U.S. Airstrikes 2 months on: FAIL.

[cali]

Yeah, yeah. It's a long term thing. How dare anyone criticize it when it hasn't been given a chance to work? blah fucking blah blah blah.

The coalition is a paper thin fig leaf. ISIS keeps making advances and the prospects aren't exactly encouraging. ISIS is getting what it wants. And after Kobani, they'll likely start attacking Turkey directly. They seem determined to draw in NATO. How does that serve them? In the same way that the U.S. airstrikes have served them.: They get recruits and a more support. And what is this crap about how it will take years? What is this "broader strategy? What happens in the years before this "broader strategy" is effective? What happens if Assad effectively wipes out our "moderate" rebel partners? What about the ever increasing number of displaced persons? What about bombing damages and deaths? The longer this goes on the more potential disastrous effects and the more blow back. Regarding Kobani, the U.N. has warned that there will be a massacre. The U.S. has said that Kobani will fall. Hey, wasn't one of the leading rationales in this military intervention to save the Kurds and others from being massacred. The U.S. has gone so far as to say that saving these lives (in Kobani) is not part of the mission. How much will this war against ISIS cost? We've already run up a $40 billion tab.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/world/2014/10/10/warns-massacre-militants-take-syrian-town/BajLvX984HwCNQmFXUpJbJ/story.html

http://www.democracynow.org/2014/10/9/us_faces_massive_military_failure_as

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/10/08/analysis-us-led-airstrikes-produce-few-gains.html

— The U.S.-led air war in Syria has gotten off to a rocky start, with even the Syrian rebel groups closest to the United States turning against it, U.S. ally Turkey refusing to contribute and the plight of a beleaguered Kurdish town exposing the limitations of the strategy.

U.S. officials caution that the strikes are just the beginning of a broader strategy that could take years to carry out. But the anger that the attacks have stirred risks undermining the effort, analysts and rebels say.

The main beneficiary of the strikes so far appears to be President Bashar Assad, whose forces have taken advantage of the shift in the military balance to step up attacks against the moderate rebels designated by President Barack Obama as partners of the United States in the war against extremists.

The U.S. targets have included oil facilities, a granary and an electricity plant under Islamic State control. The damage to those facilities has caused shortages and price hikes across the rebel-held north that are harming ordinary Syrians more than the well-funded militants, residents and activists say.

<snip>

http://www.stripes.com/news/middle-east/us-airstrikes-in-syria-off-to-rocky-start-moderate-rebels-disenchanted-1.307850

[Wounded Bear]

1. I think they were trying to re-enact the Balkan Strategy...

that Clinton used to great effect against Serbia. However, we had NATO troops on the ground there, outr airstrikes were not launched into a vacuum. There are no dependable troops on the ground in Iraq/Syria, beyond the Kurds, and even they have their own agenda.

Hell, the Turks refuse to help, largely because they fear the formation of a Kurdish state that would carve out a large region of southeastern Turkey, or at least foment rebellion/separatist activism there.

Since the fall of Saddam, the region has gone tribal. The ME, as we know it, has never been unified unless it was the result of empire/military conquest. Rigth now, ISIS seems to be the strongest tribe in the area.

[Bigmack]

2. Air campaigns don't work....

Can anybody name one that did?

I'd argue that maybe the bombing in WWII had the desired effect of knocking out war production, but virtually nothing since.

In the Vietnam War, the US dropped more bomb tonnage in the area than was dropped in all of WWII...both theaters of war.

And they won.

ISIS will just melt into the population, and any bombs will just kill civilians and fill the ISIS recruiting offices.

Since ISIS is just the latest bogeyman... among a whole herd of bogeymen.. isn't it possible for us to just let them take what they can, and then watch them degrade their own effectiveness with squabbles among the nutball groups?

I don't believe we can bomb an ideology into peace.

[TwilightGardener]

4. It's not an air campaign alone. I think our military understands that just bombing

doesn't work. The weakness is the forces on the ground, at least in the Sunni areas of Iraq--and we have NO ground partners to speak of in Syria, we'll piss Turkey off too much if we strengthen and embolden the Kurds next to Turkey.

[cali]

6. this was all known, so why the hell start something that was doomed to failure?

[Man from Pickens]

8. GOOD question

if I may be so bold as to make a prediction - the point appears to be to get us involved in Syria further so that they can then do the whole bomb-Assad thing they wanted to do last year but failed to generate support for

[TwilightGardener]

10. We weren't going to start airstrikes until ISIS threatened Erbil and went after

the Yazidis and took Mosul dam. We had a carrier in place and forces arrayed since late June, but held off on starting anything, mostly waiting for Maliki to quit, but also trying to coordinate a ground game. We could have not started airstrikes, but then the Yazidis would be massacred, our people would have been threatened in Baghdad and Erbil, and ISIS would have had uninterrupted time to strengthen and dig in. Would that have been better?

[Johonny]

15. It would appear Obama plan is to offer to be their air power

But to not treat the area as a colonial power would. He is very reluctant to march in there stabilize the area and then repeat the same mess in 10 years. He has offered our air force to augment their ground troops. Between Turkey, the Kurds, and Iraq there is more than enough military power to take out ISIS. Indeed if you add Jordan, the Saudis and Iran then there is way more than enough military power. It is really a matter of will power and organization on their part. We championed self-determination for 10+ years now. I think Obama is trying to allow that to happen with support. So frankly with such a strategy failure is an option. I think we all hope these countries will figure out how to coordinate and attack before ISIS topples them one by one, but roving bands of mercenaries that slowly bowl over much better but lethargic-reluctant armies is something that has happened before in world history.

[TwilightGardener]

3. We can't save a town that's surrounded with no way for reinforcements.

It's in Syria--we have no ground game whatsoever there. Our only involvement in Syria is to set back ISIS in Iraq. The Kurds might want to fight to the last man and woman in Kobani, but we're not responsible for that decision, and most if not all of the civilians should have been able to leave by now. The town itself holds no importance, because ISIS already controls much of that border with Turkey, and no, they're not going to invade Turkey. This whole deal will take years because it's not really a conventional war, it's more like counterterrorism, which is an ongoing thing. My prediction is that eventually ISIS will not be able to control and administer its seized areas, will financially collapse, will eventually lose its advantage in outgunning the weaker forces, and will melt back into pockets of ungoverned land or lay low and perpetrate attacks here and there. But I think everyone needs to give it way more time, we've had a coalition for exactly three weeks.

[cali]

7. yeah. give it more time. .

and no I didn't say invade Turkey. They don't need to invade Turkey to beleaguer them. Are you now claiming that preventing massacres wasn't one of the primary reasons for this military intervention?

and it's been 2 months not 3 weeks. the coalition is pathetic and more a sham than a reality. this is a sick joke.

[TwilightGardener]

12. No, we only started serious strategic bombing about six weeks ago, and only had

coalition help three weeks ago--most of our efforts in August was to save the Yazidis, push back ISIS from Kurdistan, and retake dams and protect the Turkmen Shia, all tricky and hard-fought by the Kurds and Iraqi forces on the ground. We have actually had successes where the Kurds are. Not so much where the Iraqi forces are. The massacres are not our primary reason for action--ISIS taking over a third of a country that we are responsible for and where we have significant interests is our primary reason. What interests do we really have in Syria? That's Russia's turf.

[flamingdem]

14. +1 The Kurds made a decision to stay and fight

and that's honorable. They got air support that could have least allowed civilians to get out. There's no way that Isis attacks Turkey. They're too smart for that.

[marmar]

5. Is that the sound of post-election boots on the ground I hear in the distance?

[Man from Pickens]

9. that's the sound

of democratic participation becoming meaningless as the Perpetual War State marches on... John McCain press conference expected.

[Blue_Tires]

11. The biggest failure so far is their inability

to locate and eliminate the whistleblower defector from the DGSE, which has been a massive intelligence embarrassment for France

[flamingdem]

13. Isis is not going to attack Turkey

They would be pulverized.

However they may work to create unrest in the cities there since they have lots of support.

Turkey just agreed to work with the US on training and I think arming a Syrian opposition force - what they wanted all along and were holding out for vs. fighting just Isis.

So while many are attacking the administration now they didn't have many choices. The allies have to be wrangled. All the talk about having missed an opportunity to arm the Syrian opposition is bull because they were all about fighting Assad not Isis. Also there are examples of anti-tank and other weapons given to FSA that were sold to Jabhat Nusra and such so there was no real option there either.

I think we owe it to the Iraqis to help them gain some control back over their country. Behind this is realpolitik and oil but there's also cleaning up after Bush.

[cali]

17. I'm betting they'll do little cross border expeditions

the majority of Iraqis do not want our "help".

[cwydro]

16. Kick

for a great post.

We need to get the hell out.