WSJ: Air Force General Defends U.S. Bombing Campaign in Iraq, Syria
Lt. Gen. John Hesterman says current approach has killed 1,000 Islamic State fighters a month
WASHINGTON—The top U.S. general overseeing the air war against Islamic State forces in the Middle East defended Washington’s strategy on Friday and said bombing runs have been key to every major battlefield victory in Iraq.
Lt. Gen. John Hesterman, commander of the Air Force at U.S. Central Command, which oversees U.S. forces in the Middle East, dismissed criticism of the air war as uninformed.
“Our coalition team is having a profound effect on the enemy,” he said in a telephone conference call from Doha, Qatar, with Pentagon reporters.
Faced with renewed calls from Republican lawmakers and even some pilots taking part in bombing runs for a more aggressive airstrike campaign, Gen. Hesterman said the current approach has killed 1,000 Islamic State fighters a month.
WNU Editor: I have trouble understanding how Lt. Gen. John Hesterman got his 1,000 ISIS fighters are killed every-month numbers .... especially since there are no ground forces in Iraq and Syria to assess airstrike damage. Nancy A. Youssef at the Daily beast is correct when she says .... Team Obama’s B.S. ISIS Body Count.
More News On Lt. Gen. John Hesterman's Defending The U.S. Bombing Campaign Against The Islamic State
General: Criticism of Air War Against IS Based on Fiction -- AP
Restrictive rules of engagement in Islamic State fight necessary, U.S. air commander says -- Washington Times
US nearly fired on friendly Iraqi forces 100 times -- Stars and Stripes
Commander defends ISIS air war's effectiveness -- Military Times
US Air Commander: Coalition Airstrikes in Iraq Challenging, but Having 'Profound Effect' -- VOA
U.S. Military Counters Criticism That Airstrikes Aren't Stopping Islamic State -- Radio Free Europe
Wow a thousand killed and only 25% of the bombs were dropped.
ReplyDelete"Our coalition team is having a profound effect on the enemy." Talk is cheap. The type of effect that one is having is best judged by actions and facts on the ground. The fact is ISIS is gaining territory. The coalition team is losing territory. As such, this statement appears ridiculous on its surface.
ReplyDeleteAs to the 1,000 ISIS soldiers killed per month, while official reports show no coalition forces on the ground in Iraq, they could be operating covertly. After all given the opposition to such an action within the American public, the general unreliability of the media not to reveal their locations, strategies, and tactics to the enemy the leadership would likely choose not to make public any military operations on the ground. I agree it is unlikely that there are American ground force in Iraq.
If the 1,000 dead ISIS soldiers per month is accurate, then we've got an even bigger problem. If America lost 1,000 front line soldiers per month in combat over a few month period, its ability to function as a legitimate fighting force would be decimated. Yet ISIS not only remains a viable fighting force but appears to be getting stronger. As such, this would mean they are doing phenominal job of recruiting new well trained fighters so they are replenishing faster than coalition forces can eliminate them.
As such, if the number really is correct the general by pointing this out is revealing just how profoundly ineffective the strategy really is. Therefore I think it would have been in the best interest of the mission to keep such numbers secret as they only reveal how ineffective his forces have been.
Why would he tout this number? Is he really that dumb? Either he is a liar, he is spectacularly incompetent, or a combination. I lean in the direction of spectacularly incompetent. I'm assuming he's spouting some number fed to him by someone. If he were competent he would have told this someone something to the effect of what I posted above. Essentially if I read these numbers to the media and the world I'm only revealing how specatularly incompetent we really are. As such, I'm not reading these numbers to the press or so the line of reasoning would have been.
When oh when can we get new leaders so we can sack this bunch of incompetent loons?!!? We are facing an existential to our country and the job of engaging the enemy is in the hands of these incompetents to engage the enemy.
Maybe the general and the Us leadership have gone mad in the heat of battle. It's probably happened before.