Shootouts and explosions in Paris

[brownindian]

So what exactly have we been bombing for the last year?

 

[Kouki]

http://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/world...with-only-34-bases-left/ar-BBnoOcI?li=AAaeXZz

So what exactly have we been bombing for the last year? In two weeks Russia and France have ISIS on the "brink of defeat"?

We'll see how much this actually does. You can't bomb jihad.

Probably just sets everything back a year and we will have to deal with it all over again.

 

[Sebastian]

http://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/world...with-only-34-bases-left/ar-BBnoOcI?li=AAaeXZz

So what exactly have we been bombing for the last year? In two weeks Russia and France have ISIS on the "brink of defeat"?

We'll see how much this actually does. You can't bomb jihad.

Probably just sets everything back a year and we will have to deal with it all over again.

Some thoughts:

1. The Bombing Campaign is a Dog and Pony Show

Our bombing campaign against Daesh has been more or less window-dressing from the beginning. As @The Human Q-Tip, and others, have noted that senior military leaders, some of whom I have chatted with, for some time have been saying that the ROE is so restrictive that the vast majority of sorties do not drop ordinance. That in itself can be excused by collateral damage considerations, however, the same leaders, and now those at the Pentagon and CIA seem to be alluding to the fact that target selection is wanting and the campaign is not designed and not executed in a manner to actually cripple ISIS on the battlefield. That we have not targeted Daesh's oil export operations until very recently is a prime demonstration of either extreme incompetence by the Administration or a lack of interest in real results.

2. Obama Wants Assad Defeated Even at the Expense of Fighting ISIS

I generally don't like to give credit to right-wing warnings of Obama's evil designs, and even @gourimoko will attest to his ineptitude on foreign affairs, but too much information has come out from multiple sources, including Leon Fucking Penatta yesterday, that Obama not only dismissed warnings not to arm certain fundamentalist Syrian opposition groups because their goal was to establish a "Caliphate" (direct warning using that term), but continued to ignore ISIS in its growth phase, and even after it conquered vast swathes of Syrian territory, because he felt they were too valuable in the fight against Assad. Moreover, it has been said by many now, that the bombing-campaign has been so ineffective exactly because Obama sees Assad as the primary threat rather than Daesh. Obama continued arms shipments to groups even when he was warned that the weapons were likely to fall into ISIS' hands.

Obama's own recent statements support this position insofar as even after the Paris attacks, he continues to insist that Assad is the primary enemy and refuses to cooperate with Russia because of their support of the Ba'athist regime. If he truly felt ISIS was the real enemy he would have set aside his quixotic fantasy in toppling Assad when reality (and his advisors saying so) rendered that goal infeasible a couple years ago. One is beginning to see why Obama has gone through so many SecDefs.

3. France's Grand Coalition Against Daesh May be Boned

On one hand, they have an ally in the US that isn't too interested in offering concrete support against ISIS beyond its own pre-existing farce of an air campaign, and on the other, Russia who is as interested in hitting all rebel groups that oppose Assad as much as fighting ISIS. Add to that the Turks who not only hit Russia harder than they probably should have, but have actively been supporting ISIS and now is even more entrenched in that position. France is fucked. The pre-existing conditions necessary for the coalition to function in unison against ISIS are not present. For anything to go forward, Russia and the US must come to an agreement about the future of Syria that includes Assad in power for at least a transitional period. With Obama in denial about a "Moderate Syrian Opposition," and seemingly out of touch with reality regarding the ISIS threat from the beginning, France may just have to work with Russia alone if anything is to get done.

4. A Turkish Article 5 Invocation Would be Interesting

It won't happen, but would anyone care to guess how many NATO nations wouldn't support Turkey in the event of Article 5 if Russia retaliated? Certainly Greece wouldn't and I think several slavic nations would sit this one out. I for one think Erdogan's behavior lately, regarding the Kurds and his tacit support of ISIS (by my calculation around 20,000 oil trucks a year are trundling into Turkey from ISIS controlled territory, how do they miss that?), has perhaps led some people, like myself, into thinking it wouldn't be the worst thing to see them hoisted by their own petard. I'm not saying that Russia is the victim here, or that maybe they didn't deserve to have a plane shot down after all the incursions the past few years. However, as @jking948 can attest to in his studies, the Turks have been behaving like bastards for the past decade as well and used the last crisis in consulting NATO as an excuse to attack the Kurds.

In any event, downing that Russian jet probably had as much to do, or more, about the Turks trying to defend the ethnic Turks on the Syrian border, and maintaining their unilateral buffer-zone over the ten-mile stretch of the Syrian/Turkish border as the actual territorial violation. The Russians have been hammering them lately, and the Turks warned them last week about it. Of course, it matters not to the Turks that some of those rebels are also hard-core Islamists in their own right.

Destroying that rescue helicopter and executing the downed pilots, however, may have been going too far. The Turks support those groups and, by implication, they are culpable in the deaths of those Russian servicemen. That is worse than the downing of the Su-24 and Putin will have to retaliate violently, probably against the Syrian Turcomen rebels.

What a fucking mess.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

http://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/world...with-only-34-bases-left/ar-BBnoOcI?li=AAaeXZz

So what exactly have we been bombing for the last year? In two weeks Russia and France have ISIS on the "brink of defeat"?

King Stannis addressed this in his excellent post. I just want to reiterate that everything I've heard from people I know - which includes some very ranking people in a position to know - is that the whole anti-ISIS campaign has been pretty much a joke. When you combine Obama's absolutist position on civilian casualties with an enemy willing to use human shields on all valuable targets, the campaign cannot possibly be even marginally successful.

The fact that we wouldn't bomb their oil trucks because of the civilian drivers is simply pathetic.
.

 

[tocov]

King Stannis addressed this in his excellent post. I just want to reiterate that everything I've heard from people I know - which includes some very ranking people in a position to know - is that the whole anti-ISIS campaign has been pretty much a joke. When you combine Obama's absolutist position on civilian casualties with an enemy willing to use human shields on all valuable targets, the campaign cannot possibly be even marginally successful.

The fact that we wouldn't bomb their oil trucks because of the civilian drivers is simply pathetic.
.

I hightly doubt that that's the reason oil trucks are not being bombed.
It probably has more to do with Europe not wanting its oil supply to stop.

 

[No Regard]

NATO is an alliance between the United States and much of Europe.

Any attack on one member nation is an attack against all of them. This alliance is what essentially allowed West Germany, and West Berlin, to survive the Cold War.

Therefore, any attack on Turkey, by Russia, allows Turkey to invoke Article V of the NATO treaty which legally requires a collective defense and response to the attacking party.

Given that we have, and always have had a nuclear first strike policy with respect to Russia and China, and given the fact that the Russians know this, there can be no reasonable confrontation between a NATO ally and Russia.

Appreciate the reply, although I disagree.

I think there are too many maniacs in charge, who cares more about their money, power and position, than to consider what's best for the planet at whole.

The human race has gone mad.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I hightly doubt that that's the reason oil trucks are not being bombed.
It probably has more to do with Europe not wanting its oil supply to stop.

Why do you doubt that? Is there something the Administration has said or done to make you believe that it does not place a prime important on civilian casualtues when conducting airstrikes against ISIS?

In any case....

ISTANBUL — Intensifying pressure on the Islamic State, United States warplanes for the first time attacked hundreds of trucks on Monday that the extremist group has been using to smuggle the crude oil it has been producing in Syria, American officials said...

...Until Monday, the United States refrained from striking the fleet used to transport oil, believed to include more than 1,000 tanker trucks, because of concerns about causing civilian casualties. As a result, the Islamic State’s distribution system for exporting oil had remained largely intact.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/11/17/world/middleeast/us-strikes-syria-oil.html?

The WSJ reported the exact same thing:

It was the first time the U.S. military has conducted a strike on vehicles used to transport oil. The military had held off on such action in the past because of concerns about killing civilian drivers of the trucks who may not be members of Islamic State.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/french-airstrikes-in-syria-may-have-missed-islamic-state-1447685772

Here's an excellent overview of the whole issue with ineffective airstrikes:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2576488

I'm sure @King Stannis will back me up on this, but striking targets of opportunity and performing effective close air support missions both require minimizing the amount of time between observation and attack. Otherwise, the opportunity is lost.

ETA: complaints about overly-restrictive ROE and too centralized control of air strikes has been public for much of the year, and there really hasn't been any denial from the Administration or Pentagon.

Also, I'd point out that everyone who has argued that "strikes just create more jihadis" is essentially endorsing that approach.

 

[LyXo]

Uh, right. But all you just did is confirm that Europe cannot properly screen and monitor Syrian refugees. Regardless of whether or not ISIS is using that fact for propaganda, it remains true.

Buy since you're stated that the Syrian refugees cannot properly be screened, and that ISIS is using that fact to infiltrate fighters, then the message that admitting those refugees is dangerous is true.

By "we", I assume you mean the U.S. specifically. But do you realize you've also made the perfct argument as to why Europe should slam on the brakes hard?

As for whether we'd have caught them, I certainly grant you that we'd have beenore likely to catch them than are the Euros. But there are two caveats to that:

First, the statistics that have been offered so far in terms of admitting Syrian refugees cover a period when very few have been admitted, over a limited period, and very slowly. Whether it is possible to maintain the same level of screening over the ling haul, when the flow is increased more than tenfold is a very important question.

Second, i do agree that the effort being expended to vet each Syrian refugee is more than the effort we expend to vet an immigrant entering otherwise.

However, I honestly am bothered by the FBI director's testimony saying that no matter how hard they vet them, we just don't have adequate data from Syria. We may be putting in more effort, and taking much more time, but ultimately, the result may be much less certain.

Perhaps less time-consuming, but what's the likelihood of getting caught? If someone comes in on a Syrian passport, we don't have the cooperation of the Syrian government, or access to their records. That's something that's not true of many other immigrants coming into the country even if the process is much faster.

I was only referring to the US approach, with screenings and the Atlantic ocean in between. Europe's a different animal, since tens of thousands are pouring in on the shores daily, and I attempted to make that distinction. They have to justify the cost of a refugee camp on that Greek isle, Kos, that they're coming in at, and make attempts at screening, but it's probably not going to be enough from the sheer volume. Us taking in more will help, more costs which we should weigh to help our allies. But it won't stop the flood, and it won't prevent terrorists from riding that wave into Europe.

And the likelihood of getting caught here in the US? Appears to be more likely than actual activity. I agree that it's disconcerting that Syria can't really provide much information, but even if they had it, would we trust it? Would Assad even cooperate?

This is a well-thought out post, and I understand your points.

But instead of refugees that can't leave saying "Welp, we can't leave, let's forsake everything we believe in and become terrorists" maybe they could stand up for themselves and each other and fight against the extremists.

There has been civil war in our country before, as well as many other countries.

And actually seeing them at least attempt to stand up for themselves and take the fight to the radicals would probably inspire other countries, including the U.S. to assist them in winning.

It's a totally different subject, but when the north wanted to abolish slavery, they didn't just move out of the country and hope other countries would take them in. They fought, lost a lot of lives, and eventually won.

Now I know a lot of the refugees are women and children, so that is still a problem. But there has to be a better answer than to just leave the entire territory free for the radicals to fully colonize.

Some people just aren't open to violence, and flee. Some that come here may join our army and fight alongside us, with training. Others will attempt to integrate into our society.

And I think that's the longer term approach. How can we help modernize Islam as a whole? Many Muslims that live here have adopted a more moderate approach. Christianity itself has modernized over time. If we just leave it in the Middle East without a strong, moderate base, then extremists will likely gain power again even if we're able to eliminate the immediate threat. Maybe that is part of the refugee response - train, educate, and modernize and send them back, once the threat has lightened, to rebuild the country.

These attacks have us all on our toes. Even if the Youngstown State was by some dumb kids - it's still bothersome that the message and the conflict is spreading into the country. Be safe for the holidays, be careful around Black Friday, especially.

 

[Cavatt]

Taking in refugees and then making a new life here, is one of the strongest things to fight perceptions of Americans as an enemy. Make some money and watching dancing with the stars and suddenly Americans look pretty cool.

Anyone know any Vietnamese refugees? They ride harder for the USA than anyone I know.

 

[OptimusPrime]

It's funny how after all these years people are finally realizing that the U.S. has no intention of fighting ISIS at this time. The U.S. government installed ISIS in Syria for the express purpose of overthrowing Assad and creating overall mayhem in the region to justify the presence of U.S. troops there for many years to come. Even now all of the bluster is directed at Russia, not ISIS.

 

[tocov]

So I guess they don't care anymore? This just further proves my point that they don't really care about the casualties, evey actionir lack thereof is political. Here, when the situation demands it, those casualties don't matter anymore.
Putin made Obama look like a bitch when he came in to play, bombing the shit out of everything ISIS. So now Obama is forced to step up his game to not make it seem like he's giving ISIS a free pass, which he basically does.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

And the likelihood of getting caught here in the US? Appears to be more likely than actual activity.

I'd agree with that too, although I don't think that's very comforting given the numbers we're discussing.

I agree that it's disconcerting that Syria can't really provide much information, but even if they had it, would we trust it? Would Assad even cooperate?

That doesn't make the current situation any better, though. It just means that the alternative of Syrian cooperation might be just as bad.

And I think that's the longer term approach. How can we help modernize Islam as a whole? Many Muslims that live here have adopted a more moderate approach.

And some haven't, and became radicalized while here - from the native-born Major Hassan, to the refugee/asylum-seekubg Tsarnaev brothers.

Christianity itself has modernized over time.

Christianity's reforms came from the inside, not from the outaide, and I think that's got to be the same with Islam.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

So I guess they don't care anymore? This just further proves my point that they don't really care about the casualties, evey actionir lack thereof is political. Here, when the situation demands it, those casualties don't matter anymore.

It's a spectrum. On the one end are terrorists whose goal is to kill as many civilians as possible. One the other is having an absolute prohibition on doing anything that might injure a civilian, which essentially makes warfighting impossible. But generally, you try to strike a balance where the military gain is at least worth the risk to civilians.

The refusal to bomb oil tanker trucks that are an incredibly important part of the ISIS economy simply because the driver is a civilian was an extremist position.

Putin made Obama look like a bitch when he came in to play, bombing the shit out of everything ISIS. So now Obama is forced to step up his game to not make it seem like he's giving ISIS a free pass, which he basically does.

I think there's some truth in that. Funny that Putin being there apparently is a reason for us to get more aggressive, whereas ISIS itself was not.

 

[natedagg]

Why do you doubt that? Is there something the Administration has said or done to make you believe that it does not place a prime important on civilian casualtues when conducting airstrikes against ISIS?
.

Why yes, yes there is. This story is somewhere between gross incompetence and sheer falsehood. Both are completely inexcusable. However (big however), I would love to hear your and @King Stannis 's opinion before I draw the conclusion that I have.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-...l-massacre-malfunctioning-sensors-human-error

 

[Sebastian]

Why yes, yes there is. This story is somewhere between gross incompetence and sheer falsehood. Both are completely inexcusable. However (big however), I would love to hear your and @King Stannis 's opinion before I draw the conclusion that I have.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-...l-massacre-malfunctioning-sensors-human-error

Well, lack of JTACs always lead to issues. No one seemingly wants boots on the ground, and think wars can be fought on the cheap, so shit like this happens.

As for Obama being too cautious with the oil trucks, there seems to be a pattern in Syria and Iraq of going to great lengths to avoid collateral damage. In this specific case, it is probable that the hospital incident has led everyone to be cautious.