Replies

Other reports listed far fewer bombers taking part in the raid, but both agreed that they flew from Russia, and delivered a total of 34 cruise missiles.

No big carpet bombing on Tuesday, no squealing on twitter.

34 Cruise missiles is a lot more than they are accustomed to in Raqaa, but not greatly different from the last couple of days, in terms of the number of explosions, or total net explosive weight. Cruise missiles could be quite accurate though, if they had good targeting intel, it could have been a painful blow.

I did see a photo of one of the big bombers landing, in what was supposed to be Latakia, Syria. Perhaps they were re-positioning today, and didn’t carry a big bomb load, so they could fly the long distance.

If they will be based near the Syrian coast, it is a short flight to Raqaa, and iron mountains of bombs could be off-loaded from ships and dropped on Raqaa every day. If bombs are already in Syria, the party could start in earnest as soon as tomorrow, more like a week if they need bombs and Turkey lets a ship through the Bosphorus Straits, or a couple of weeks if the have to come around through Gibraltar.

If they do want to carpet bomb and make the earth shake, these are just the heavy bombers that could do it. Potentially hundreds of tons per day. If it is just a few bombers, they could each easily carry full 20 ton loads that short distance (vs. the 500lbs that make up a typical sortie that ISIS has been seeing).

France’s aircraft carrier, the Charles DeGaulle, is now scheduled to sail from its home port of Toulon on Thursday. It is a few days sail to the Syrian coast, where its 26 jets will also be within easy range of Raqaa. Some of the jets on deck look like ground attack aircraft, which would pack a bit more wallop than the others, but nothing like the big bombers.

Although not big by American standards, it is the biggest naval ship in service in Western Europe, and carries its own iron mountain of bombs to drop. It will take France from 12 jets in the fight, up to 38, with additional support and other capabilities.

So in the next days to weeks, Raqaa could see something that ISIS has not seen before - a mass casualty exercise.

The 34 cruise missiles were from the Russian ship in the Med.

Your thorough tactical analysis is disquieting enough but the implications on a strategic level are very frightening.

Consider the whether the Russian raids, especially as they are directed not against Isis but against United States supported rebels, are in service not so much in the Russian grudge against Isis but in service to its new allies, Iran, Iraq and Syria, constituting a new caliphate possessed with Russian might and nuclear weapons and determined to upset the balance of power in that part of the world which still produces the most oil.

Consider whether the participation by France with the Russians and their evident tactical coordination with the Russians suggests that the always fickle French might be the first in a series of European powers to consider forsaking the NATO alliance (and that really means forsaking America) to throw their lot in with the Russians. The same Russians who are supplying Europe with oil and gas and who are bidding fare to take over or at least interdict Mideast oil and its flow toward Europe. If so, could Germany be far behind?

Are we witnessing the formation of a new world power put together with elements from NATO, Russia and China? If so, the implications are utterly catastrophic.

Consider whether such a new strategic alliance would somehow align itself with Islam. Before rejecting that possibility out of hand we ought to consider the extremely high minority in France who support Islam, some large portion of which is "Christian." Could any of these considerations be behind a massive display of firepower designed not just to destroy Isis, against whom apparently they are only partially directed anyway, but to intimidate neighboring Arab nations and, ultimately, Europe? Is this really a tactical or a strategic matter?

All in all, we had better consider who the enemy in the theater really is. Are we being diverted toward shiny objects in our reaction to Isis when the real enemy is more than a bunch of murderous diaper heads but a real nuclear caliphate bent on global dominance? In our obsession with Isis are we enlarging the Obama created a vacuum which leaves a perfect opening for very dangerous forces?

Thanks for that excellent analysis. You explained events with a highly informed knowledge base, yet made it very accessible to someone like me, who has no clue.

I kind of think ISIS spread because the locals either welcomed them or are indifferent but I do feel sorry for those civilians who could not flee and were left behind in ISIS held land.

It is clear to me the western powers tolerated ISIS because it was used against Assad and also tolerated and aided by the Gulf states because it weakened Shia Iraq and tolerated if not outright aided by Turkey because it weakened the Kurds.

If ISIS fighters attempt to pack up and leave the area, the convoys should be bombed 24/7. A trail of trucks on open ground is a high-value target. This should have done a long time ago, in Syria and in Iraq, but that’s a topic for another discussion.

It is unclear how many casualties have resulted from the current bombing campaigns. Some reports are that very few ISIS personnel have actually been killed. I have doubts that bombing alone can do the job. A large ground force is probably necessary, but that’s out of the question given the current occupant of the White House.