Obama Admin Blocks 75 Percent of Islamic State Strikes

[tonyz]

Perhaps one of the many reasons ISIS has not yet been contained. Complete article at link.

U.S. Pilots Confirm: Obama Admin Blocks 75 Percent of Islamic State Strikes
‘We can’t get clearance even when we have a clear target in front of us’
Free Beacon
BY: Adam Kredo
November 20, 2015 5:00 am

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.

Strikes against the Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL) targets are often blocked due to an Obama administration policy to prevent civilian deaths and collateral damage, according to Rep. Ed Royce (R., Calif.), chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

The policy is being blamed for allowing Islamic State militants to gain strength across Iraq and continue waging terrorist strikes throughout the region and beyond, according to Royce and former military leaders who spoke Wednesday about flaws in the U.S. campaign to combat the Islamic State.

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.”

“The fact that aircraft go on missions and don’t strike anything is not out of the norm,” the official said. “Despite U.S. strikes being the most precise in the history of warfare, conducting strike operations in the heavily populated areas where ISIL hides certainly presents challenges. We are fighting an enemy who goes out of their way to put civilians at risk. However, our pilots understand the need for the tactical patience in this environment. This fight against ISIL is not the kind of fight from previous decades.”

Jack Keane, a retired four-star U.S. general, agreed with Royce’s assessment of the administration’s policy and blamed President Barack Obama for issuing orders that severely constrain the U.S. military from combatting terror forces.

“This has been an absurdity from the beginning,” Keane said in response to questions from Royce. “The president personally made a statement that has driven air power from the inception.”

“When we agreed we were going to do airpower and the military said, this is how it would work, he [Obama] said, ‘No, I do not want any civilian casualties,’” Keane explained. “And the response was, ‘But there’s always some civilian casualties. We have the best capability in the world to protect from civilians casualties.’”

However, Obama’s response was, “No, you don’t understand. I want no civilian casualties. Zero,’” Keane continued. “So that has driven our so-called rules of engagement to a degree we have never had in any previous air campaign from desert storm to the present.”

This is likely the reason that U.S. pilots are being told to back down when Islamic State targets are in site, Keane said, citing statistics published earlier this year by U.S. Central Command showing that pilots return from sorties in Iraq with about 75 percent of their ordnance unexpended.

“Believe me,” Keane added, “the French are in there not using the restrictions we have imposed on our pilots.”

And the same goes for Russians, he said, adding, “They don’t care at all about civilians.”

“The French airstrikes have been billed as a significant uptick in the battle against the Islamic State; preliminary data indicate that this is not the case,” said Jonathan Schanzer, a former terrorism expert at the U.S. Treasury Department. “It appears that the U.S. is simply allowing France to strike many of the targets that would usually be reserved for the U.S. and some of its coalition allies. In other words, this appears to be a redistribution of daily targets in the ongoing campaign, and not a significant change.”

These strikes have forced the Islamic State to evacuate at least 20 to 25 percent of the territories it held one year ago in both Iraq and Syria, according to the Pentagon.

Attacks have focused on the Islamic State’s “staging areas, fighting position, and key leaders,” as well as its “oil distribution chain,” according to the Pentagon.

http://freebeacon.com/national-secur...-isis-strikes/

[Dusty]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BiwFWD4yxs

[the squid]

This is an interesting discussion - and one I'm first to admit that I'm not the expert on.

In a strictly kinetic war with a strictly kinetic endstate, it would seem that the need to avoid civilian casualties would be more negligible. In this current fight it would seem to be the opposite - more civilian casualties may essentially serve as an IO victory for the enemy and drive up their recruiting numbers.

So the question becomes, what is the balance, if there is a balance? And is the Administration's policy of "no civilian casualties" for its own sake or is it with a strategic endstate in mind? It would seem to be the former - if indeed this policy runs counter to the advice of the JCS.

[the squid]

And if this is the case - it would seem that our airstrikes at this time are little more than a demonstration - especially if they're done with our military leadership fully aware that they have little chance of contributing to the actual destruction of ISIS.

If we're not willing to accept some collateral damage/risk with respect to these operations, then it would follow that the only way to really achieve our endstate with respect to the destruction of ISIS would be to put some maneuver forces on the ground with the ability to actually clear these high density areas. But at this point in the ball game that is politically unacceptable.

Which brings me back to my entire perspective on this current air campaign - it seems to be a half measure put in place to demonstrate action and resolve, with little regard to its actual effectiveness in the long term.

[Dusty]

Squid; with "boots on the ground", air-all the stops pulled out-we can stop these guys. You gotta have a guy in the catbird seat who wants to do that, though.
IMO, we'll have such a CinC next couple go-rounds.

[the squid]

Originally Posted by Dusty

Squid; with "boots on the ground", air-all the stops pulled out-we can stop these guys. You gotta have a guy in the catbird seat who wants to do that, though.
IMO, we'll have such a CinC next couple go-rounds.

So then here's the catch with all of that.

If our current strategy and force structure in the region stands little chance of succeeding - and our senior Officers know this then either

a) They are advising this Administration that he is not accepting the requisite level of tactical risk nor committing the requisite number of troops needed to acheive his strategic endstate - and he is ignoring them.

or

b) They are telling him what he wants to hear.

At it's most basic level, the discussion should center completely around what our Generals need to accomplish the desired end state. If it is not worth the risk to life, be it civilian or military, then don't do it. Sounds simple enough. Unfortunately it becomes a game of "Let me find a guy willing to tell me we can build a bridge over the Mississippi with a box of toothpicks" instead of accepting reality and adjusting your COA or abandoning the mission altogether.

[tonyz]

President Obama has not put forth a viable long-term strategy for defeating ISIS - of which an aggressive air campaign might be but one component. The situation was always complicated (some might say reasonably predictable) but it is now more so.

Stopping movement along the borders so that ISIS fighters could not move in and out would seem reasonable. Hitting ISIS oil so they could not finance their terror might seem reasonable. These ISIS thugs grew from "zero" to global terrorists in a year or so (pun intended).

This guy is a particularly ineffective CINC pure and simple - especially so in wartime.

[the squid]

Originally Posted by tonyz

President Obama has not put forth a viable long-term strategy for defeating ISIS - of which an aggressive air campaign might be but one component. The situation was always complicated (some might say reasonably predictable) but it is now more so.

Stopping movement along the borders so that ISIS fighters could not move in and out would seem reasonable. Hitting ISIS oil so they could not finance their terror might seem reasonable. These ISIS thugs grew from "zero" to global terrorists in a year or so (pun intended).

This guy is a particularly ineffective CINC pure and simple - especially so in wartime.

My personal belief is that he's running a delaying action until the election. He's not going to let this thing go completely to shit - that would look bad. So he's going to do the minimum neccesary to be able to declare that progress is being made - even if it's only superficial, and then hand the ball over to the next guy to make the hard decisions. He refuses to commit ground forces because he doesn't to be remembered as the President who started another war.

Sometimes war comes - timing is not always good. It's a matter of having the moral courage to see it for what it is and do what's neccesary.

[tonyz]

^^^Squid. Agree - this CINC is delaying...which some might say has been entirely consistent with his voting "present" during his short career in the Senate and in essentially leading from behind while in the WH.

The words moral courage and Obama do not belong on the same Internet nevermind on the same page.

Much of the regions humanitarian crisis can rightly be attributed to zero's (and Hillary's) policies in the region. Even when one inherits a difficult situation one can make it better...or make it worse...or in this instance...make it much worse. History will not be kind to this president.

[head]

A major issue is that the national strategy is treating ISIL like an insurgency or a terrorist group, instead of like a nation-state. Viewing the IDT (ISIL dominated territory) as Iraqi territory causes the default decision to lean towards preserving infrastructure and civilians. Imagine if we were striking Iran, you can bet more gloves would be off.

[the squid]

Originally Posted by head

A major issue is that the national strategy is treating ISIL like an insurgency or a terrorist group, instead of like a nation-state. Viewing the IDT (ISIL dominated territory) as Iraqi territory causes the default decision to lean towards preserving infrastructure and civilians. Imagine if we were striking Iran, you can bet more gloves would be off.

I'd be interested to know if our strategy is horizontally nested with the Iraqis strategy. It would seem futile to go about this if we're after two different objectives.

I hear a big game being talked in the media about defeating/destroying ISIS. Is that what the Iraqis want? Or are they merely trying to reoccupy the terrain they've lost?

[tonyz]

Originally Posted by head

A major issue is that the national strategy is treating ISIL like an insurgency or a terrorist group, instead of like a nation-state. Viewing the IDT (ISIL dominated territory) as Iraqi territory causes the default decision to lean towards preserving infrastructure and civilians. Imagine if we were striking Iran, you can bet more gloves would be off.

Spot on. When ISIS took over vast areas of territory, oil production, transport and sale of petroleum capability to finance terrorism and declared a Caliphate - they upped the game from mere terrorist to pseudo-state actor. They are now arguably a terrorist state within a failed state.

They exist, grow stronger and recruit so successfully largely because of the captured territory - they are a state - and not just any state but claim to be the only Islamically legitimate state in the world. They are decidedly not the JV and they now have demonstrated global reach.

[Dusty]

Nobody believed Reagan when he said we could take the Soviets down, but we did. There are still enough real Americans left to whack this latest boogie man. Just need somebody holding the Joint Chief reins loose enough to let warfighters maximize their capabilities.

I say throw a couple ODA's in each theater and give them total carte blanche, then wait 6 months and send in the CAAT's and birds.

[head]

Originally Posted by the squid

I'd be interested to know if our strategy is horizontally nested with the Iraqis strategy. It would seem futile to go about this if we're after two different objectives.

I hear a big game being talked in the media about defeating/destroying ISIS. Is that what the Iraqis want? Or are they merely trying to reoccupy the terrain they've lost?

By Iraqi strategy, are you referring to the Iranian strategy or the Kurdish strategy? It's worth mentioning that we won't have a nested strategy with Syria/Russia, either. There are so many objectives on the table, we need to decide which ones are ours.

[head]

Originally Posted by Dusty

Just need somebody holding the Joint Chief reins loose enough to let warfighters maximize their capabilities.

I say that the issues with our warfighting capabilities certainly extend lower than the Joint Chief level - the COINdinistas pushed out most of the hardchargers. Actual warriors were castigated for being "dinosaurs" that don't understand the new way of war.... hearts and minds and teletubbies.

As you go down the chain of command, you'll find some warfighters, but unfortunately, their opinions are not incorporated into any strategy.

Personally, I would declare the Islamic State to be a "no drive zone." Still, a lot of money and fighters have already made it out - so it'll be hunting season for a while.