“May I ask why 10 MOABs aren’t being used? Why shed one American life?”
The MOABs would inflict mass civilian casualties in an urban area.
ISIS has made a point of keeping civilian populations as human shields, specifically to deter such attacks. ISIS-friendly media assets have been beating the meme of civilian casualties from American bombing all along. After one big incident in Mosul (about a hundred civilians) the whole operation slowed down for about a month, until things blew over.
Although we have sent more US troops into Syria to support this operation, the locals are doing all the door-kicking close quarters combat. Infantry typically take 85% of the casualties. Not only are the locals doing the really dangerous work, they are also guarding the Americans there with their lives.
The other reason not to use MOABs (or other saturation bombing) is the difficulty it produces in governing after the victory. The goal is a favorable end state. The folks we are installing to rule there are not going to have a lot of resources for rebuilding.
Even given that consideration though, it does seem that we are going in kind of heavy on the high explosives - you need it to deal with the concrete and masonry buildings that ISIS is fighting from.
“The MOABs would inflict mass civilian casualties in an urban area.”
Define “civilian”.
L
“is the difficulty it produces in governing after the victory.”
Dead people aren’t hard to rule.
“The folks we are installing to rule there are not going to have a lot of resources for rebuilding.”
Not our problem. Just tell them if they let the savages take over again we kill every last living thing there right down to their pet goats.
More rubble equals less trouble.
L
I hear you. Tongue and cheekly I respond, again, yes why aren’t the MOABs being used. We need to be extra double secret vigilant that no Americans are killed in support positions. An irrational request.