Posted on 11/19/2015 4:25:32 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
U.S. air forces have so far operated under rules of engagement aimed a zero civilian casualty standard that have left three quarters of bombing sorties returning to their bases without dropping a weapon.
The French bombardment of Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) targets in the wake of the Paris terror attacks has U.S. officials fielding questions about why those targets were not already hit in the air campaign against the terror group, which has lasted for more than a year.
One reason, according to Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-Mont.), a retired Navy SEAL commander and Iraq War veteran, is that France operates under less-restrictive rules of engagement.
"Under our rules of engagement, if I were ISIS, what I would do is collocate my headquarters next to a school or a hospital and ensure that there would be collateral damage," Zinke told The Hill.
"They know are rules of engagement as well as we do," he added. "They operate with immunity."
After ISIS launched attacks in Paris that killed 129 and wounded hundreds more, French jets pummeled Raqqa -- ISIS's de facto capital in Syria -- with a barrage of airstrikes on targets that included an ISIS recruitment center, training camp and an arms depot.
A defense official confirmed that the French military accepts a higher risk of civilian casualties in their strikes against ISIS than the U.S.
U.S. air forces have so far operated under rules of engagement aimed a zero civilian casualty standard that have left three quarters of bombing sorties returning to their bases without dropping a weapon.
"There's a target of zero civilian casualties, so if there are civilian casualty concerns, we would continue to monitor a target or a potential target to see if there is a way to mitigate that," an Air Force official told The Hill in June.
Lawmakers and experts critical of the "zero casualty" standard have pointed out that it is stricter than what is required under the Law of Warfare.
"I would be in support of giving the military commanders more latitude in their rules of engagement, rather than be restricted to the point we're trying someone's hands behind their back," said Zinke, a former member of SEAL Team Six.
As of Wednesday, the coalition has carried out more than 8,247 airstrikes in Iraq and Syria. More than three-quarters of those strikes -- 6,443 -- have been conducted by the U.S.
Of the 1,804 airstrikes carried out by non-U.S. forces, France has so far conducted 12 percent of those strikes, or just over 215 airstrikes in Iraq and Syria.
The coalition expects the French will carry out a greater percentage of the coalition airstrikes, especially since the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle is headed to the Persian Gulf.
"We're encouraged by the fact that the Charles de Gaulle is -- is en route to this theater. So, with that -- with that additional influx of aircraft, I do expect that the overall percentage that the -- that the French are contributing will grow, yes," Army Col. Steve Warren said.
The Pentagon had previewed France's increased role in the air war earlier this week, announcing on Monday that the U.S. and French militaries would bolster their intelligence sharing.
Pentagon press secretary Peter Cook said in a statement that it the partnership "enable U.S. military personnel to more easily share operational planning information and intelligence with our French counterparts on a range of shared challenges to the fullest extent allowed by existing law and policy."
Although details were scarce, Pentagon spokesman Navy Capt. Jeff Davis told reporters later that the intelligence sharing would help France "be more involved in the targeting process for coalition airstrikes."
He added that the two nations already share some intelligence, but this step "moves a lot of procedural limitations."
Davis noted the plan to increase intelligence sharing had been in the works "for awhile," but was accelerated after the Paris attacks.
Rules of engagement only make sense if both sides adhere to them. If one side does not, the choices the other has are fight to win, don’t fight, or impose one-sided constraints on yourself, and fight to lose.
We seem to be going with the third choice, the consequences of which are loss of life, limb and morale of our precious warriors for no useful purpose. I’d rather not fight at all.
William Tecumseh Sherman said “War Is Hell”. Now we think we can fight a polite war. Ain’t no such thing.
Hard to fight a war when our C-I-C, and his regime, think the terrorists “have legitimate grievances with the West”.
‘Hard to fight a war when our C-I-C, and his regime, think the terrorists “have legitimate grievances with the Westâ€.’
should read
Hard to fight a war when our C-I-C, and his regime, think the terrorists are American gun owners and those who revere the Consitution.
“......our C-I-C, and his regime, think the terrorists “have legitimate grievances with the Westâ€.”.........
Hell, the American people have legitimate grievances against him and his ilk as well and have had for some time.
It appears to me that if the terrorists purposely hide behind women and children, it is them - no U.S. - who are killing them in warfare.
Most sane societies rush their civilians into shelters during wartime, no locate their bases next to operating schools and civilian population centers.
Conversely, in their unwarranted attacks on the west, it is civilians (soft targets) that they intentionally target! Very few terrorists’ targets have been against armed military or police. Just civilians.
This behavior shows cowardice, hate, and the true intentions of the terrorists.
But, with our own president being a cheerleader for the terrorists, and setting the “rules of engagement”, shows that it is NOT America’s women and children he cares about, it’s protecting a new crop of up-and-coming jihadists. The terrorists are treated more as obamas “countrymen” than Americans...but then, I haven’t seen any solid proof that Obama is actually an American...his actions say, “not”!
If they are targeting our civilians, and then cowing Behring the skirts of their civilians, then all bets should be off. If their bases locate nears population centers, and the civilians don’t have the inclination, or ability, to flee, then...war is hell. The nazis didn’t give fore warnings before bombing Europe, neither did the Japanese give advance notice at Pearl Harbor.
Did we let them know we were coming at Hiroshima, or Nagasaki? No, and it was horrorifc, but it ENDED THE WAR!
Make America Great Again
Patton: We’re not just going to shoot the bastards, we’re going to cut out their living guts and use them to grease the treads on our tanks. We’re going to murder those lousy Hun bastards by the bushel.
....go through them like “#it” through a goose...
30,000 innocent French died during the Normandy landings as collateral damage.
We would lose WW2 if we used today’s ROE.
‘Hard to fight a war when our C-I-C, and his regime, think the terrorists “have legitimate grievances with the West”.’
Even harder when the alleged enemies are actually NATO proxies.
Obama admits that he’s training ISIS
https://youtu.be/toIPvS9Pwgg
The ONLY way to limit civilian casualties is to go door to door. It worked in Iraq, but that strategy is off the table for now.
So the murderers retreat underground or hide in civilian enclaves while we bomb an oil truck or ammo depot here or there.
It seems like all the gains that were made in the Iraq War (especially after the surge) have been relinquished and we’re pretty much back to square one.
The squandering of advantage is breathtaking in its scope.
Patton: Now there’s another thing I want you to remember. I don’t want to get any messages saying that “we are holding our position.” We’re not holding anything. Let the Hun do that. We are advancing constantly and we’re not interested in holding onto anything except the enemy. We’re going to hold onto him by the nose and we’re going to kick him in the ass. We’re going to kick the hell out of him all the time and we’re going to go through him like crap through a goose!
Women wearing suicide vest detonates it when French police rush terrorist apartment in France
PBS shows terrorist training camp in Afghanistan teaching 3 year olds Jihad.
There are no “collateral damage” targets in this war against rabid Islam.
The big story here is that the US Military gave actionable intel to the French. So it seems the Obama admin had the intel but didn’t strike the targets. Obama has placed the US behind even the Frogs. Outragous.
Right! NATO proxies staged a terrorist attack in Paris.
There is no more time for these absurd childish conspiracy theories. This sort of black propaganda is actively participation on your part with ISIS.
That’s the one!
: )
Because Obama and his global administration don’t want the U.S. to lead anything - they want the United States to be contained.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.