Washington Free Beacon: Pentagon Not Targeting Islamic State Training Camps
No airstrikes against 60 camps producing 1,000 fighters monthly.
The Pentagon has not conducted airstrikes against an estimated 60 Islamic State (IS) training camps that are supplying thousands of fighters each month to the terror group, according to defense and intelligence officials.
The camps are spread throughout Islamic State-controlled areas of Iraq and Syria and are off limits in the U.S.-led international bombing campaign because of concerns about collateral damage, said officials familiar with planning and execution of the yearlong bombing campaign.
WNU Editor: Strange .... very strange. If this is true you cannot help but feel that the U.S. is not serious (or interested) in defeating the Islamic State .... or the whole operation is being run by amateurs.
This is indeed very strange, and only adds fuel to the fire for conspiracy theorists who believe that ISIS is nothing but a creation and (unknowing) pawn to the US...
ReplyDelete"Collateral damage" is a very serious issue. ISIS has managed to capture and hold territory faster, more efficiently, and effectively than the US military ever could have even before it was worn down from continuing operations. In order to do this, it would seem ISIS has substantial support among the local populations throughout the region. As such, decision makers may be concerned that the "collateral damage" resulting from attempting to hit the camps with airstrikes may only add more recruits to ISIS than can reasonably be expected to be eliminated by such strikes.
ReplyDeleteAs such, this does not suggest that these people are "amateurs" or are not "serious." What it does suggest is people giving serious thought to how to handle a serious problem while minimizing "collateral damage." Besides if there is "collateral damage" the media would go positively nuts with hysterical anti-Americanism which would only serve to further undermine our world wide interests. With that said the military has been so politicized of late that I would not rule out the possibility of the operation being run by amateurs.
There is another possibility as well that is liking weighing heavily on the minds of American military planners. Again, ISIS has captured and held territory more effectively than the American military ever could have or currently can. If I'm aware of this, then it would seem even if the military planners are amateurs are as well. As such, these camps are likely VERY well defended by the most sophisticated anti-air craft systems and would be VERY difficult to take out. In any event, attempts to take out the camps would result in massive US/"Coalition" casualties combined with a high probability of failure in the attempt.
Men and women in the US military leadership are attempting to solve a problem that is very difficult, capabilities are limited, the environment on the battlefield and in the information campaign is heavily stacked against us, and our "allies" are nominally with us at best. As such, I'm not sure its fair or accurate to refer to these people as amateurs or being unserious.
Finally, as for conspiracy theorists, they will believe almost anything as long as it is anti-American. The optimal thing would be to give such people the ridicule they deserve and otherwise ignore such people. Unfortunately this cannot be done as such people hold very important positions within the news media, government, and large business organizations and will actively work to undermine everything the military planners and military personnel are trying to accomplish. This is a very difficult situation!!
The US faces existential threats on multiple fronts form multiple enemies of which ISIS is just one part of this. I'd recommend a complete redeployment of all American military personnel to positions along our borders and off of our coasts. This would at least give us a fighting chance of defending America or at least a much greater chance of doing so than current activities.
ISIS would NEVER become a pawn of the US. Its leaders are far to smart strategically, their tactics are far to clever for this, and their leadership is far to sound for them to do such a thing. Now it is possible for the US to unknowingly become a pawn to ISIS or other anti-American groups.
The media and the conspiracy theorists have been worrying about ISIS and others becoming pawns unknowingly of America. They've been worrying about the wrong thing!! They should have been and should be worrying about America unknowingly becoming a pawn of ISIS.
There is no reasonable way for the US to "create" ISIS. ISIS has been a more effective fighting force than the US military ever could have been or could be in the foreseeable future. As such, it seems unrealistic that the US could have created a fighting force whose strategic thinking and tactics are superior to its own forces.
ReplyDeleteThe only forces so far that have been able to mount any kind of effective fight against them are the Kurds and the Shia militias backed by Iran. The Iranian backed militias are enemies of America. The Kurds while perhaps not enemies are not going to assist us when we are invaded nor are they going to help us defeat ISIS outside of their own territory. As such, if they are allies, they are not reliable ones.
The number of camps is "estimated" at 60 and they are spread throughout the region. The long war map cannot even tell us if the 52 camps referenced are even in operation. How do we know they really are/were camps for ISIS? With all due respect it would be "strange...very strange" if US military planners blindly ordered airstrikes not being certain what they are actually targeting. Such an action would indeed be the actions of "amateurs." Actually amateurs are generally quite smart. To order airstrikes when not even sure where the camps are or what one is hitting would be the actions of complete bumbling idiots.
ReplyDeleteThe media reacts with hysterical anti-Americanism when even one Arab is killed as the result of collateral damage. Imagine what would happen if entire towns or villages are leveled? Furthermore imagine what would happen if an ISIS training camp was not even there!!
Given the limited knowledge of the number of these camps and the locations of them, such is not entirely unlikely. Even if US military planners operated this way which they don't, such a failure would result in a UN tribunal and both parties of the US government would be unable and very likely unwilling to protect the US military officials who ordered such an airstrike. As such, very respectfully I do not think it correct to refer to US military planners as amateurs or unserious simply because they haven't ordered the targeting of suspected ISIS camps that they have no certainty if they are even there. Furthermore it seems likely that ISIS has placed these camps in areas heavily populated by "civilians." As such, "collateral damage" could not be helped even if the "camp" is where we think it is.
Given this situation blind strikes against a target we hope is there is not likely to be helpful. As such, it is easy to understand the reluctance of US military planners to order such strikes. Now if the US were to be attacked with a multitude of suitcase nuclear weapons or dirty bombs by ISIS leveling multiple cities and killing and maiming 10s of millions of Americans, this would likely change the situation and the US might just strike blindly hoping to knock out these camps and inevitable tribunals by the UN or its successor organization should the UN be eliminated by these attacks would seem a trivial matter to US military planners and other US government officials. Furthermore even the hysterical anti-Americanism coming from the news media might seem trivial in this case as well.