I noticed right after the terrorist attack in Paris, France started bombing the ISIS stronghold of Raqqa, dropping 20 bombs or whatever on intact command and recruitment centers, ammo dumps and the like.
Why weren’t these places already leveled BEFORE the terrorist attacks?
I was thinking the same thing. I’ll be interested to see what the answer is, unless it’s: they were willing to risk killing more civilians after the attack than before.
Because taking the decision to start bombing a new country is a pretty big deal. The UK House of Commons took a vote on the matter just last night, and there was plenty of opposition to the idea (even though it passed).
France was already bombing inside of Syria before that.
You should’ve put “French” in your thread title. 
The answer is that this is not an actual military campaign, its poltical theatre for the participant, so they can claim to be “doing something” and “degrading ISIS”.
If it was an actual air campaign, the roads and bridges leading to Raqqa and other ISIS occupied towns would have been dropped ages ago; the electrical, communication and sanitary infrastructure would have been toast.
No, not really. There’s good reason to not just level the place since most of the inhabitants are not “the enemy” and will need to be able to live there when/if Da-esh is driven out. But whether or not this is political theater is a question for GD, not GQ.
France was already conducting bombings there before the attack. In fact, it was one of ISIS justification for the attacks. So, that’s not the issue.
I think that the OP is rather asking why there were obvious targets that hadn’t been bombed yet (by anybody, not necessarily by France).
It might be as simple as limited means. I understand that it takes a long time to properly recognize a potential target before an air raid is conducted in Iraq. Maybe this target was just somewhere down on the “to be bombed” list, or on the “not enough intelligence yet” list and the raid was advanced by a day, a week or a month just so that France would look like it had done something in retaliation.
It’s not like people whose homes have been destroyed are going to try to seek sort of refuge other places, is it? Isn’t there a word that means a person who is seeking refuge?
As I understand it, one problem with going after ISIS command and control is that they don’t stay in one place very long, and by the time you figure out where they are and organize an attack they have moved somewhere else, which means likely killing innocent civilians, which doesn’t help your cause with the locals. Also, some, if not most of ISIS’s hierarchy is underground. I saw a video of some tunnels recently. Even if you happen to hit the building on top that doesn’t mean you have destroyed the bunker buried 20 feet below the ground. Are they even using ‘bunker busters’ over there right now?
Sepulchrally: “Leaving us so soon, Brother ?”
As others have points out, ISIS doesn’t have an HQ. They use buildings for a short time then move on, including using Mosques as meeting points and placing prisoners in cages on rooftops as human shields to prevent bombing.
http://aranews.net/2015/11/isis-uses-civilians-as-human-shields-to-prevent-advance-of-u-s-backed-forces-in-hasakah/
So far, none of the forces opposing ISIS has felt the civilian deaths would justify carpet bombing Raqqa. However if ISIS pulls off a big attack against Russia I have a feeling it may come to that.
What? You do know that not everyone has become a refugee, and that we expect many of the ones who ARE refugees to move back at some point. But honestly, I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at.
FWIW, France has its hands pretty full right now, as they are still a major and very active player in Francophone Africa.
They are keeping a genocide at bay in Central African Republic, trying to keep Mali from becoming a failed state and terrorist haven, maintaining a strong presence in Chad (who in turn are THE major military force in the region, fighting Al Queda and Boko Haram) and maintaining a major base in Djibouti-- all in addition to various smaller operations in former French colonies.
Syria is just one of many fronts that they are fighting terrorism in. There is a huge region where they have been taking the lead. Remember that Boko Haram has killed more people than ISIS, and it sits at the doorstep of the Sahel, where Al Queda affiliates have been running wild with arms looted from Libya.
I don’t know where this stands under US rules of engagement, international “law,” etc., but I believe once a mosque is determined to be used for military ends (have hardware of some sort) it is free fire.
Hamas during the most recent war with Israel had its headquarters under a hospital in Gaza.
Youve overstated this. The law of proportionality is never waived to allow for “free fire” on protected places or persons.
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1175/MR1175.chap2.pdf
I did not know about your SD, so thanks.
What I did know, as I was typing those words, that they probably had a real meaning, not the sort of vague meaning I actually had matching my vague knowledge, and was too lazy to get a decent periphrase.
Because ISIL is fighting the Syrian Army. The US, wants to see the Syrian Army defeated, so it leaves ISIL alone, in spite of what the government and the media have been claiming the US has only been making a show of bombing ISIL. France followed the US lead.
President Erdogan’s family is making huge amounts of money from involvement in the ISIL-run oil smuggling operation. Huge caravans of tankers trucks have been running from Mosul to Turkey. Why piss off Turkey?
Russia, on the other hand, has been bombing the hell out of ISIL. Therefore, they blew up the Russian plane over Sinai, and Turkey shot down the Russian Bomber
http://journal-neo.org/2015/11/29/natos-terror-convoys-halted-at-syrian-border/
This is simply false. The United States military campaign is ONLY against ISIL. The airstrikes conducted by the U.S. have not targeted Assad’s military forces at all, contrary to the implication of this post.
Since last August, there have been 11,000 combat sorties and 32,000 weapons dropped on ISIL. Cite.
Again, factually untrue. The vast majority of Russian strikes have been against non-ISIL opponents of Assad. Link.
This is a factual forum, and this sort of complete nonsense simply doesn’t belong in a thread seeking factual answers.
I doubt there is a GQ answer. My GD answer is simple that they were shocked out of their complacency. They hadn’t realized that Da’ish was willing to go this far, and thus were willing to attack at a lower level.
The have to provide some sort of consequence to discourage it from happening again. Staying exactly the same wouldn’t do that.