Friday, November 20, 2015

Obama Inc: We Won't "Stoop" to Bombing ISIS Cities

Obama Inc: We Won't "Stoop" to Bombing ISIS Cities


"We won't stoop to actually winning wars"

2
817

We already knew this earlier, but now there is more confirmation.
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.
“You went 12 full months while ISIS was on the march without the U.S. using that air power and now as the pilots come back to talk to us they say three-quarters of our ordnance we can’t drop, we can’t get clearance even when we have a clear target in front of us,” Royce said. “I don’t understand this strategy at all because this is what has allowed ISIS the advantage and ability to recruit.”
When asked to address Royce’s statement, a Pentagon official defended the Obama administration’s policy and said that the military is furiously working to prevent civilian casualties.
“The bottom line is that we will not stoop to the level of our enemy and put civilians more in harm’s way than absolutely necessary,” the official told the Washington Free Beacon, explaining that the military often conducts flights “and don’t strike anything.”
We won't stoop to actually winning wars. Instead we'll let ISIS murder and rape civilians rather than put them in "harm's way" by bombing ISIS.

This plan worked wonderfully well in Afghanistan, as I documented in The Great Betrayal.
The number of Afghan civilian casualties caused by American forces had dropped between 2009 and 2011, but civilian casualties caused by the Taliban steadily increased in that same time. 2009 proved to be the deadliest year for Afghan civilians with over 2,400 killed in that year alone, with the Taliban accounting for two-thirds of the total. While the percentage of casualties caused by US forces fell 28 percent, the percentage caused by the Taliban increased by 40 percent making up for American restraint.[1]  This fell into line with the increase in NATO combat deaths which rose from 295 to 520.
These numbers were the cost of restraint which allowed the Taliban to rack up more kills against both international forces and Afghan civilians. At West Point, Obama had declared that the goal was to reverse the Taliban’s momentum; instead the momentum was solidly on the side of the Taliban.
By 2011, the ISAF forces were responsible for only 14.2 percent of Afghan civilian deaths, while the Taliban were responsible for 79.8 percent of them. [2] The Taliban had demonstrated that their reach was growing and American restraint did not save civilian lives, rather it cost even more lives by empowering the Taliban who were hard at work taking them.
But Obama will still double down on his policies no matter how many people they kill. As long as those people aren't ISIS.
The generals who won World War II would start by leveling Raqqa, the ISIS caliphate’s capital. Civilians would die, but those remaining in Raqqa have embraced ISIS, as Germans did Hitler. The jihadis must be crushed. Start with their “Berlin.”
Kill ten thousand, save a million.
Unthinkable? Fine. We lose.
If we fought WW2, the way that we fight ISIS, the Nazis would have been allowed to kill everybody in Europe to avoid inflicting any collateral damage on civilians.

No comments:

Post a Comment