War against ISIS - December/Jan battle reports and victories

OP

Original post by z33

1:50 is a good ratio
it's sad that these people die but we're saving their families/ children/ neighbours and other people in danger of being killed by ISIS anyway

Absolutely, 1:50 is probably the cleanest air campaign in history. This really is a function of how much air force technology has advanced (with targeting pods, which are like very advanced, powerful video cameras placed onto a jet linked in to a GPS system, which can zoom in on targets at very high resolution and then guide bombs in) and the high accuracy of GPS and laser-guided bombs.

It's also that President Obama and his staff have been very clear that the military is to be extremely careful, more careful than they ever have been before, in ensuring few civilian casualties as possible. This leads to the situation we see now, with about a 50:1 ratio.

There's no question, ethically speaking and through the utilitarian lens, that these airstrikes are absolutely justified and ultimately save more lives. Also, the old far left narrative that if any Iraqis or Syrians are killed, their entire families will rise up against us, is utterly false. We have a few reports of families on Al Jazeera, they said that while they are overcome with grief, they also understand why their relative died and they are not going to go and join ISIS. They understand what happens in war.

The racist far left idea that Iraqis and Syrians are mindless and tribal and will simply attack the US if their family members are tragically and mistakenly killed in an airstrike simply isn't borne out

Reply 22

Original post by Aj12

When Stop the War was trying to muster support against air strikes they contacted a group of Kurds. They realized they had little to no Syrian support for a rally so thought they would get the Kurds on board. Naturally the Kurds explained they supported the airstrikes. Stop the War at that pointed claimed they were a bunch of imperialist apologists. Ignoring the fact that these are the people fighting and dying on the ground to liberate their region.

Far, far less than if we simply left ISIS to rampage and rape their way across Iraq and Syria.

But then you have to consider that using methods that can only poorly discriminate between friend and foe will result in a solidification of the strength of such an enemy, as it will just drive up their recruitment?
Think it should be either all or nothing; but maybe not possible to do anything really substantial? Airstrikes are just a crappy excuse of doing something. But then, I suppose that its such an epic proxy war type situation that no one can really step in.

Reply 23

z33

21

Original post by woIfie

Absolutely, 1:50 is probably the cleanest air campaign in history. This really is a function of how much air force technology has advanced (with targeting pods, which are like very advanced, powerful video cameras placed onto a jet linked in to a GPS system, which can zoom in on targets at very high resolution and then guide bombs in) and the high accuracy of GPS and laser-guided bombs.

It's also that President Obama and his staff have been very clear that the military is to be extremely careful, more careful than they ever have been before, in ensuring few civilian casualties as possible. This leads to the situation we see now, with about a 50:1 ratio.

There's no question, ethically speaking and through the utilitarian lens, that these airstrikes are absolutely justified and ultimately save more lives. Also, the old far left narrative that if any Iraqis or Syrians are killed, their entire families will rise up against us, is utterly false. We have a few reports of families on Al Jazeera, they said that while they are overcome with grief, they also understand why their relative died and they are not going to go and join ISIS. They understand what happens in war.

The racist far left idea that Iraqis and Syrians are mindless and tribal and will simply attack the US if their family members are tragically and mistakenly killed in an airstrike simply isn't borne out

Daym technology :O that's so awesome :biggrin:

50:1 is really good yeah

Yeah I don't understand why they think that. 60% of Iraq are Shia Muslims (13% of Syria) who are very big targets of ISIS themselves, and so are the 0.8% Iraqi Christians and 10% Syrian Christians - they want them out too so when they find out relatives have died as a result of airstrikes to get rid of ISIS they know they've died for a good cause (and believe they'll get their reward in the after life). THIS is what they refer to as 'Jihad' - they say the innocent civilians that died have died for their religion and to save their people - they are seen as heroes. I have family and friends there and they are definitely against ISIS - all they do is curse them X'D I know many relatives who are teachers and children in school are also being educated on these matters, taught about the dangers and aims of ISIS to ensure the kids don't get recruited.

Iraq isn't that backwards guys...

Reply 24

OP

Original post by hellodave5

But then you have to consider that using methods that can only poorly discriminate between friend and foe will result in a solidification of the strength of such an enemy, as it will just drive up their recruitment?

Actually, the Western coalition seems to be doing quite well as discriminating between friend and foe, given the best numbers we have suggest a 50:1 ratio of terrorists to civilians killed in airstrikes.

Frankly, it's not that difficult to discriminate between the two given the vast majority of Western airstrikes are tactical strikes against battlefield targets (predominantly areas where civilians have already fled, against targets that are readily identifiable by modern targeting pods like Litening III). It's not that hard to work out who to strike when you have drones flying a 24-hour orbit over the battlefield and Kurds/Iraqis on the ground telling you where the frontline is.

It's more of a far left myth that we aren't able to distinguish targets, often born of lack of knowledge about how modern weapons systems work, and a disinclination to actually look at the sortie reports, airstrike data and casualty numbers. All this information suggests that the vast majority of those killed are in fact terrorists.

Think it should be either all or nothing; but maybe not possible to do anything really substantial? Airstrikes are just a crappy excuse of doing something

The Kurds and Iraqis would beg to differ. They tell us that airstrikes are absolutely vital, and anyone who has looked at the Battle of Kobane, the Battle of Sinjar or the ongoing fight in Ramadi would say precisely the same thing. In 2014, the Kurds in Kobane looked like they were done for, ISIL was closing in and everyone assumed they were done for. They were vastly outnumbered, ISIL had much better equipment and at this point were pretty much unbeaten on the battlefield.

US aircraft joined the battle, and instead turned it into ISIL's Stalingrad, a long-deadly campaign in which they were never able to get back onto the front foot. In the end, ISIL lost over 2000 fighters trying to take Kobane. Today, Kobane is the centre of a large Kurdish territory that has expanded outwards and continues to expand, pushing ISIL back.

I, for one, think that's a good thing. I do not think the fate of the Kurds is a matter of indifference

Reply 25

OP

Original post by hellodave5

But then you have to consider that using methods that can only poorly discriminate between friend and foe will result in a solidification of the strength of such an enemy, as it will just drive up their recruitment?
Think it should be either all or nothing; but maybe not possible to do anything really substantial? Airstrikes are just a crappy excuse of doing something. But then, I suppose that its such an epic proxy war type situation that no one can really step in.

One of the problems is that most people on the far left have a view of air campaigns in their mind that's somewhat akin to the bombing of Dresden. They don't know very much about modern air warfare technology, and they don't care to know. In their mind, all we can do is carpet bomb and kill thousands of civilians.

In fact, a modern jet using an electro-optical targeting pod can zoom in with very high resolution, even flying at 20,000 feet at 500mph. They can zoom into a target and identify it with relative ease, they can set the pod to automatically follow a moving target and they can switch on the laser designator to guide in a bomb or missile to the precise spot they've selected through the pod on their screen.

This is what such an engagement looks like (the strike is at 55 seconds in);

[video="youtube;eDS_eA3FcU4"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDS_eA3FcU4[/video]

Does that look like the clumsy, cack-handed carpet bombing of which the far left speaks? Or does it look like a highly-precise and specifically-targeted attack?

Reply 26

Original post by woIfie

One of the problems is that most people on the far left have a view of air campaigns in their mind that's somewhat akin to the bombing of Dresden. They don't know very much about modern air warfare technology, and they don't care to know. In their mind, all we can do is carpet bomb and kill thousands of civilians.

In fact, a modern jet using an electro-optical targeting pod can zoom in with very high resolution, even flying at 20,000 feet at 500mph. They can zoom into a target and identify it with relative ease, they can set the pod to automatically follow a moving target and they can switch on the laser designator to guide in a bomb or missile to the precise spot they've selected through the pod on their screen.

This is what such an engagement looks like (the strike is at 55 seconds in);

[video="youtube;eDS_eA3FcU4"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDS_eA3FcU4[/video]

Does that look like the clumsy, cack-handed carpet bombing of which the far left speaks? Or does it look like a highly-precise and specifically-targeted attack?

Thanks for the insight. You have quite a good knowledge of it!
I just assumed, seeing as the US 'accidentally' bombed 2 hospitals. Thought their targeting and Intel was shabby :tongue:

Reply 27

OP

Original post by hellodave5

Thanks for the insight. You have quite a good knowledge of it!
I just assumed, seeing as the US 'accidentally' bombed 2 hospitals. Thought their targeting and Intel was shabby :tongue:

In that case, they hit the target they were aiming at. It's just that the intel that led to firing at that target was faulty. But if you look at the last two years, that really is the only major ****up which is pretty impressive given there have been perhaps over 30,000 air engagements in that period.

War is cruel, and people die, and sometimes the wrong people die. But the 50:1 terrorist to civilian ratio (mentioned in the post above) they've managed in Iraq/Syria speaks to just how careful they are being, and how far the technology has come along

Reply 28

Original post by woIfie

In that case, they hit the target they were aiming at. It's just that the intel that led to firing at that target was faulty. But if you look at the last two years, that really is the only major ****up which is pretty impressive given there have been perhaps over 30,000 air engagements in that period.

War is cruel, and people die, and sometimes the wrong people die. But the 50:1 terrorist to civilian ratio (mentioned in the post above) they've managed in Iraq/Syria speaks to just how careful they are being, and how far the technology has come along

I suppose when you put it in perspective. That is a good ratio.
But I still struggle to see how hospitals can be fired at, and hard to not think it was not on purpose as to achieve some kind of strategic aim.

I was reading about how it started on the wiki (don't know how valid it is), but was interesting to look at how these problems came about - I think it said it started primarily with the de- Baath-ication of Iraq.

Reply 29

OP

Original post by hellodave5

I suppose when you put it in perspective. That is a good ratio.
But I still struggle to see how hospitals can be fired at, and hard to not think it was not on purpose as to achieve some kind of strategic aim.

When you say strategic aim, in some ways you're not far off but they absolutely didn't intend to hit a hospital. But your intuition is in some ways right I suspect, let me explain why.

You have to think about it in context. First, it didn't just come at random. There had been an incredibly intense battle raging in Kunduz for days between the Taliban and government forces. Second, the hospital was right in the centre of the battle. Third, this was happening at night.

The AC-130 gunship received a fire mission, a set of GPS co-ordinates, and they did what they are supposed to do; fly into position and fire on the target. What was happening was that a Pakistani intelligence officer was in the building directing Taliban forces (very murky relationship there), and that there may have been some fire from the building. Likely the National Security Agency was listening in on this Pakistani intelligence officer's phone calls and transmissions, and thought "Let's get this ****er". They used their SIGINT technology to triangulate his position to a GPS co-ordinate and passed it on as a fire mission to the AC-130, without double checking what was actually there. They were probably really excited to nail one of the bastards who sits above pulling the strings of the Taliban, not realising they were about to order the gunship to fire on a hospital. From what I've heard and read, that is one scenario I think is the likely one.

There's no way the Americans would fire on a hospital deliberately like that, not to sound cynical but especially not a hospital with Western volunteer doctors in it. It is just so counterproductive and the ****storm of negative publicity so embarrassing for the President that they would not purposely do something that would lead to their boss (President Obama) coming under that kind of criticism. It definitely was a mistake, it's about finding out how this set of co-ordinates was passed on to the gunship and why.

I was reading about how it started on the wiki (don't know how valid it is), but was interesting to look at how these problems came about - I think it said it started primarily with the de- Baath-ication of Iraq.

I don't think de-Baathification was a mistake per se, but disbanding the Iraqi Army immediately was. The sunni generals went to American commanders and said "We can keep our men in line, all you need to do is keep paying them their monthly salaries" (a pittance of $20 USD). A very rigid American official refused. Army commanders on the ground went up the chain and got that decision overturned, but it was already too late; 400,000 sunni army officers and enlisted men left their barracks with their weapons, many ending up in the insurgency.

But it also must be remembered, the Americans did defeat Al-Qaeda in Iraq. In 2007, President Bush took the decision to surge American troops by sending in another 50,000 and put General Petraeus in charge. With these additional troops, they took the fight to the terrorists. They also convinced the Anbari Sunnis to come over their side and fight against Al-Qaeda (the Anbar Sunnis by that time knew just how evil Al-Qaeda was). And the strategy worked; in 2006, around 50,000 Iraqis were killed (that is by whatever side). In 2010, only 5,000 were killed (which is comparable to South Africa's murder rate).

By the time the Americans left in 2010/2011, killings had been reduced by 90% and Al-Qaeda in Iraq had been devastated and pretty much defeated. They were barely hanging on out in the Western desert. But it was the Americans leaving that allowed Nouri Al-Maliki to really start persecuting the Sunnis to please his Shi'a political base. They started rounding up Sunni political leaders, young sunni men were turning up dead everywhere. Shi'a death squads working within the Ministry of Interior and the Ministry of Health (surprisingly) were going crazy killing sunnis, and there were also massacres of Sunni protesters.

At the same time, the Syrian Civil War was taking off and Al-Qaeda in Iraq elements went there to fight, and over time managed to really build themselves up into a big fighting force by concentrating on taking territory (rather than directly fighting the regime) and by focusing on making money and stockpiling arms. So fast forward to 2013/14, by this time the sunnis of Iraq have absolutely had it with the Shia government. And this is how Al-Qaeda in Iraq fighters (now called ISIS) were able to return to Iraq with masses of weapons and recruits, and take over lots of sunni cities.

In that history, I see a lot of blame to be put on sectarianism and corrupt political leaders in Iraq. I can't really blame the Americans for what ended up happening, they actually left Iraq in a (relatively) pretty good state, Iraq had a huge opportunity to take it from there and run with it. Instead, its leaders indulged their sectarianism

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 30

Original post by woIfie

When you say strategic aim, in some ways you're not far off but they absolutely didn't intend to hit a hospital. But your intuition is in some ways right I suspect, let me explain why.

You have to think about it in context. First, it didn't just come at random. There had been an incredibly intense battle raging in Kunduz for days between the Taliban and government forces. Second, the hospital was right in the centre of the battle. Third, this was happening at night.

The AC-130 gunship received a fire mission, a set of GPS co-ordinates, and they did what they are supposed to do; fly into position and fire on the target. What was happening was that a Pakistani intelligence officer was in the building directing Taliban forces (very murky relationship there), and that there may have been some fire from the building. Likely the National Security Agency was listening in on this Pakistani intelligence officer's phone calls and transmissions, and thought "Let's get this ****er". They used their SIGINT technology to triangulate his position to a GPS co-ordinate and passed it on as a fire mission to the AC-130, without double checking what was actually there. They were probably really excited to nail one of the bastards who sits above pulling the strings of the Taliban, not realising they were about to order the gunship to fire on a hospital. From what I've heard and read, that is one scenario I think is the likely one.

There's no way the Americans would fire on a hospital deliberately like that, not to sound cynical but especially not a hospital with Western volunteer doctors in it. It is just so counterproductive and the ****storm of negative publicity so embarrassing for the President that they would not purposely do something that would lead to their boss (President Obama) coming under that kind of criticism. It definitely was a mistake, it's about finding out how this set of co-ordinates was passed on to the gunship and why.

I don't think de-Baathification was a mistake per se, but disbanding the Iraqi Army immediately was. The sunni generals went to American commanders and said "We can keep our men in line, all you need to do is keep paying them their monthly salaries" (a pittance of $20 USD). A very rigid American official refused. Army commanders on the ground went up the chain and got that decision overturned, but it was already too late; 400,000 sunni army officers and enlisted men left their barracks with their weapons, many ending up in the insurgency.

But it also must be remembered, the Americans did defeat Al-Qaeda in Iraq. In 2007, President Bush took the decision to surge American troops by sending in another 50,000 and put General Petraeus in charge. With these additional troops, they took the fight to the terrorists. They also convinced the Anbari Sunnis to come over their side and fight against Al-Qaeda (the Anbar Sunnis by that time knew just how evil Al-Qaeda was). And the strategy worked; in 2006, around 50,000 Iraqis were killed (that is by whatever side). In 2010, only 5,000 were killed (which is comparable to South Africa's murder rate).

By the time the Americans left in 2010/2011, killings had been reduced by 90% and Al-Qaeda in Iraq had been devastated and pretty much defeated. They were barely hanging on out in the Western desert. But it was the Americans leaving that allowed Nouri Al-Maliki to really start persecuting the Sunnis to please his Shi'a political base. They started rounding up Sunni political leaders, young sunni men were turning up dead everywhere. Shi'a death squads working within the Ministry of Interior and the Ministry of Health (surprisingly) were going crazy killing sunnis, and there were also massacres of Sunni protesters.

At the same time, the Syrian Civil War was taking off and Al-Qaeda in Iraq elements went there to fight, and over time managed to really build themselves up into a big fighting force by concentrating on taking territory (rather than directly fighting the regime) and by focusing on making money and stockpiling arms. So fast forward to 2013/14, by this time the sunnis of Iraq have absolutely had it with the Shia government. And this is how Al-Qaeda in Iraq fighters (now called ISIS) were able to return to Iraq with masses of weapons and recruits, and take over lots of sunni cities.

In that history, I see a lot of blame to be put on sectarianism and corrupt political leaders in Iraq. I can't really blame the Americans for what ended up happening, they actually left Iraq in a (relatively) pretty good state, Iraq had a huge opportunity to take it from there and run with it. Instead, its leaders indulged their sectarianism

Wow that was an excellent analysis! Cheers!! I hope a good few people read this :smile:

Reply 31

OP

Original post by hellodave5

Wow that was an excellent analysis! Cheers!! I hope a good few people read this :smile:

Aw thanks dude :smile:

Really appreciate that.

Reply 32

Original post by woIfie

Aw thanks dude :smile:

Really appreciate that.

No worries mate. I got a lot from that!
Thanks again

Reply 33

Plantagenet Crown

20

Hahaha, see ya later ISIS :biggrin:

Reply 34

RF_PineMarten

18

The YPG/SDF crossing the Tishrin dam onto the other side of the Euphrates means that ISIS' main supply route from the Turkish border to all its territory in Iraq and Syria is under threat - it would be huge if they got cut off from Turkey. It also serves as the latest in a long line of examples to bring up whenever anyone claims "air strikes don't work".

Spoiler

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 35

OP