U.S. Pilots Confirm: Obama Admin Blocks 75 Percent of Islamic State Strikes

[wehateporn]

Same trick that was used back in Nam to prolong the profitable war as long as possible

?We can?t get clearance even when we have a clear target in front of us?

U.S. military pilots who have returned from the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq are confirming that they were blocked from dropping 75 percent of their ordnance on terror targets because they could not get clearance to launch a strike, according to a leading member of Congress.

Strikes against the Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL) targets are often blocked due to an Obama administration policy to prevent civilian deaths and collateral damage, according to Rep. Ed Royce (R., Calif.), chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

The policy is being blamed for allowing Islamic State militants to gain strength across Iraq and continue waging terrorist strikes throughout the region and beyond, according to Royce and former military leaders who spoke Wednesday about flaws in the U.S. campaign to combat the Islamic State.

?You went 12 full months while ISIS was on the march without the U.S. using that air power and now as the pilots come back to talk to us they say three-quarters of our ordnance we can?t drop, we can?t get clearance even when we have a clear target in front of us,? Royce said. ?I don?t understand this strategy at all because this is what has allowed ISIS the advantage and ability to recruit.?

US Pilots Confirm: Obama Admin Blocks 75% of ISIS Strikes

[celandina]

Ike is turning in his grave.....Nazis would have never been defeated if this "illogic" was used...

Ooopps, come back thousand bomber raid on Berlin/ Dresden/ Essen/ ( take your pick) there may be civilians....

[bronco67]

Originally Posted by wehateporn

Same trick that was used back in Nam to prolong the profitable war as long as possible

?We can?t get clearance even when we have a clear target in front of us?

U.S. military pilots who have returned from the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq are confirming that they were blocked from dropping 75 percent of their ordnance on terror targets because they could not get clearance to launch a strike, according to a leading member of Congress.

Strikes against the Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL) targets are often blocked due to an Obama administration policy to prevent civilian deaths and collateral damage, according to Rep. Ed Royce (R., Calif.), chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

The policy is being blamed for allowing Islamic State militants to gain strength across Iraq and continue waging terrorist strikes throughout the region and beyond, according to Royce and former military leaders who spoke Wednesday about flaws in the U.S. campaign to combat the Islamic State.

?You went 12 full months while ISIS was on the march without the U.S. using that air power and now as the pilots come back to talk to us they say three-quarters of our ordnance we can?t drop, we can?t get clearance even when we have a clear target in front of us,? Royce said. ?I don?t understand this strategy at all because this is what has allowed ISIS the advantage and ability to recruit.?

US Pilots Confirm: Obama Admin Blocks 75% of ISIS Strikes

let me guess....the "Washington Free Beacon" is a conservative rag that makes shit up and has no fact checking --- just like all of the other conservative rags.

[JIBCONTENT]

yea I'm sure the lopsided innocent civilian/terrorist kill ratio has nothing to do with it.

dude why keep this up when you are so universally despised?

[Sarn]

#save_syrian_excavators

[Rochard]

This is simple....

If we carpet bomb the living shit out of them, a lot of innocent people are going to get hurt. We used to do this during WWII; We would aim at a factory and destroy an entire city. We would justify it by saying "we needed to destroy the factory" and any of the local population who got killed was justified by saying "The local population supported the factory".

I've said this over and over again.... We've made war "too nice". We rolled through Iraq and the end result is people were pissed off. Instead, we need to make war such hell that instead of being pissed off they say "We will never allow this to happen again". This is what we did with Germany and Japan. In Poland my Grandmother lost her ENTIRE family - mother, father, sister, aunts, uncles.... There was no one left. With Japan the entire population was starving. They were done with war and never wanted to go through that again. This is what we need to do with the Middle East. We need to roll through there and make their lives such a living hell that they will never ever even allow discussion of allowing war to come to them again.

[Joshua G]

well, this is how democrats do war. straight out of the LBJ/carter/clinton playbook. god forbid we should win.

[SilentKnight]

Originally Posted by Rochard

This is simple....

If we carpet bomb the living shit out of them, a lot of innocent people are going to get hurt. We used to do this during WWII; We would aim at a factory and destroy an entire city. We would justify it by saying "we needed to destroy the factory" and any of the local population who got killed was justified by saying "The local population supported the factory".

I've said this over and over again.... We've made war "too nice". We rolled through Iraq and the end result is people were pissed off. Instead, we need to make war such hell that instead of being pissed off they say "We will never allow this to happen again". This is what we did with Germany and Japan. In Poland my Grandmother lost her ENTIRE family - mother, father, sister, aunts, uncles.... There was no one left. With Japan the entire population was starving. They were done with war and never wanted to go through that again. This is what we need to do with the Middle East. We need to roll through there and make their lives such a living hell that they will never ever even allow discussion of allowing war to come to them again.

I fully agree.

As silly as it may sound - there was an old Star Trek episode where two planets were at war with each other...and they simply calculated the casualties on computers and had their citizens walk into a disintegration machine. The 'war' (without bombs) raged on forever because they'd forgotten how hellish war really is. Until Kirk put a stop to it by destroying the computers and disintegration machines.

"There...now you can see what war is really like...and hopefully put an end to it."

[PornDiscounts-V]

IS women are jihadists and so are their children. There is no such thing as collateral damage there.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by SilentKnight

I fully agree.

As silly as it may sound - there was an old Star Trek episode where two planets were at war with each other...and they simply calculated the casualties on computers and had their citizens walk into a disintegration machine. The 'war' (without bombs) raged on forever because they'd forgotten how hellish war really is. Until Kirk put a stop to it by destroying the computers and disintegration machines.

"There...now you can see what war is really like...and hopefully put an end to it."

I remember that episode really.

[bronco67]

Originally Posted by SilentKnight

I fully agree.

As silly as it may sound - there was an old Star Trek episode where two planets were at war with each other...and they simply calculated the casualties on computers and had their citizens walk into a disintegration machine. The 'war' (without bombs) raged on forever because they'd forgotten how hellish war really is. Until Kirk put a stop to it by destroying the computers and disintegration machines.

"There...now you can see what war is really like...and hopefully put an end to it."

That show really was a head of its time.

[Sarn]

Originally Posted by vvvvv

IS women are jihadists and so are their children. There is no such thing as collateral damage there.

women and children are only a tool in the hands of the military
The more women and children you bomb, the more people want to kill you