The US and their fuel truck targets
Bobo sends us a link to an article about those strikes this last weekend that we talked about yesterday where the US airstrikes, mainly A-10 Warthogs and AC-130 gunships, targeted ISIS fuel trucks. According to this article, this is a brand new strategy;
Targeting fuel trucks used to be off limits because of the civilians operating them, but shortly after the Paris terrorist attacks the rules of engagement changed. Before destroying the tankers the USAF, using F-15s, dropped information leaflets telling the drivers to scatter as an attack was imminent. To show the drivers that USAF was serious they had A-10’s conduct strafing runs close to the trucks an hour before the strikes.
Yeah, well, that’s very civilized of us. Unfortunately, being civilized and announcing our targets to the bad guys and firing warning shots isn’t going to turn out well for our pilots. I can’t imagine that ISIS will be announcing to the public where their suicide bombers will strike anytime soon. Taking out fuel trucks aren’t that important, compared to killing people so they can’t support ISIS. Those truck drivers are as much our enemies as the fellows with MANPADS anti-aircraft weapons who will be firing at those A-10s and C-130s the next time they make one of their “warning shots” runs. If those air strikes are going to be successful, they have to make working for ISIS unattractive to those truck drivers. Not just the ones on the job, but also any who might be contemplating the work.
We’re doing this war against terrorists while trying to be good guys about war. There is no such thing as “good guys” in war, well, good guys finish last in war. The strategy against ISIS is failing and this Nobel peace prize president is just trying to pass off the hard decisions to the next guy. In the meantime, ISIS is growing stronger and more devious. Those fuel trucks should have been destroyed in the opening days of the war against ISIS if they were ever legitimate targets and the fact that the media thinks it was some sort of coup just proves that they’re in the bag for this administration, if there was ever any doubt.
Lars Taylor sends us a link from Reuters which reports that the Russians and French hit targets near Raqqa;
A French government source said Russia, which until this week has mostly been striking Western-backed groups fighting against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, had also hit IS targets in Raqqa on Tuesday.
The action, which was not immediately confirmed by Moscow, came hours after the Russian Federal Security Service confirmed that a bomb had exploded a Russian tourist airliner over Egypt’s Sinai peninsula last month and President Vladimir Putin vowed retribution. Islamic State claimed responsibility for the Sinai bombing as well as the Paris attacks.
Again, why weren’t these targets hit before the attacks on Paris and on a Russian airliner? Why has this war become a “thrust and parry” series of events? Whatever happened to “audacity”? But, at least the fuel truck drivers are all safe.
Category: Terror War
House Intel Chairman: ‘First Rule Of War’ For Obama Is No Collateral Damage, And ‘That’s Not War’
http://www.weaselzippers.us/239994-house-intel-chairman-first-rule-of-war-for-obama-is-no-collateral-damage-and-thats-not-war/
F35 supporters anybody anybody?
I just love that Gilf aka A10.
Jonn mentions MANPADS above. I would think the A-10 has less of a heat signature due to its high bypass turbofans than an F35 but that’s just my WAG. Maybe the F35 has high tech exhaust ducting or something, but I don’t think so.
What does LOAC teach? Collateral damage is to be minimized. MINIMIZED…it is impossible to eliminate it, unless we are engaged in a vacuum.
If the purpose of bombing fuel trucks was to decrease the ability for ISIS to transport fuel then why were the drivers spared? They can buy more trucks but if the drivers keep getting turned into crispy critters they’re going to have a tough time recruiting more of them.
And I don’t recall the insurgents in Iraq (many of whom are now swearing allegiance to ISIS) being too solicitous about the health of our “civilian” drivers during the war in Iraq, either.
This half-assed bullshit reminds me of the way the war in Vietnam started. First it was “no targets above the 17th parallel” then it was “no targets too close to Hanoi” and “no targets that will make the Vietnamese people suffer too much.”
Seems to me that when you’re at war you’re either in it to win, or you’re a chump.
Oh, now I understand the whole thing.
This entire endeavor has been training in how NOT to fight or win a war.
Well, I don’t know what else anyone could have expected, because this dork in the White House doesn’t know his butt from a hole in the ground about anything more important than what shirt and tie to wear today.
Yes, this mess will be handed off to whoever gets elected, and that is who will get blamed for it. If it’s shrillary, I couldn’t wish for a better candidate for the blame.
I agree with you Ex. We should have perfected it by now though. Hell, we’ve been “practicing” it since the end of WW2.
We want that uniformed enemy in the field but we can’t have it. Maybe, just maybe, this is beginning to dawn on the pentagonals. I continue to look for Vlad and his boys to show the way.
A blast from the past, 12 Nov. 2002
Latest reports coming out of Brussels are the EU leaders are no longer baffled.
Doh.
Well … better late than never, I suppose.
Oblig…..
someday…. a candidate will say ‘I’m tired of the US trying to fight with both hands tied behind
our backs. When elected I will restart napalm and land mine production, and restart neutron bomb research. War is a terrible thing, but it is unfair to ask our children to try and fight when we will not let them win. And our enemies need to learn that attacking the US will not bring a sternly worded diplomatic note, but a storm of devastation , not just on their soldiers, but on any who support their actions. Failure to confront and stop evil is not pacifism, but active collaboration – and will not be tolerated, neither among our populace nor theirs.” Sigh… it’s such a nice dream….
From your lips to the ears of God.
Like Christian Bale in “Exodus” and his talks with God.
Even God didn’t care about collateral damage in the movie.
Moses tried to stop God from all the collateral damage but God wasn’t playing along and killed all kinds of citizens with his attacks against the Pharaoh.
Good movie too.
The reason nobody was bombing the targets they are now is because nobody wanted to get dragged into this thing, not even the Russians. But ISIS has given both West and East a bloody nose and it will reap the whirlwind.
Jonn makes a good point about the truck drivers. I say, if they work for ISIS then they’re legitimate targets. The leaflets were likely a one and done, now that ISIS knows their fuel trucks are targets they will work to protect them and we’ll have to hit them with the element of surprise which means no more warnings.
I’m glad we’re hitting the fuel trucks now, even if it doesn’t provide the ISIS body count that I want. Loss of fuel means loss of mobility, hopefully we can keep enough of those fuckers clustered up in places that are ripe for saturation bombing.
Warning shots??? Leaflets!!! Da fuck are we doing there then! Kill them all and let Allah sort them out!
The Pentagon Generals and senior civilians will reveal that the “strategy” is bullshit and they were against it….in their books AFTER they retire and are drawing their $$$. Until then, they will say zip.
How can they look in the mirror?
Can you say “Phony War”
“dropped information leaflets telling the drivers to scatter as an attack was imminent.”
Jeezus… don’t want to upset the Muzzies…
Less fuel truck drivers, less fuel deliveries.
Just sayin……
Maybe ISIS can start a clean energy program, electric cars, solar panels and skittles.
“Before destroying the tankers the USAF, using F-15s, dropped information leaflets telling the drivers to scatter as an attack was imminent. To show the drivers that USAF was serious they had A-10’s conduct strafing runs close to the trucks an hour before the strikes.”
WTF? We give them notice so that they can set up their A/A weapons and shoot us down when we come in for the strike? How damned absurd when a bunch of non-military minded types try to conduct warfighting.
We should have sent them an Outlook invite with a powerpoint deck attached.
I’m wondering if the term “fuel” trucks isn’t an incorrect characterization. These tanker trucks may very well be oil collection trucks that go into the oil fields and pick up crude oil from well-head collection tanks and haul it to refineries or more centralized collection points for further transport.
Destroying the means of collection is an effective way of denying ISIS the monetary proceeds from the oil fields they physically control without destroying the infrastructure of the oil fields and refineries themselves. Strategic planners have to be aware that post-conflict rebuilding of that infrastructure would be much more costly and time consuming than simply bringing in new fleets of tanker trucks.
Call it a “denial of service” attack.
I think you are right. It is now being reported they were carrying unrefined oil east to market, presumably in Mosul.
This is the ‘innocent contractors on the Death Star’ argument from the movie Clerks.
One of you Zoomie types out there help me out here – the reason that the GAU-8 apparently isn’t able to penetrate that tough tanker armor? Why exactly were F-15s needed?
Not USAF, but I’ll answer that anyway.
“The F-15 was needed because it’s capable of supersonic flight, and the A-10 isn’t. And it looks fast, too!”
In case anyone missed it: yes, I’m being sarcastic. The A-10 or a C-130 could have done that equally well.
So you’re telling me that Mr. Peace Prize is now intentionally targeting civilians of color?
LOL
My sides. Stop it, you guys.