tussia showed up). So for the sake of mutual survival and hatred of Assad ISIS and the so called Syrian Moderates along with the Free Syrian Army have joined forces in the south and center of Syria.The western media have stated that Russia is only bombing "moderate" freedom fighters. This is incorrect. Russia is bombing ALL of Assad's enemies. Al-Nusrah, Al-Qaeda, the Moroccan Martyrs Brigade, the FSA, ISIS, unaligned rebels the list goes on and on. Most dedicated ISIS jihadis have moved into Iraq and the Northern regions where U.S. and NATO forces still hold sway. Their leadership knows that Obama is only half heartedly operating in the region. If they stayed in southern and Central Syria they would be annihilated by Russian attacks.So Russia is bombing terrorists, but almost every group involved are terrorists. Assad, Russia, Iran, Paramilitary Iraqi rebels, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Palestinian liberation Army, all are working together to bring down the Sunni rebels and terrorists. Russia doesn't give a flying fig about ISIS or terrorism. Half his allies are known terrorists. The Iranian revolutionary guard, Hezbollah, the PLA they are just as bad of terrorists as Al-Qaeda and ISIS. This is a struggle between the NATO/Saudi/Sunni alliance, and the Russian/Iranian/Syrian/Shiite alliance. ISIS has gone from center stage to just being an insignificant irritant in a proxy war between actual powers.This is why the attacks happened in Paris. ISIS wanted to send the signal that they were still important and a threat to the west. They are losing ground to the Russians faster than they ever thought possible. They were so used to NATO compassion and limited warfare they didn't understand what war with the Russians meant. Putin plays for keeps and doesn't mess around. Neither do any of his allies. They are just as ruthless as ISIS but much bigger and more powerful.Since the geostrategic goal is to weaken NATO and solidify his regional influence, bombing ISIS is the last thing any smart commander would do. Drive them into NATO territory and watch them destabilize Iraq and other NATO allied countries is a smart and wise move for him.

Who would win in a battle: ISIS or the Mexican cartels?

It would be a tough match.First of all, there are multiple drug cartels. So let’s say it’s Los Zetas vs ISIS.Both groups are extremely violent and brutal, both groups have no qualms mass murdering civilians and exhorting their citizens. Los Zetas is the most violent cartel in Mexico and ISIS is the most violent faction in Syria.Los Zetas is estimated to have 80,000-100,000 cartel soldiers in its ranks. ISIS (at its peak) reportedly has less, anywhere from 20,000 to 50,000. So Los Zetas will have an advantage in manpower. However not all members of a drug cartel are trained for battle, whereas most members of ISIS are probably combat trained, so this is also something to keep in mind.Los Zetas is wealthier than ISIS, they rake in billions of dollars in the drug trade. And whilst ISIS makes a couple billions from selling oil, antiques, arms and drug trafficking, Los Zetas makes far more money from the drug trade due to the US market . Los Zetas could easily buy tanks and helicopters and weapons.Los Zetas engages in guerrilla combat against the Mexican military. Ambushing convoys, etc. They also regularly engage in combat with rival cartels, shootouts are common.However ISIS is far more battle hardened. The battles are more frequent in Syria, the body count higher and the combat is far more lethal and harsh. ISIS is trained to fight both land and air forces, they have experience with air strikes, drone attacks. They use tanks and all sorts of heavy weaponry, from ATGMs to mortars to anti air guns in battle. They also have the powerful tactic of suicide bombs on their side.And let’s not forget that many of the commanders of ISIS fought a brutal insurgency against the US in Iraq for 12 years. They have extensive combat experience against the most powerful and most fearsome military force on the planet.And so I’d say that ISIS would win a Pyrrhic victory against Los Zetas. It would be extremely brutal and violent. They’d both be beheading each other’s soldiers and engaging in all sorts of depraved activities.But I’d say that ISIS would take it for the sole fact that they are far more experienced at fighting a conventional war. They fight against conventional armies regularly and have NATO, Syrian and Russian air forces bombing them everyday. They are used to war, whereas Los Zetas doesn’t have much experience in a full blown war with tanks, missiles and air crafts, etc.

Why can't the ISIS and other terrorist groups just bomb a place by air?

The simplest reason here is that ISIL does not have aircraft in any quantity sufficient enough to perform aerial bombardments. If you want to perform aerial bombardments you need the following:good planes or dronesskilled pilots, for both conventional aircraft and UAVsmassive amounts of ordnance, fuel, spare partsISIL while able to source for simple small arms, hasn't really been that able to obtain all the stuff required to support air strikes. Even if it, say, captured a whole hangar full of planes, it would still face issues over how to use the airplanes. Moreover with Russia, France and the US steadily bombing it from the air, its ability to wage air strikes - initially near negligible - is going to be depressed indefinitely unless it can somehow get its hands on good SAM. And even then, as we have seen from GW1, good SAM isn't always a cast-iron guarantee. Saddam Hussein's SAM batteries weren't defeated because they were useless, it was because the Western Allies first flew a plane overhead to spot them, then bombed them with cruise missiles.The real danger that ISIL poses however is its jihad porn network, which can be used to incite terrorist activity within belligerent nations in order to influence local politics and foment chaos to cripple these nations' ability to support high-tech conventional forces. Social chaos = no economy = no supply. ISIL doesn't need to carpet-bomb France in order to achieve its results. All it needs is to incite events to force a radicalistion of "Muslim" minorities into a state of fear and insecurity which then forces them to lash out against non-Muslims in France ... en masse.

Why hasn't the USA bombed ISIS out of existence?

Because ISIS's existence isn't defined by anything that can be bombed remotely.Bombing ISIS using aircrafts and missiles would mean targeting infrastructure points. Other than some places where ISIS militia have aggregated (they'll learn to spread out), some roads (in flat desert land?), and perhaps oil wells that are being used to generate revenue for ISIS (surely you can see this is not an easy economic decision). ISIS doesn't own any major building that they themselves aren't comfortable destroying. They aren't a settled in nation-state, they are a militant group that is controlling areas belonging to other nation-states (and in the process declaring themselves one.) You can use smart bombs to target individuals. There seems to be some kind of success recently in targeting Al-Baghdadi, Akram Qirbash and other leaders. wiki: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Nevertheless, more leaders will come in to take their place. And even if ISIS will be depleted enough, in 4-5 years another outfit will come up under the leadership of another radical. If you do a land invasion, you could fight man-to-man and take out many of the individuals that are part of ISIS or the future outfits. But we know how successful or easy that's been during the recent Iraq and Afghanistan wars. In all that warfare, you'll still not be able to 'take out' their support systems easily.To push this discussion further, let us examine what does "ISIS' existence" really mean. There are some decent answers around the Quora question Why does ISIS exist?. The reasons are similar to every other groups of humans who indulge in hatred at the centre of their existence: They feel wronged, They have a certain perspective of the past (especially wrt Shias),And they have a very anti-social interpretation of a belief system JJ Cohn's answer to Is the article "What ISIS Really Wants" (The Atlantic) correct in claiming that ISIS's religion derives from coherent interpretations of Islam?To me this is a different outcome of thought processes that have led to similar violent cultures: Boko Haram in Nigeria, the former Pol Pot regime in Cambodia, and the Gun culture in the US (with a dash of racism thrown in.)How would you bomb all of those violent cultures out of existence?