Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
If You’re Interested in Defeating ISIS, Suit Up!
During the Gulf War in 1991, we hit hundreds of target per day, down from as much as a thousand per day in the first couple of days. During the Kosovo airstrikes, we hit 50-100 targets per day. Now, it’s news if we hit 20 targets in a day. Note that comparing targets hit obviates any development in weapons or aircraft. A target is a target, and it’s either hit or not.
We are not trying to fight this war; this is a political sop. It’s supposed to be enough to appease the warlike without alarming the peaceniks, and certainly without seriously damaging ISIS.
I oppose escalating this to some sort of Bay-of-Absolutely-No-Pigs moment by committing US troops to a war that the commander-in-chief does not wish to win. The American people lawfully elected Barack Obama to the Presidency based, in part, on his promise to give up on Iraq and Afghanistan. Then, they re-elected him. So America has spoken, the administration has spoken, and the military is not allowed a voice in this. That’s well and good, up until the commander-in-chief is actually trying not to win. He has other priorities, and those should be considered.
Deciding whom you wish to see defeated is well and good, but if you want to defeat ISIS, you’ll have to defeat Obama first, and our GOP political leadership has so far not been interested in that. They think that if they don’t look, the problem will just go away.
Published in Foreign Policy, Islamist Terrorism
Damn, now I am all depressed. God help any troops that are in the air or on the ground under this posturing idiot . To waste such quality on a fools errand is one of the many tragedies of Obama.
It will get worse.
A good word of caution, BDB
That’s a pretty good retort to the seemingly ill informed Fred post. I think too that one needs to fully understand what Islam is, both as a political philosophy and as a theology. It is obvious that people who are running around saying we must not offend them know nothing of Islam. This is not to say that Muslims in general are the enemy, but you nailed it on the head when you said, if they cannot clean their own house, then they own this.
BDB, did you catch this quote on fox nation?
“’To forgive the terrorists is up to god, to send them to him is up to me.’ Who talks like that? PUTIN DOES!”
Tommy De Seno had a good moment in Jon Gabriel’s thread, funny and pathetic:
“Does anyone know what time Putin is going to speak so we can find out what we are going to do about ISIS?”
Careful, you’ll be called a fascist or a Nazi for acknowledging that a KGB light colonel has a better grasp on ass-kicking than a drug-addled faculty lounge catamite.
By the way, 116 fuel trucks is one target, called a “truck park”. Don’t get chaffed.
I can never tell you how much I love the title of this post. Very well done, Mr. Ball sir!
Thank yuh ma’am. Thank yuh verruh much!
If we had a real gen-u-ine opposition party Barry wouldn’t able to get away with claiming he was doing anything at all about ISIS.
But no, we have the GOP.
The leadership should be shrieking like Al Gore or Harry Reid that Barry has betrayed the country, with grim consequences inbound- but no.
It’s the GOP, which reacts with the thunder of terrified crickets.
Pitiful.
Nice post, BDB.
Folks, Tom Meyer contacted me about edits to the post and moving it to the main feed. I figure the title of the post makes most of my point, and Ricochet has always shied away from having folks call Obama exactly what he is, so I’ll let that go. I approve all the changes they suggested.
In doing some reading related to this post, I came across this. Do read the whole thing but the basic facts are that:
I’m at a loss. Truly, I’ve no words. We cannot fight a war this way.
Aw, I missed something?? I hate it when I miss something on the Member Feed!! Dang, now I’ll be obsessed with the Member Feed for weeks!
Someone PM me what I missed?
Excellent! Could not agree more (with the whole post, but especially this paragraph)!
That’s a good point. In other words, perhaps we have one bomb that can destroy a target that, 50 years ago, would have required 15 bombs to destroy. But a target is a target, and we’re hitting far fewer targets than we should be.
I too. However, I suspect by this you mean do some serious reading on the subject. And while that will get you an A+ on your exam, it won’t get you anywhere near fully understanding Islam. It won’t even get you anywhere near a partial understanding.
And that’s ok so long as you know the limits of your understanding.
This is the Obama Doctrine as stated a couple of years ago:
It isn’t working, I fear. I think dozens, perhaps scores, of people around the world are mocking the United States.
The term of art at the Joint Force Air Component Commander level is DMPI (Desired Mean Point of Impact – pronounced “dimpy”) Targets are composed of DMPIs. Some targets are a DMPI of 1, larger targets could have many. At some point a target becomes a target facility with more than 10 DMPIs associated with it.
In 1991 – B-52 would be assigned a single DMPI (up to 3) per 3 ship formation and each B-52 would drop 47-51 bombs on each DMPI.
In Kosovo, with the advent of JDAM, a B-52 could hit 12 DMPIs with individual JDAM, with 1 extra DMPI being serviced by 27 Mk 82 bombs from the bomb bay. (JDAM were/are carried externally)
In Iraq circa 2003, this held true as well (13 DMPIs per B-52)
The Iraq campaign hit more than 2000 DMPIs per day for about 5 days, tapering off to 1200-1500 per day until the statue came down.
As much as it galls me, this is probably right.
Is this a non-sequitur? The problem is the GOP?
Rand Paul maybe. But, . . .who in the GOP Presidential race is not willing to let some professional statesmen and generals devise a flexible, well thought strategy?
If you talking about the kind of all-out war necessary to really win, maybe Trump .. no one else has been willing to mention ground forces.
Sorry this is simply not true.
Show us who it is.
Before this turns into another GOP self-criticism session, please read this two times – and call me in the morning.
http://time.com/4113042/paris-attacks-islamic-state-republican-positions/
This is like your run-on criticism of Marco Rubio alleging embezzlement. The Washington Post refuted the argument you made point by point days later. Please read the current media or in the case of Kasich, go back to what he said in January. Even Carson has said troops may be needed and several candidates have called for a multi-national force.
And for Trump – he is not for boots on the ground. Read his quotes.
Isn’t that Lindsey Graham’s whole reason for running. They ask him about his tax plan and he says we need boots on the ground.
Uh James, those are not serious responses explaining the all out war that needs to be fought.
Edit: Russia is making meaningful progress towards dominating Syria, Iraq and eventually the entire Gulf region. The U.S. is no longer a factor and vague statements by Republican candidates won’t change anything.
Lindsay Graham and John McCain have advocated a U.S. cavalry charge somewhere almost every year, since Desert Storm, ok, he might actually have some kind of plan but the rest don’t and vaguely suggest doing something.
I stand corrected about the front runners Jindal and Kasich, they have a vague support for ground forces.
Trump advocates the equivalent of Curtis LeMay, the rest are vague waffles. Trump is the only explicit plan in the article.
No one blames Republicans first, they are just wimps. Rubio committed credit card fraud.
Even when we are fighting, he imposes stupid lefty rules of engagement and ties their hands. If our soldiers have to call the lawyers every time before they return fire, well, not exactly a recipe for victory.
Sorry, the facts have you. Lindsay Graham, ex-candidate Bobby Jindal, and John Kasich have been clear. When you put boots on the ground, that is war. This is now you trying to find a difference without a distinction.
This whole blame the Republicans thing is absurd. If you don’t like them, and you want a pro-war, pro-declaration of war candidate then your claim that Trump is the man is … completely wrong.
I think this makes it clear . . .
So move on. The statement that the conclusion in the original post is a non sequitur stands, res ipse loquitur.
This may be the best post in the history of Ricochet.