Print
Cite
Smoke and flames rise over Syrian town of Kobani after an airstrike, as seen from the Mursitpinar crossing on the Turkish-Syrian border in the southeastern town of Suruc in Sanliurfa province on October 20, 2014. (Pfaffenbach/Reuters)
Share
The primary focus—meaning the commitment of personnel, resources, and senior leaders’ attention—of U.S. counterterrorism policies is the capture or killing (though, overwhelmingly killing) of existing terrorists. Far less money and programmatic attention is dedicated to preventing the emergence of new terrorists. As an anecdotal example of this, I often ask U.S. government officials and mid-level staffers, “what are you doing to prevent a neutral person from becoming a terrorist?” They always claim this this is not their responsibility, and point toward other agencies, usually the Department of State (DOS) or Department of Homeland Security (DHS), where this is purportedly their obligation internationally or domestically, respectively. DOS and DHS officials then refer generally to “countering violent extremism” policies, while acknowledging that U.S. government efforts on this front have been wholly ineffective.
The primary method for killing suspected terrorists is with stand-off precision airstrikes. With regard to the self-declared Islamic State, U.S. officials have repeatedly stated that the pathway to “destroying” the terrorist organization is by killing every one of its current members. Last February, Marie Harf, DOS spokesperson, said, “We are killing them and will continue killing ISIS terrorists that pose a threat to us.” Then in June, Lt. Gen. John Hesterman, Combined Forces Air Component commander, stated, “We kill them wherever we find them,” and just this week, Col. Steve Warren, Operation Inherent Resolve spokesman, claimed, “If you’re part of ISIL, we will kill you. That’s our rule.”
The problem with this “kill-em’-all with airstrikes” rule, is that it is not working. Pentagon officials claim that at least 25,000 Islamic State fighters have been killed (an anonymous official said 23,000 in November, while on Wednesday, Warren added “about 2,500” more were killed in December.) Remarkably, they also claim that alongside the 25,000 fighters killed, only 6 civilians have “likely” been killed in the seventeen-month air campaign. At the same time, officials admit that the size of the group has remained wholly unchanged. In 2014, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) estimated the size of the Islamic State to be between 20,000 and 31,000 fighters, while on Wednesday, Warren again repeated the 30,000 estimate. To summarize the anti-Islamic State bombing calculus: 30,000 – 25,000 = 30,000.
Given there is no publicly articulated interest by Obama administration officials in revisiting this approach, let’s review U.S. counterterrorism bombing for 2015. Last year, the United States dropped an estimated total of 23,144 bombs in six countries. Of these, 22,110 were dropped in Iraq and Syria. This estimate is based on the fact that the United States has conducted 77 percent of all airstrikes in Iraq and Syria, while there were 28,714 U.S.-led coalition munitions dropped in 2015. This overall estimate is probably slightly low, because it also assumes one bomb dropped in each drone strike in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, which is not always the case.
Sources: Estimate based upon Combined Forces Air Component Commander 2010-2015 Airpower Statistics; Information requested from CJTF-Operation Inherent Resolve Public Affairs Office, January 7, 2016; New America Foundation (NAF); Long War Journal (LWJ); The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ).
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
This is b/c we are fighting an IDEOLOGY. We are not fighting a traditional military. We aren’t fighting a secular atheistic communist soviet military, who’s strength is measure in terms of manpower or weapons. The weapons of ISIS is the ideology. Until our administration realizes that we are fighting an ideology, until they realize that the dynamics in the Middle East revolve around the underlying sectarian conflict that drives the ideology of ISIS, we will make no progress. We need to win this fight from the inside out, within the Sunni community. We need to create an alliance with the local grass root tribal Sunnis, who keep falling to the ISIS radicalization, but the only way we will ever create a trusted alliance with them is to prove to them that we are willing to help them against the growing threat of the Iranian regime in the Middle East. They view the hand of Iran in Yemen, in Lebanon, in Syria, in Iraq, in Palestine now. They lost trust in the U.S. when we allowed Russia to come into Syria and replace the U.S. as the catalyst that fights against repressive regimes. We’ve allowed Putin to come in and marginalize and create dissension among our Sunni allies, who we desperately need by the way to even begin thinking about winning this war against ISIS. There is so much disconnect with the candidates running for office in the Middle East. They need to understand that the ISIS ideology is driven by sectarianism. ISIS does a good job of exploiting the way the Sunnis were treated under the “corrupt” shia government. Under the Maliki regime in Iraq, they are reminded about the misrepresentation and abuse they suffered. They are reminded about the torture they suffered under the Alawite regime in Syria with Assad. I believe this is why it’s important that we remove Assad from Syria, b/c this will be the driving issue that may restore that trust we need with the Sunni alliance again. You can’t bomb an ideology, and bombing campaigns aren’t as easy as people think. First of all, take a city like Mosul Iraq, a stronghold of ISIS. They have a population of what?? about 1.5 million, of which only about 10,000 are ISIS militants. Are we going to run around the city of Mosul and potentially bomb 1 million people, only to kill 10,000 b/c that’s not a strategy. Any bombing campaign that’s done in the absence of minimizing as many civilian casualties as possible only feeds more into the ISIS ideology. We definitely need to know who to ally with in the Middle East and keep them close. We need to know even more who our enemies are, and keep them closer, but I can promise, the most dangerous enemy is the one who we refuse to see.
If the USA were fighting an ideology, then it would be bombing and confronting the ideological heartland, namely Saudi Arabia. There is no significant ideological difference between Saudi Arabia (Wahabbis), Al Nusra, Al Quaeda and ISIIL.. They are competing for power.
USA’s militarized response to September 11 has cost trillions, killed more than 1 million people and helped rip many societies apart. We have provided leadership by engaging in widespread torture, kidnapping/disappearance, indefinite detention, double-tapping, cyber attack, assassination of one’s own citizens, undeclared war, ethnic profiling, and cluster bombing,
A combination of diplomatic, economic, cultural, civic mobilization, and law enforcement efforts would have brought better results for the USA and the countries involved. Dropping bombs must stop. Completely.
Since Obama took office, he has slaughtered thousands of innocent Arab men, women and children to prop up fossil fuel monopolies and to make blood money profits for defense contractors. Yet he won’t shed a tear for the children killed in his genocidal horror because Arab lives don’t matter.
@Kevin Schmidt
Thousands? Thats not even close the number. Thousands only in 2015, yes…
@Gwayne
I share your view of fighting a well organised idiology. I also agree that these bombings rather recruit new ISIL members than destroying the organisation. Considering the expirience and the emperical data, we only can come to the conclusion that prevention is the main weapon we have to emphasise on. The only thing I dont understand is why you want to fight Iran? How do you see Iran’s role in this conflict? Why do you mentioned Iran but Saudi Arabia not?
@Michael Beer:
I agree 100% with your comment. If only the average American knew and understood your statements…the farce that is the political system and the military industrial complex would have no leg to stand on.
Of course, it always has to do with the global elite profiting from their
natural resources:
http://www.activistpost.com/2016/01/cheney-rothschild-and-fox-news-murdoch-to-drill-for-oil-in-syria-violating-international-law.html?utm_source=Activist+Post+Subscribers&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=a2aae2873b-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_term=0_b0c7fb76bd-a2aae2873b-387823125
That’s 23,144 bombs too many.
Jan 14, 2016 World Rushes to De-Dollarize Oil Trade Before US Economy Crashes and Burns
Slowly, but surely Russia, China and other emerging economies are beginning to reduce their dependency on the US dollar. Russia plans to trade oil using rubles by undermining the current US oil price monopoly.
http://sputniknews.com/us/20160114/1033153676/us-economy-bankrupt-multipolar-world.html#ixzz3xFj2txqT
Well said, Gwayne. However, there are other more operational and political concerns that a Commander-in-Chief of one of the world’s largest (and definitely most expensive) standing armies must consider when making such decisions, such as:
– operational battle-readyness: troops perform best when a large percentage of them have real battle experience and not just years of exercises and maneuvers; their effectiveness and real-world “battle-hardiness” suffers long-term. In other words, continuous engagement, regardless of its limited strategic or practical necessity, also provides benefits.
– munitions expiration dates – Many munitions have a limited shelf-life, so dropping them in Iraq and Syria as opposed to dropping them in the Arizona and Nevada deserts is only marginally more expensive…in pure material concerns
– supply chain and cost-per-unit: DoDs procurement contracts for bombs and precision-guided munitions are very expensive. Prices are negotiated based on quantities over time, so production must continue whether they are used or not. However, as time passes, warehousing, maintenance and administration of all these weapons “skyrockets” (if I may use the pun). These stocks are depleted through bombing practice and export and when that is insufficient, theen we need to “export” them directly to targets ourselves, giving our young pilots valuable experience and an important opportunity to earn another ribbon to wear on their uniform. Otherwise, they might become too complacent when we might need them most.
ISIS is manufactured by western intelligence and SITE intel group makes the fake videos. Wag the dog. Should be obvious by now. This is about removing Assad and expanding the empire.
@Gwayne
No, ISIS is not some omnipresent insurgency. This is a very different war from the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan. ISIS has infrastructure; command posts, supply bases and supply lines, even revenue streams. This is a conflict in which we can meaningfully talk about things like frontlines.
Russia has had massive success on both a strategic and tactical level bombarding ISIS, for two key reasons . One they actually go for the jugular, whereas the United States spent over a year hitting token targets, often bombing around the edges in order to channel ISIS towards Syrian army positions, and leaving both military and economic infrastructure almost entirely intact. Second Russia understands air power and artillery alone won’t get the job done, so they’re closely operating with local ground forces, in addition to collaborating on intelligence gathering. It was clear within the first week of their intervention in Syria that Russia was serious about this war, and even US ‘allies’ like Jordan and Iraq have jumped ship to sign up with the Russian effort.
The United States hasn’t done much to ISIS because it doesn’t want to meaningfully hurt ISIS. Whether we literally created and control them, I can’t say. But at minimum we are certainly tolerating and using them to further our goals of breaking up Syria.
How Many Bombs Did the United States Drop Since 9/11, and to what effect?
Suggested reading:
’14 Years After 9/11 the War onTerror Is Accomplishing Everything bin Laden Hoped It Would –
Al Qaeda goaded us into doing what it had neither the resources nor the ability to do.’
By Tom Engelhardt in The Nation:
http://www.thenation.com/article/14-years-after-911-the-war-on-terror-is-accomplishing-everything-bin-laden-hoped-it-would/
@Gwayne US has no right to “remove” no one from his country, we have see enough of this policy, instead think how to fix your own problems, one think for sure since you mention “ideology” US has none, in the last 10 years the only ideology has been bombing, destroying and killing, no one knows why yet, and you have your “commander in chief” even making those absolutely fake speeches talking about “Democracy” and “Human rights”, you have no idea what those words means, please do a big favor to this planet, do what you do best, movies, songs and burgers, for the rest stay at home.