Skip to comments.
Why is the US reluctant to bomb ISIS oil fields?
Mining.com ^
| 12/04/2015
| Ryan Opsil
Posted on 12/09/2015 7:50:39 AM PST by JimSEA
There has been some revealing new information coming out recently regarding the strategy against ISIS. One aspect many find troubling is the apparent failure of U.S. and coalition forces to sufficiently target and destroy oil infrastructure located in ISIS territory, which accounts for a significant portion of the terror group's annual income. The argument goes, if we want to impact their operations, we should target their primary sources of income, and choke off their operational funds. So, why does ISIS oil infrastructure still stand? Is this the result of an intelligence failure? Negligence? Or, is there a more purposeful reason?
Using data from the Department of Defense, we can see the targeting of oil infrastructure has indeed been a relatively low priority. Buildings and military positions receive the bulk of coalition attention, and only 260 oil-related targets have been destroyed since operations began, out of 16,075 targets damaged or destroyed. And, we now know just how many of these oil-related targets remain. So, what reason could coalition forces have for holding off?
(Excerpt) Read more at mining.com ...
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Conspiracy
KEYWORDS: isis; tactics
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-30 next last
Conclusion: It's important to note that the available information provides a conflicting picture and we can't be entirely clear on motives at this point. However, the evidence does plausibly point toward forcing realignment of local tribal groups against ISIS, and the maintenance of crucial supplies to resistance groups throughout the region, both corroborated with past actions by U.S. and coalition forces, and counterterrorism strategy. It also remains to be seen if the United States is forced to abandon this strategy given recent attacks and Russian involvement in the region. It may now simply be untenable, for any reason, to forgo attacks on oil infrastructure in the region.
Yes, the idea that we don't want anyone to get mad at us really might be Obama's motive for not attacking ISIS's finances.
1
posted on
12/09/2015 7:50:39 AM PST
by
JimSEA
To: JimSEA
I’ve heard we have held off bombing their oil operations, due to concerns about environmental damage. So Obama will not allow us to fight this war properly.
The last seven years have shown us all what happens when you put doctrinnaire liberals in charge of our government. I hope this lesson resonates with enough voters next year, when we have to decide whether Hillary should replace Obama.
To: JimSEA
Three word answer: Dorkbama the MUSLIM
3
posted on
12/09/2015 7:53:36 AM PST
by
Da Coyote
To: JimSEA
Why is the US reluctant to bomb ISIS oil fields? Carbon Footprint?
Do I win??
4
posted on
12/09/2015 7:54:00 AM PST
by
kinsman redeemer
(The real enemy seeks to devour what is good.)
To: JimSEA
The given reasons by DOD were that they wanted to preserve those facilities for future governments, which will need the infrastructure, and environmental concerns.
5
posted on
12/09/2015 7:54:10 AM PST
by
kabar
To: JimSEA
The U.S Isn’t. The Islamist President of the U.S.Is hesitant.
6
posted on
12/09/2015 7:54:19 AM PST
by
Jim from C-Town
(The government is rarely benevolent, often malevolent and never benign!)
To: JimSEA
If we bomb them, then the temperature will go up, and then it will create more ISIS fighters. According to Odumbass, climate change is creating ISIS.
7
posted on
12/09/2015 7:55:10 AM PST
by
mothball
To: JimSEA
Why is the US reluctant to bomb ISIS oil fields? Might hurt the steady flow of cash to caliph 0bama and the Clinton Crime Syndicate?
8
posted on
12/09/2015 7:55:53 AM PST
by
The Sons of Liberty
(Caution: These remarks may offend some raghead savages and/or liberals - GOOD.)
To: Da Coyote
Obama doesn’t want to interrupt the income stream for his rabid Muslim brothers.
9
posted on
12/09/2015 7:57:02 AM PST
by
Gaffer
To: Dilbert San Diego
Hillary's about due for her next stroke.She will most likely be either dead or totally incapacitated before the election. The election will most likely be Sanders or Biden VS Trump.
10
posted on
12/09/2015 7:57:32 AM PST
by
Farmer Dean
(stop worrying about what they want to do to you,start thinking about what you want to do to them)
To: JimSEA
Environmental concerns, of course.
11
posted on
12/09/2015 7:58:38 AM PST
by
JimRed
(Excise the cancer before it kills us; feed & water the Tree of Liberty! TERM LIMITS NOW & FOREVER!)
To: JimSEA
Two possible reasons:
![](http://pumabydesign001.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/americas-presidents-in-uniform.jpg?w=497&h=469)
12
posted on
12/09/2015 7:59:57 AM PST
by
Diogenesis
("When a crime is unpunished, the world is unbalanced.")
To: JimSEA
uh. ....because Obama wants ISIS in America carrying out attacks to blame on lax gun control laws?
Fast and furious didn’t work, but it did get a lot of people killed by the cartels including our own border patrol officers.
13
posted on
12/09/2015 8:01:03 AM PST
by
Eddie01
To: JimSEA
Because the CIC is an enemy islamist.
14
posted on
12/09/2015 8:01:13 AM PST
by
onedoug
To: Dilbert San Diego
My armchair general opinion....
Environmental — could be. Or maybe to prevent too much infrastructure damage. Something that the successor to ISIS would have to deal with. Not known who that would or should be.
The problem is identifying who our enemies are in the region — Russia, Syria, Syrian rebels, ISIS, Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Sunnis, Shiites, etc. Damn. What an mess.
15
posted on
12/09/2015 8:01:40 AM PST
by
dhs12345
To: JimSEA
Or, is there a more purposeful reason? Yeah. Barack Obama is a Muslim traitor.
16
posted on
12/09/2015 8:04:44 AM PST
by
kiryandil
("When Muslims in the White House are outlawed, only Barack Obama will be an outlaw")
To: JimSEA
Can't post because of Independent UK complaint, but Drudge has a story that Putin "threatens to use nuclear missiles against ISIS ('and hopes they won't be necessary').
I think a few Freepers would suggest that Putin target them a littl further downrange.
17
posted on
12/09/2015 8:09:29 AM PST
by
LS
("Castles Made of Sand, Fall in the Sea . . . Eventually" (Hendrix))
To: onedoug
Because the CIC is an enemy islamist.
18
posted on
12/09/2015 8:09:43 AM PST
by
kiryandil
("When Muslims in the White House are outlawed, only Barack Obama will be an outlaw")
To: JimSEA
Better to grab the oil wells and teh revenue from same.
Killing oil wells makes little sense.
Ridding the world of ISlamists is a better plan. We have had enough bombing of infrastructure and not enough of Islamists.
19
posted on
12/09/2015 8:10:30 AM PST
by
Paladin2
(my non-desktop devices are no longer allowed to try to fix speling and punctuation, nor my gran-mah.)
To: Dilbert San Diego
Iâve heard we have held off bombing their oil operations, due to concerns about environmental damage. So Obama will not allow us to fight this war properly.True dat. I might add bombing the oil fields is not the same as firing the wells like Saddam did. All that's needed is to damage the infrastructure (rigs, collecting piping, etc). That wouldn't fire the wells.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-30 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson