| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Champ regime Not Targeting ISIS Training Camps |
| 2015-08-30 |
| [PJ Media] Training camps turning out thousands of Islamic State fighters a month are not being targeted by the Pentagon because of the potential collateral damage. Bill Gertz of the Washington Free Beacon reports that defense and intelligence officials question the Obama administration's commitment to destroying ISIS. "If we know the location of these camps, and the president wants to destroy ISIS, why are the camps still functioning?" one official critical of the policy asked. The camps are regarded by U.S. intelligence analysts as a key element in the terror group's successes in holding and taking new territory. The main benefit of the training camps is that they are providing a continuous supply of new fighters. An additional worry of intelligence analysts is that some of the foreign fighters being trained in the camps will eventually return to their home countries in Europe and North America to carry out terror attacks. A White House spokesman declined to comment on the failure to bomb the terror camps and referred questions to the Pentagon. The White House does not see it as a "failure" but rather a goal. Pentagon spokesman Maj. Roger M. Cabiness declined to say why no training camps have been bombed. "I am not going to be able to go into detail about our targeting process," he said. Rightfully so Maj. Cabiness, as the "process" does not belong to the military does it ? Cabiness said the U.S.-led coalition has "hit ISIL [an alternative abbreviation for the Islamic State] with more than 6,000 airstrikes." "The coalition has also taken out thousands of fighting positions, tanks, vehicles, bomb factories, and training camps," he said. "We have also stuck their leadership, including most recently on Aug. 18 when a U.S. military airstrike removed Fadhil Ahmad al-Hayali, also known as Hajji Mutazz, the second in command of the terrorist group, from the battlefield." Efforts also are being taken to disrupt IS finances and "make it more difficult for the group to attract new foreign fighters," Cabiness said in an email. A Central Command spokesman also declined to provide details of what he said were "operational engagements" against IS training camps. "Once a target is identified as performing a hostile act, or is part of an obvious hostile force, a training camp for example, we prosecute that target in accordance with the coalition rules of engagement and the law of armed conflict," the spokesman said. According to the defense and intelligence officials, one reason the training camps have been off limits is that political leaders in the White House and Pentagon fear hitting them will cause collateral damage. Some of the camps are located near civilian facilities and there are concerns that casualties will inspire more jihadists to join the group. The 'collateral damage' argument is a non sequitur. They're killing one another by the tens of thousands. The regime has undertaken an 'eaches' key leader, neutralization and harassment campaign, not a military campaign directed toward ultimate victory. However, military officials have argued that unless the training camps are knocked out, IS will continue to gain ground and recruit and train more fighters for its operations. "Military officials argue"..... argue with whom? Certainly not the leadership. They know they don't have a vote in this process. What's the difference in the number of fighters that will join ISIS if we bomb the camps or don't bomb the camps? On the one hand, we might anger a few jihadists because we kill a few civilians. On the other hand, ISIS military campaigns meeting with success because we don't bomb the camps attract large numbers of fighters as well. I would bet the difference is negligible, which leaves the desire to avoid civilian casualties as the number one reason we're not bombing the camps. In nearby Yemen, Saudi Arabia is killing civilians by the bushelful, as is the Syrian government and Iran through their proxy Hezb'allah. Modern war guarantees dead civilians. The question isn't whether civilians die, it's whether you deliberately target them that creates the moral dilemma. I guess it depends whether you see the war against Islamic State as a battle to save western civilization or not. If you approach the conflict as trying to rid the world of a nuisance, you might hesitate to risk civilian casualties. But if you think your future is at stake, it's a no brainer. |
| Posted by:Besoeker |
| #17 Obama looks at those Madrassah and thinks, "That could be me down there." |
| Posted by: Glereger Uneter7304 2015-08-30 22:37 |
| #16 And you don't have the same MSM today. In those days, the MSM supported the war and wanted the Allies to win. Yes, I know that they didn't call the news the MSM in those days. |
| Posted by: Rambler in Virginia 2015-08-30 21:22 |
| #15 The Danes did not blame the US it. They blamed the Nazis. The Danes aren't Arab. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2015-08-30 19:06 |
| #14 The notion that collateral damage helps recruitment has no validity at all. In WW2 there was plenty of collateral damage in Germany and Japan, and that only made potential sufferers from same wishing that the targets would go away. It is hard to envision the motivation of an individual who would go to a training camp merely because it may be bombed. I recall a bold attempt to bomb Gestapo headquarters in Copenhagen during WW2. It failed and a school full of Danish children was hit instead. The Danes did not blame the US it. They blamed the Nazis. |
| Posted by: Grins Snese4215 2015-08-30 17:01 |
| #13 Many Muslims believe in Allah and that the Koran is divine. They're not particularly sane people. |
| Posted by: Rob Crawford 2015-08-30 16:51 |
| #12 Many Muslims, in UK and outside UK, believe that Earth is flat---not even Obama would be that... Never mind. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2015-08-30 15:52 |
| #11 Many muslims in the uk believe that isis was set up by the west to counter Al Qaeda and the Taliban. |
| Posted by: paul 2015-08-30 15:50 |
| #10 WTF? ISIS isn't a threat to us. We'd be better off with them out of the picture, but saving ourselves? That's not even in the picture. Who writes this stuff? Who believes it? It is a threat, but only because of (1) the refugees they create and (2) our PC insistence on admitting said refugees due to ISIS persecution and genocide. No ISIS, no humanitarian need to admit Muslim refugees. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2015-08-30 15:29 |
| #9 Failure theater! Perhaps this time for an Iranian audience. Some members of the administration might be unwilling to let US military might consolidate the Greater Persian Empire. |
| Posted by: Elmerert Hupens2660 2015-08-30 14:25 |
| #8 Collateral damage? What about the damage that results from allowing these fighters to be trained. Stupid motherf***er. |
| Posted by: gorb 2015-08-30 12:37 |
| #7 "Community Organizers" do not solve problems, they exploit them. |
| Posted by: Blossom Unains5562 2015-08-30 11:57 |
| #6 Perhpas some targets are clandestine and in Turkey. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2015-08-30 11:35 |
| #5 There's gotta be a GBU-43/B sitting around, gathering dust, somewhere. |
| Posted by: Mullah Richard 2015-08-30 11:04 |
| #4 one word: Napalm |
| Posted by: 3dc 2015-08-30 10:36 |
| #3 Not being targeted because of the possibility of "collateral damage." I say target rich environment. Who the hell do they think are in these training camps Mormons or Jehovah Witnesses? |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2015-08-30 09:39 |
| #2 "save Western civilization"? WTF? ISIS isn't a threat to us. We'd be better off with them out of the picture, but saving ourselves? That's not even in the picture. Who writes this stuff? Who believes it? |
| Posted by: Thraling Hupoluns2819 2015-08-30 08:47 |
| #1 fundamentally unserious |
| Posted by: Frank G 2015-08-30 08:01 |