Why is the US reluctant to bomb ISIS oil fields?

Mining.com ^ | 12/04/2015 | Ryan Opsil

[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?

[JimSEA]

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.

[Dilbert San Diego]

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.

[Da Coyote]

Three word answer: Dorkbama the MUSLIM

[kinsman redeemer]

Why is the US reluctant to bomb ISIS oil fields?

Carbon Footprint?

Do I win??

[kabar]

The given reasons by DOD were that they wanted to preserve those facilities for future governments, which will need the infrastructure, and environmental concerns.

[Jim from C-Town]

The U.S Isn’t. The Islamist President of the U.S.Is hesitant.

[mothball]

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.

[The Sons of Liberty]

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?

[Gaffer]

Obama doesn’t want to interrupt the income stream for his rabid Muslim brothers.

[Farmer Dean]

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.

[JimRed]

Environmental concerns, of course.

[Diogenesis]

Two possible reasons:

[Eddie01]

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.

[onedoug]

Because the CIC is an enemy islamist.

[dhs12345]

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.

[kiryandil]

Or, is there a more purposeful reason?

Yeah. Barack Obama is a Muslim traitor.

[LS]

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.

[kiryandil]

Because the CIC is an enemy islamist.

[Paladin2]

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.

[Pearls Before Swine]

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.

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.