Pentagon officials downplayed the chances of last night’s airstrikes against Raqqa, the ISIS capital if Syria, having a serious impact on the group’s day-to-day operations, with Lt. Gen. William Mayville Jr. saying ISIS will quickly adapt to the air war and rebound from any losses suffered overnight.
“We have seen evidence that they have already done that,” Mayville confirmed. The strikes were the first on ISIS in Syria, after six weeks of airstrikes against the group in Iraq which have, similarly, yielded very little.
Reports on the strikes in Raqqa suggest a handful of buildings were hit, and around 70 ISIS fighters were among the slain. Civilian casualties are unclear.
Indeed, last night’s strikes seem to just be the administration going through the motions, with no real expectation for a meaningful change on the ground, and the “rebels” this is supposed to be supporting a year away from being trained and ready.
If anything, officials seem to be doing what they can to add to the hawks’ call for boots on the ground, while continuing to deny that they are even considering that, at least not yet.
Pentagon spokesman Rear Admiral John Kirby insisted that despite the estimates that they would quickly recover, last night’s attacks on ISIS were “very successful,” and were “only the beginning” of a long, drawn out conflict.
That seems to be the one thing everyone agrees on, whatever their opinions on the chances for success. The war is not only open-ended, but seems likely to span many, many years. What happens in the next two months before the mid-term election doesn’t seem to be of particular concern, and unpopular escalations can be launched thereafter with less political fear of repercussions.
Typo:
“Pentagon officials downplayed the chances of last night’s airstrikes against Raqqa, the ISIS capital if Syria…”
OF Syria
If air strikes yield very little, and it has been proven in WWII and over the years since then that air strikes do yield very little, then why do them? I think there are just some psychos in our government that get their rocks off by dropping bombs on cities thereby killing mass quantities of people.
It's simpler than psychosis.
Every time a $1.59 million Tomahawk missile is fired, General Dynamics/Raytheon/Boeing makes money manufacturing a replacement unit.
Mark 82 500-pound bombs with Paveway or JDAM guidance kits are a lot cheaper (in the $20-30k per unit range), but a lot more of them get used. You have to figure that a squadron-sized sortie probably wastes at least a million bucks in bomb inventory replacement, not counting any chargeable wear and tear on aircraft or, if Lockheed and friends get really lucky, an airplane crashing or getting shot down — jackpot!
Even though both of my elected Senators and the lone Representative voted "NO" to fund and "train" the rebels in Syria – and have generally been against the military adventures in the ME since 2001 – I sent letters to all 3 simply asking 3 questions:
1. How much is all this "existential crisis" going to cost the American taxpayer?
2. Where is the USG getting the money to pay the bills for this aerial bombing campaign the Pentagon claims/admits won't do much of anything against ISIS/ISIL?
3. Who benefits, if not the American citizens?
I really don't expect anything resembling an answer except the form letter response thanking me for contacting them…but you never know.
These are questions each and every Congresscritter needs to be asked.
But, that's just this old Curmudgeon's opinion…
“handful of buildings were hit”
Large government or industrial structures totally destroyed no doubt, the real reason for this illusion of a war — to so terrorize the people and destroy the infrastructure of both Syria and Iraq that they cannot function as a government nor eliminate the U.S. dollar as the means of exchange for Middle-East oil.
After U.S. defeat in Vietnam, USG learned one thing and one thing only. USG cannot act against communism, socialism, functioning democracy and even democracy chosen by people alone no matter where the process is or developing. From South America to middle east and beyond the matter has become the USG daily agenda by policing the world.
USG in general, is a anti all the above social economic and political systems all over the world with especial interests in Middle East for two reasons. 1- if USG loses either Saudis or Israel, one as its military force (Israel) against nations nationalism in middle east, and the other (Saudis) as USG economic backbone (petrodollar) the USG will lose its world economic domination which is essential to us capitalism economic system existence and thereby USG hegemony.
Saudi Arabia as well as UAE and Israel economic systems are based on capitalism, so, there is a common interests exist with no question asked by either side, which is the reason for USG blinded support for Israel no matter what Israel dose as long it dose it to arab nationals.
USSR moved into Afghanistan to stop the spread of islam into Central Asia/USSR via Afghanistan. USG/Saudis/UAE/EU governments riding the same train, felt the danger if USSR established a communist government with a military base close to Persian gulf, controlling the oil follow from Saudi Arabia and etc. The idea in controlling Persian gulf, thereby world economy (petrodollar) is from second world war originates from Tehran conference.
But fir USG being able to be the world economic firce, USG draw a plan to redraw the middle east map, either to militarize the entire middle east by occupying Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Iran or to islamitize/islamization of northern Parisian gulf by jihadist and other Islamic fascist groups. That's when Ronald Reagan started sending us Marin's into Lebanon, later Bill Clinton using Saudis mercenaris in Balkan war, later George W. Bush actually giving Afghanistan to bin laden (a member of Wahhabis sect, a very high ranking family in business with USG/Bush family, Wall Street, oil market, banking system and etc. connected to Ben Saud family the ruler of Saudi arabia) as his religious sanctuary if he could defeate USSR while USG would support "mohahedin".
From that moment in time, the use of Saudis/UAE/Qatar/Kuwait mercenaries has become part of the USG foreign policies in middle east, the idea in regime change demanded by Saudis/Wahhabis in Lebanon/Syria/Iraq and Iran is nothing new, is been demanded by Saudis/UAE/Qatar and others for years, here, israel is always been on board dictating how the plan should work and achieved, Paul Wolfowitz and AIPAC is the source in demanding for what USG should do and not do. Four years into syrian war the legitimate government of Syria is still there and fighting the Saudis barbarism and other jihadists created, supported by USG and its allies as Turkish Erdogan regime, a social entities of vulture capitalism which could assure the stop of democracy no matter what or where.
Barack Hussein Obama policies in Middle East haven't changed, he simply following the plan for regime change but with no military forcing the idea. By Saudis/UAE/Qatar/Kuwait/USG/EU/Turkish Erdogan givernment being at war not achieving their goal in regime change in Syria, in cooperation they created ISIS forcing a new form of barbarism for their cause. Meanwhile, ISIS receiving logistic and training support in turkey involving cia and others, getting ready for what is another very long war (Vietnam style) knowingly created by Saudis/UAE/Qatar/USG and English to keep the U.S/Israel and Saudis in charge of U.S/EU/English geopolitical and economic interests.