Despite heavy US airstrikes, IS threat persists

[webfact]

Despite heavy US airstrikes, IS threat persists
By ROBERT BURNS

WASHINGTON (AP) — In measuring progress in the American-led air war against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, numbers tell one story but results tell another.

Fighter jets, bombers, attack planes and drones are dropping an average of 2,228 bombs per month on targets ranging from training camps and machine gun positions to oil facilities and weapons shacks. The Pentagon says it doesn't do body counts, but the attacks are believed to have killed upward of 20,000 IS fighters. The U.S. price tag: $5 billion since August 2014, an average of $11.1 million each day.

The bombing has damaged or destroyed hundreds of military vehicles (including American tanks surrendered by Iraqi soldiers), thousands of buildings, hundreds of pieces of oil infrastructure and thousands of fighting positions, among other targets, according to U.S. Central Command figures.

This sounds like a pummeling designed to bury an enemy, particularly one facing the military might and technological power of the United States.

But what has been the result? In a word, stalemate, although U.S. military officials say they see the tide gradually turning in their favor.

The key word is "gradually." The administration has said from the start that dealing a lasting defeat to IS will take years, that a pell-mell military approach will not work because IS is not a conventional army. But in the aftermath of the Paris terrorist attacks many are asking why the U.S. is not in a bigger hurry.

President Barack Obama says he sees encouraging progress. On Monday he pointed to the liberation this month of Sinjar in northwestern Iraq by Iraqi Kurdish forces, the encirclement of IS-held Ramadi and the severing of a key highway serving as a supply route for Islamic State fighters between the northern Iraqi city of Mosul and the militant's self-proclaimed capital of Raqqa in Syria. A key Iraqi oil refinery also has been taken from the militants.

And yet, as the Paris attacks showed, the group is now acting on global ambitions. It has withstood the aerial pounding by U.S. and coalition warplanes, defended its core territories and apparently used its resiliency and social media savvy to replenish its ranks as quickly as they are reduced.

How has it managed this?

The answer lies partly in the gradualist U.S. military approach. Instead of bombing every target in sight and sending a U.S. ground invasion force, Obama has chosen to use air power more discriminately to chip away at the Islamic State, avoiding targets where civilians are endangered. And rather than sending U.S. ground combat troops, he is waiting for the emergence of local fighters who can do the job. The premise of this strategy, endorsed by the president's top national security advisers but doubted by many in Congress, is that although the U.S. military is capable of squashing IS, any such victory would be short-lived without local armies and governments capable of maintaining stability.

The president's new chief military adviser, Gen. Joseph Dunford, defends a U.S. approach focused heavily on avoiding killing civilians.

"We're very careful in terms of civilian casualties, and some have criticized us for that," Dunford said Tuesday. "I will not apologize for that, because we are fighting the long fight, and for us to do otherwise would be shortsighted."

In the meantime the Islamic State has leveraged Iraqi and Syrian oil resources to generate nearly $1.4 million a day through black market sales. Those funds have enabled the militants to replace damaged and destroyed equipment and weapons and to finance their recruiting efforts. Critics of the administration's approach say this is giving IS too much breathing room, enabling it to spread its influence well beyond Syria and Iraq.

In recent days the Pentagon has highlighted attacks on oil-related targets that it previously had passed up or struck too lightly. For example, on Sunday it used A-10 attack planes and AC-130 gunships to destroy 116 tanker trucks in eastern Syria as they lined up near an oil facility in the open desert. On Wednesday the military said it struck two oil and natural gas processing plants near Abu Kamal in eastern Syria near the Iraqi border.

A question that has not yet been fully answered by the Pentagon is why it took so long to go after more of those oil-related targets, which are links in an oil business that Col. Steve Warren, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad, says generates more than half of the Islamic State's revenue.

For all the attention paid to the air campaign and its shortcomings, Defense Secretary Ash Carter says the key to ultimate success will be found on the ground, not in the air.

Sufficient numbers of local fighters in Iraq and Syria will have to step forward. Iraq's Sunni Arabs, for example, need to rise up and reclaim what IS has taken from them, Carter said.

"This is one of the sad realities," he said. "They're harder to find than you would like."

Another reality is that the Obama administration is under political attack for what critics sees as a feckless military effort.

"Thousands of airstrikes against ISIL targets have conjured the illusion of progress, but they have produced little in the way of decisive battlefield effects," Sen. John McCain said Tuesday. The Arizona Republican favors a more aggressive U.S. approach in both Iraq and Syria.


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-11-19

[retarius]

We have seen recently that the US after 198 months of bombing has just gotten round to attacking IS's source of funding...selling oil to Turkey. They transport it in long convoys of trucks to Turkey. The US recently attacked infrastructure but refused to bomb the trucks as it feared civilian casualties (yes they really said that!).

Russian taunts have made them belatedly attack the convoy to deny IS the funding they need to continue their existence.

Add to that IS are getting caned by Syrian and Iranian troops, and Hezbollah in Syria.

And it turns out that the US wouldn't share intelligence with Russia to help Russia attack IS and avoid FSA for the perhaps legitimate concern that Russia would misuse the info to attack FSA.

Jeremy Corbyn had a great idea yesterday....apply sanctions to those nations which fund IS. Sadly it includes the US so isn't going to happen, but is there any reason why we wouldn't sanction Saudi, Turkey and UAE?

[steven100]

just keep bombing the <deleted> !!

[Scott]

We have seen recently that the US after 198 months of bombing has just gotten round to attacking IS's source of funding...selling oil to Turkey. They transport it in long convoys of trucks to Turkey. The US recently attacked infrastructure but refused to bomb the trucks as it feared civilian casualties (yes they really said that!).

Russian taunts have made them belatedly attack the convoy to deny IS the funding they need to continue their existence.

Add to that IS are getting caned by Syrian and Iranian troops, and Hezbollah in Syria.

And it turns out that the US wouldn't share intelligence with Russia to help Russia attack IS and avoid FSA for the perhaps legitimate concern that Russia would misuse the info to attack FSA.

Jeremy Corbyn had a great idea yesterday....apply sanctions to those nations which fund IS. Sadly it includes the US so isn't going to happen, but is there any reason why we wouldn't sanction Saudi, Turkey and UAE?

I worked in Iraq during the period when there were sanctions. The oil smuggling (and much of it is actually legal) is done almost entirely by civilians. Blowing up those trucks will result in massive civilian casualties and probably no ISIS fighters. It is ordinary people who cross the border, often with family, fill up the trucks and return.

You will have destroy the wells, the pipelines, the refineries or other related infrastructure.

[houlicha]

A little hard to wipe out ISIS when they're in sleeper cells in cities like Paris. Bombing Paris is not high on any list of viable options.

[Dustdevil]

My general two cents:

(1) We shouldn't let Syrian refugees into the U.S. In the words of Dr. Grant in Jurassic Park III, "That's a very bad idea!"

(2) Wherever those young male Arab refugees wind up, the host country should draft them into their army and make them fight ISIS in Syria.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Dustdevil

[Thorgal]

We have seen recently that the US after 198 months of bombing has just gotten round to attacking IS's source of funding...selling oil to Turkey. They transport it in long convoys of trucks to Turkey. The US recently attacked infrastructure but refused to bomb the trucks as it feared civilian casualties (yes they really said that!).

Russian taunts have made them belatedly attack the convoy to deny IS the funding they need to continue their existence.

Add to that IS are getting caned by Syrian and Iranian troops, and Hezbollah in Syria.

And it turns out that the US wouldn't share intelligence with Russia to help Russia attack IS and avoid FSA for the perhaps legitimate concern that Russia would misuse the info to attack FSA.

Jeremy Corbyn had a great idea yesterday....apply sanctions to those nations which fund IS. Sadly it includes the US so isn't going to happen, but is there any reason why we wouldn't sanction Saudi, Turkey and UAE?

I worked in Iraq during the period when there were sanctions. The oil smuggling (and much of it is actually legal) is done almost entirely by civilians. Blowing up those trucks will result in massive civilian casualties and probably no ISIS fighters. It is ordinary people who cross the border, often with family, fill up the trucks and return.

You will have destroy the wells, the pipelines, the refineries or other related infrastructure.

You should consider the ecological impacts after bombing the huge refineries.

Carbon emissions will peak in the region.

I'm curious to see the UN debate for global warming while giving green light for such bombing, or at least from some of its members.

Oil smuggling depends on demand and offer. Just follow the traces of the money and take rational conclusions and actions, read sanctions. We know what hat the buyers are sovereign states.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Thorgal

[MaxYakov]

"For example, on Sunday it used A-10 attack planes and AC-130 gunships to destroy 116 tanker trucks in eastern Syria as they lined up near an oil facility in the open desert."

Wow! That must have been a sight!

Hope ISIS have it video and will upload it to YouTube.

Not a chance, huh? They're going to sell it to the History Channel, you say?

You say this scenario was ripped off from 15 Minutes, the Robert De Niro black comedy?

Thanks to Obama, ISIS had a lot more than "15 Minutes". The longer they are allowed to exist the higher the odds that they will be able to get their hands on a nuke. Couldn't happen you say?

Edited November 19, 2015 by MaxYakov

[Mosha]

Neither side didn't seem too worried about civilian deaths in WWII, now our troops are engaged with one arm tied behind their backs.

[Scott]

I am not advocating anything. I am simply stating that blowing up convoys will not necessarily achieve the desired result.

[sawadee1947]

no surprise. It's common sense you need some troopers....this time again Russians? Or will they remember their bloody nose they got in Afghanistan? Same as Americans in all wars since WWII ???

[sawadee1947]

just keep bombing the <deleted> !!

with ZERO result

[MaeJoMTB]

'despite' or 'because of'?

[sawadee1947]

'despite' or 'because of'?

without troopers:

both: bombing would increase danger of attacks world wide, would create enemies

also: no bombing would establish IS, but chances to negotiate

Choose the option

[connda]

Sure

[Andaman Al]

The Pentagon says it doesn't do body counts, but the attacks are believed to have killed upward of 20,000 IS fighters. The U.S. price tag: $5 billion since August 2014, an average of $11.1 million each day.

Just a tiny bit of lateral thinking here for the money spent. Stop all the bombing and the killing of our airmen, soldiers and innocent civilians who are 'collateral damage' and just pay the 20 000 mercenaries (that is all they are) 250000 USD each to stop fighting/go home/kill the ISIS leadership and voila! 5 billion without death and destruction, the end of ISIS. Problem solved, rather than '5 Billion spent' and we are no where nearer a solution'! Oh i forgot that does not take into account the Military Industrial complex and Haliburton

I just thought for 250K USD in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Pakistan where most of these fighters come from you can buy 72 real virgins. Enjoy them in real time! I almost included the UK but at the last Census there wasn't 72 virgins in the country

Edited November 19, 2015 by Andaman Al

[Acharn]

Sufficient numbers of local fighters in Iraq and Syria will have to step forward. Iraq's Sunni Arabs, for example, need to rise up and reclaim what IS has taken from them, Carter said.

OK, Ash Carter is being disingenuous here. Most of the "opposition" fighters are either hardline salafist jihadists, Jabhat al Nusra (al Qaeda) or Daesh (IS, ISIS, ISIL, AQI), or they are mercenaries who do not want to get their asses shot off or simply do not care about the fight. As far as they are concerned, ISIS has not taken anything from them. They don't particularly hate Bashar al Assad despite all the Western propaganda against him. The Syrian Civil War, which led to the opportunity Daesh was given to consolidate their "Caliphate," is a creation of Western and Gulf State governments, mostly financed by Saudi Arabia in their insane fight against (a) the Shi'a sect, and ( Iran.

[Acharn]

Neither side didn't seem too worried about civilian deaths in WWII, now our troops are engaged with one arm tied behind their backs.

False analogy. This isn't a war because despite what they pretend Daesh isn't a state -- yet. They're a stateless occupying force, and the civilian deaths we are already causing tends to make the occupied population less willing to throw the invaders out. The biggest strategic mistake the Bushies and neocons made was to treat this as a war. Sure, it made wonderful propaganda to get support from the public, but they never should have fallen into the trap of believing their own psy ops.

[simple1]

Sufficient numbers of local fighters in Iraq and Syria will have to step forward. Iraq's Sunni Arabs, for example, need to rise up and reclaim what IS has taken from them, Carter said.

OK, Ash Carter is being disingenuous here. Most of the "opposition" fighters are either hardline salafist jihadists, Jabhat al Nusra (al Qaeda) or Daesh (IS, ISIS, ISIL, AQI), or they are mercenaries who do not want to get their asses shot off or simply do not care about the fight. As far as they are concerned, ISIS has not taken anything from them. They don't particularly hate Bashar al Assad despite all the Western propaganda against him. The Syrian Civil War, which led to the opportunity Daesh was given to consolidate their "Caliphate," is a creation of Western and Gulf State governments, mostly financed by Saudi Arabia in their insane fight against (a) the Shi'a sect, and ( Iran.

Carter was probably referring to the successful Sunni Awakening program in Iraq. Putting aside the Assad military constant attacks on civilians, torture etc Assad's militias have continually been carrying out numerous war crimes, including rape as a weapon of war, that leads the Sunni tribes into the arms of the Islamist forces. IMO it a mistake to believe the Sunni tribes in Syria don't "particularly hate Assad". Same is happening with Shiite militias in Iraq.