I remember that Trump promised to bomb the shit out of ISIS. Is this the commencement of a more reckless policy of ‘never mind the civilian deaths, look how many terrorists we’re killing’? The US military denies that there has been any shift in the strategy while conceding that the deaths in Mosul are ‘probably’ down to Allied planes.
Do you believe that? I can’t say I do. I was all for a more aggressive approach by Trump to ISIS but I didn’t count on him massacring the entire Syrian and Iraqi population in the process!
Your last line is a bit of hyperbole, but it wouldn’t surprise me if a “more aggressive approach” included looser ROE’s and an increase in strikes, with a rather predictable increase in civilian casualties.
How could it have been more aggressive, short of dropping in the the 82nd Airborne, sending in a Marine Expeditionary Force, and just occupying northwestern Iraq and eastern Syria? The only way to kill more people with bombs was to start adding civilians to the target list.
I’m not saying, or even implying, that Big Dick Trump has wanted or commanded the air strikes to target civilians. However, even a slight change in safety limits or acceptable collateral damage can have an outsized effect in urban environments. I didn’t like the last administration’s views on civilian collateral. If this is truly an escalation from that, then GD doesn’t allow me full expression of my views - but it’s bad.
[QUOTE=OP Source, Associated Press]
“People used to feel safe when the American planes were in the sky, because they knew they didn’t hit civilians,” said Hussam Essa, a founder of Raqqa is Being Slaughtered Silently, which monitors violence in Raqqa province. “They were only afraid of the Russian and regime planes. But now they are very afraid of the American airstrikes.”
[/QUOTE]
We’re now considered worse than the guys that knowingly bombed hospitals.
The last couple of paragraphs of that story were interesting to me:
If ISIS members are shooting at soldiers from the roof, that’s a clue to GTFO, because there’s an excellent chance the building is going to get blown to hell.
For comparison, almost as many civilians were killed IN MARCH as people killed by ISIS planned or inspired attacks since declaring it’s caliphate. If we’re so under attack by evil terrorists, it’s not hyperbole in the slightest.
Yes, they should have just asked ISIS for their leave, and taken the next bus across town to the water park for a couple days until the pesky thing blew over.
The hyperbole was “… massacring the entire Syrian and Iraqi population in the process!”
I don’t doubt that the war is hell, and it leaves civilians trapped in the middle of it in between a rock and a hard place, with no good options. It’s just not accurate to suggest that Trump is “massacring the entire Syrian and Iraqi population”. He’s not. Agreed?
:smack: Well, if hyperbole is OK then let me say it’s naive to believe Trump is a fairy-tale superhero who can kill bad guys with his big manly hands while using secret Batman/Spiderman powers to keep civilians out of harm’s way.
Making the same point without imitating OP’s hyperbole:
Short of the investigation it’s hard to tell if this is the effect of changes in ROE to accept more risk or the result of changes in the fight. Compared to most of the air campaign, providing air support to Iraqi forces clearing Mosul, is inherently riskier. We’re bombing in a major urban area. We’re doing it because there our allies are in direct ground combat there. Previously we could make very deliberate decisions focusing on targets that minimized civilian risk outside urban areas. Now there are troops in contact in the chaotic ratfuck that is urban fighting. They are calling for air support. That pushes the application of fires into areas with more civilians and minimizes the amount of time to make clearance of fires decisions.
This could be the kind of thing that would have happened if a third term Obama continued policies with respect to the support of Iraqi Security Forces. It might not be. I haven’t seen anything that really even attempts to separate the two in the media.
Till we know more that may or may not signal a change. If you notice their mission is “advise and assist” and the numbers are unspecified. Over time the “train, advise, and assist” mission under the Obama administration focused less on train inside major bases and more on the advise and assist mission. As a preparation for the Mosul clearing operation, US advisor strength was increased and they started advising down to battalion level. There was some public comment from DOD weighing whether those advisors would actually accompany ISFs into Mosul’s main urban area. I never saw a clear decision stated but there certainly seem to be hints in some of the coverage that American ground troops are inside Mosul already.
Again, till we know numbers it’s hard to tell if this is a big change. It could be merely a small “right sizing” to plugs shortfalls in what we were already doing. I could even see the potential that it is a rotation to replace advisors so they can come home. It could be a shift towards more aggressive use of advisors. It’s hard to tell based on that vague first report.
Of course it was hyperbole. I hardly thought I’d need to explain that. Hyperbole has always been a part of rhetoric. It is understood by the listener as hyperbole who also understands that the speaker is exaggerating for effect, to make a point. The point here was that if this is Trump’s strategy it is overkill and potentially counter-productive. I could have said that Trump is killing too many civilians; I chose to say that very thing hyperbolically, knowing that it would be so understood. I was clearly mistaken in your case.
I understood it was hyperbole just fine. It was Chisquirrel that disputed it (“it’s not hyperbole in the slightest”). You were mistaken in his (or her?) case, not mine.
This strategy worked very well for the Soviets in 80s Lebanon. The militants kidnapped four Soviet diplomats, three who were quickly returned. Im not sure I oppose this policy.