Posted on 12/01/2014 1:04:58 PM PST by naturalman1975
The discovery of a 'hidden network of caves and bunkers' occupied by the Islamic State in northern Iraq, by an Australian military plane, has led to an enormous airstrike and the death of over 100 terrorist fighters.
Vice-Admiral David Johnston, the chief of joint operations at the Department of Defence, revealed details of the successful multi-national airstrike during an operational update in Canberra on Tuesday.
He said that an Australian F-18 Super Hornet military plane, fitted with regular and heat-seeking night cameras, located the concealed bunkers and tunnels in a hillside at Kirkuk while monitoring movements on the mountain during the last week.
'Within days a subsequent multi-national airstrike involving 20 aircraft attacked 44 targets, complimented by a large-scale ground operation that was led by the Kurdish security forces, that rapidly entered that area, cleared it of the remaining ISIL militants, and with some reporting indicating that over 100 ISIL fighters were killed in those clearance operations,' Vice-Admiral Johnston said.
Another recent airstrike that was led by an Australian crew led to the 'severe damage' of a major improvised explosive device factory in Mosul.
Australian forces have also had an important role in the Iraqi government recapturing control of an oil refinery in Baji that, according to Vice-Admiral Johnston, has allowed them to better fund their own defences through the daily $13 million worth of revenue it produces.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Post-war BDA showed how lousy our bombing accuracy was, but those few great surviving B/17/24/29 crew members still swear by the accuracy of the Norden bombsight. SAC made similar grossly optimistic claims for bombing accuracy in Korea and Vietnam, with minimal real world improvement. Although I presume that those in the target neighborhood found the quantity of misses made for some well deserved Psyops ‘quality’ of sorts. But history shows that failed to break England, Germany or Japan’s will. Nagasaki barely broke Japan’s.
Its amazing, now, that the Air Force can actually deliver what it promises. Alas, POTUS is on the other side so I have to watch the Aussies deliver instead.
It’s got to be demoralizing for them to lose that many at one time. It’s not to be a war of attrition; it must be a war of annihilation instead to break the will of every single one of them. But in the meantime if a few less confident ones begin to give it up and drift away, then all the better.
“I think that 100 at a time is actually a pretty good ratio.”
It wouldn’t be enough if it were 100 per day—and it isn’t.
It took us less than less than four years to take care of the Germans and the Japanese.
Why is it that even a single mooselimb terrorist draws the breath of life, more than 13 years after the Twin Towers attacks?
The only answer I can think of is that we have been betrayed by the ruling class.
People can think of a lot of things. Thinking something is not the same as evidence. At best it’s a theory. Comparing the asymmetrical war against ISIS to World War II is pointless, not even apples and oranges as the saying goes.
“People can think of a lot of things.”
Yes, for instance, “Comparing the asymmetrical war against ISIS to World War II is pointless, not even apples and oranges as the saying goes.”
The war is “asymmetrical” only because we lack the will to bring sufficient force to bear.
A...no. That’s not what “asymmetrical warfare” means. Words matter. Ideas matter too. Somethings, too, are self-evident. No matter how much force we bring to bear a war between the US led coalition and ISIS would remain asymmetrical by definition. If you understand what the term “asymmetrical” means, you’ll realize I’m correct in what I posted. I don’t get the impression you’re the type of person who does research about things you know little of before you post, though, nor or you likely to say “Yup, I was wrong.”
“A...no. That’s not what “asymmetrical warfare” means.”
Asymmetrical warfare means “warfare in which opposing groups or nations have unequal military resources, and the weaker opponent uses unconventional weapons and tactics, as terrorism, to exploit the vulnerabilities of the enemy.”
That is the situation we have, but we only have that situation because we haven’t used our stronger military resources to end the war—as I said.
“No matter how much force we bring to bear a war between the US led coalition and ISIS would remain asymmetrical by definition.”
Only until they lose, and are eradicated from the face of the earth.
“If you understand what the term “asymmetrical” means, you’ll realize I’m correct in what I posted.”
I understand what the term means, and I understand that you seized on a misinterpretation of what I said to try and bully me.
“I don’t get the impression you’re the type of person who does research about things you know little of before you post, though, nor or you likely to say “Yup, I was wrong.”
Your impressions are on you, not me.
I'm thinking there are probably other subject where you have greater knowledge.
“I did not bully you unless you’re a pansy.”
I said that you tried, not that you succeeded.
Here’s something that someone else posted here:
“I can explain (some alleged contradiction) quite easily. I see it here on FR all the time. Somebody latches onto a simple misinterpretation of a statement because it gives that person the perfect venue to strut and preen in defense of his own ecclesiastical/political/moral existence. Thus has Satan snuck in to the discussion all unnoticed. The saints—I believe it was a hated Jesuit as a matter of fact—have taught us that in a dispute, the disputing parties have a duty to attach the most innocent and least malicious motives and explanations to the other’s statements. It is part of the virtue of charity. It is what anyone would want from you, and it is plain common sense.
Now, there’s a recipe for elevating the level of discourse in the blink of an eye.”
I’m just tired, really tired, of people who can’t disagree without being insulting.
“And really despite the fact that you looked the difference up I don’t think you understand it now.”
We covered it in Surface Warfare Officer School at Phibbase Coronado. And then, there was much wardroom discussion, and many articles. I may have written unclearly in the effort to be jocular, but a person might want to be aware of the assumptions he is making.
“If ISIS loses or grows weaker, they will be even less symmetrical.”
Try to engage your sense of humor and reflect that there is no asymmetry between something and nothing, in the sense that a comparison of two things requires two things to compare.
“I’m thinking there are probably other subject where you have greater knowledge.”
Well, now, that’s mighty neighborly of you.
-—the daily $13 million worth of revenue——
I doubt it.
That may have been in the good old days but I sincerely doubt ISIL has the where with all at preaent to extract, transport and collect the money for the oil
On Homer Simpson’s thread today the Nimetz report stated that 2 1/2 % of the bombs on a B29 raid to Japan struck the target
2 1/2 percent on a fire bomb raid is far more than enough on target.
You don’t understand the concept. Everything else you write is a red herring. It’s not an insult that you don’t understand something. It’s a just a fact. It’s not trying to bully you either.
“You don’t understand the concept.”
I understand it very well, first hand.
“Everything else you write is a red herring.”
I don’t think you understand what a red herring is.
Yeah, right.
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.