Saturday, November 21, 2015

In one strike on November 15th, air power decimates the ISIL gas truck fleet.

 Via Xbrad, we learn that the Obama administration has now loosened the rules of engagement just a touch to allow airpower to go after one of the most obvious target sets in Daesh controlled territory, the fuel tankers they use to sell oil on the black market.  Daesh controls roughly 1000 tankers. And in one night, two AC-130s and four A-10Cs were able to destroy 116 trucks.

What if they'd used 20 A-10s?  They'd have about gotten them all!  It's amazing how we are fighting with one hand politically tied behind our back.

9 comments:

  1. They don't have any effective AAA so it's like shooting fish in a barrel. It's amazing that they finally allowed us to do that - even though the "War on ISIS" has been going for two years now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We own the air, so there should be no movement on the ground that we don't allow.

      Delete
  2. How 'bout 10 52-s. That would light it all up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Level their pathetic little capitol with a Vietnam style carpet bombing, using those B-52s, then tell the tribes that they will eliminate ISIL or we do the same to them. Problem solved.

      Delete
  3. This 'war' could and should have been over in a day years ago. Pathetic.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well, what you're saying up there isn't actually true. At least according to the Pentagon and mideast policy wonks. You said: "...the fuel tankers they use to sell oil on the black market. Daesh controls roughly 1000 tankers"

    Well, check out the article over at: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-19/why-u-s-efforts-to-cut-off-islamic-state-s-funds-have-failed

    From the above-linked article:

    -----
    Militants increasingly sell raw crude to truckers and middlemen, rather than refining it themselves. So while Islamic State probably maintains some refining capacity, the majority of the oil in IS territory is refined by locals who operate thousands of rudimentary, roadside furnaces that dot the Syrian desert.

    Pentagon officials also acknowledge that for more than a year they avoided striking tanker trucks to limit civilian casualties. “None of these guys are ISIS. We don’t feel right vaporizing them, so we have been watching ISIS oil flowing around for a year,” says Knights. That changed on Nov. 16, when four U.S. attack planes and two gunships destroyed 116 oil trucks. A Pentagon spokesman says the U.S. first dropped leaflets warning drivers to scatter.
    -----

    There's a difference between the Islamic State controlling a fleet of tankers, and the IS selling crude oil on the road-side to all civilian comers with a pickup and a bathtub. Just as there is a difference between politicians refusing to allow airstrikes on enemy combatants and politicians reluctant to allow airstrikes on civilians in the marketplace.

    Granted, the civvies taking part in black market transactions with the caliphate are propping up those whackjobs, and those civvies would probably politely cheer and clap if they saw the terrorists sawing your head off with a pocket knife, so I'm not losing any sleep over this. It's just that this is more akin to launching airstrikes on crackheads rather than crack dealers. Come to think of it, I wouldn't be too broken up about THAT either.

    It's just not cool to make shit up to plaster over the reality of who you're blowing up and why. Just admit that you're fine bombing the locals living under a terrorist state, and that total war is a thing you're OK with; don't claim though that the civilian truckers you're bombing are part of your enemy's military. This wasn't the government refusing to attack enemy combatants, it was the government reluctant to bomb local civilians. Nits make lice, sure, that's true; and the civilian populace of an enemy state, even when just trying to get by and feed their families, end up supporting and propping up our nation's enemies. At times the only way to win is to burn them all out of their homes, and even go after Joe Average and his family for paying taxes or propping up the economy, just don't make up pretty little bullshit lies to plaster over the truth of war. And you probably shouldn't get your news from people willing to lie out the side of their face about who we're bombing and why/why not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The article says, "Daesh controlled." Why is that not accurate? I suppose it's in the definition of "controlled."

      Hey, we were fine with a Jacksonian total war in WWII (Dresden, for instance, or the Tokyo fire bombing), and as far as I'm concerned, if they are killing our civilians, they open the door for us to kill theirs. That's especially so since most of them support the jihadis, and they need a bit of boom to change their minds. Worked well with the Japanese, Germans and Italians, and it'll work with the Arabs. It's just a messy, awful process along the way, but in the end, it's us or them. Better to do the difficult work now, and be friends later, than fight for another hundred years. Many fewer die in the end.

      Delete
  5. With every official comment about the ISIS conflict, everyone in the Administration uses the words, "It will take time." We know that is a lie. ISIS is not like al Qaeda in that it tries to take territory, assets and oil fields. It can certainly be defeated quickly. All it takes is the will to do it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Absolutely correct. The fact that Obama won't ask Congress for a declaration of war tells you he isn't serious.

      Delete