Friday, November 20, 2015

75 Percent of U.S. Airstrikes Against The Islamic State Strikes Have Been Blocked Due To White House Rules Of Engagement

A pair of U.S. Air Force F-15E Strike Eagles fly over northern Iraq after conducting airstrikes in Syria, in this U.S. Air Force handout photo taken early in the morning of September 23, 2014. (Reuters/U.S. Air Force/Senior Airman Matthew)

Washington Free Beacon: U.S. Pilots Confirm: Obama Admin Blocks 75 Percent of Islamic State Strikes

‘We can’t get clearance even when we have a clear target in front of us’

U.S. military pilots who have returned from the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq are confirming that they were blocked from dropping 75 percent of their ordnance on terror targets because they could not get clearance to launch a strike, according to a leading member of Congress.

Strikes against the Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL) targets are often blocked due to an Obama administration policy to prevent civilian deaths and collateral damage, according to Rep. Ed Royce (R., Calif.), chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

The policy is being blamed for allowing Islamic State militants to gain strength across Iraq and continue waging terrorist strikes throughout the region and beyond, according to Royce and former military leaders who spoke Wednesday about flaws in the U.S. campaign to combat the Islamic State.

WNU Editor: When I read reports like this one .... is when I wonder if President Obama is really serious about this war. Not surprisingly .... I am not alone .... many are not seeing any serious progress in this air campaign .... Despite heavy US airstrikes, campaign against IS in Syria and Iraq achieves only stalemate (AP). This is also impacting Democrat Presidential politics, with even Hillary Clinton now distancing herself from president Obama's strategy .... Hillary Clinton calls for increase in US air strikes against ISIS (CSM).

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

While Russia doesn't put a leash on their pilots.

Certainly more effective against ISIS targets - but the chances of hitting civilians is that much higher.

Anonymous said...

If you work in D.C. you quickly learn how to create heat but no light. In other words, for a program you do not want to work you push a lot of paper, have a bunch of people working on the program, generate lots of reports, and get nothing done. This is nothing new. A variation is to create a program but starve it of funds.

The real question is why does he not want an effective military campaign against ISIS.