Originally posted by rinselberg: "B-2 bombers kill nearly 100 ISIS terrorists in Libya" reported by Fox News; January 19, 2017
--> Just before President Trump's first day in office.
And ? Can you say "apples and oranges" ?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: Even that wasn't the last major air strike against Islamic militants under the Obama administration. That was followed by another airstrike against Islamic militants in Syria that was also reported as something "special". I remember reading about it. I would have to go searching to try to find it again.
Please do. Why didn't lame stream media report on that war monger who won a Nobel Peace Prize on his first day in office ?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: According to reports that I just saw, yesterday's MOAB strike in Afghanistan killed about 36 from the "ISIL-K" or "ISIS-K" group that was targeted.
I saw those reports. Sketchy at best. Dubious. The report came from the Afghan ?government? which also said no civilians were killed ? How many more are gonna die ? Trapped in their tunnels/cave. How many injured ?
Leaving aside the high-level or strategic policy decisions, such as how to think about the situation in Syria as it began to fragment into warring fiefdoms in 2011, one fair criticism of President Obama as Commander in Chief is that he tried to micromanage the military's missions and tasks, and would probably have achieved more (overall) if he had delegated or devolved more of the military authority and latitude for tactical decision-making to the front line commanders.
At the same time, no single missile launch or airstrike can wipe out 100 or more Islamic militants in one fell swoop, unless or until 100 or more Islamic militants have assembled themselves into a single, clearly identifiable location that can be impacted by one or a small number of bombs or missiles. And--if there is a desire on the part of the "striker" to avoid unintended casualties or "collateral damage"--that is another restriction that limits the availability of "100+ Level Targets".
This is a basic law or principle of what is (perhaps euphemistically) referred to these days as battlefield "kinetics". It's a concept that every successful student of Battlefield Kinetics "101" has come to understand, and always remembers, even when they are asleep.
Such was the case in Libya and also in Syria during the very last days and hours of Obama's second term.
Someone (now who would that be?) who could hardly ever bring himself to refer to President Obama using any designation other than "Nobama" is not someone that I could freely credit as a reliable authority on President Obama's military targeting "proclivities" during his eight years as Commander in Chief.
If "cliffw" (and others) wish to have an accurate perception of President Trump as Commander in Chief, they cannot indulge themselves by too freely "buying into" misleading perceptions of President Obama as Commander in Chief. That can only detract from and distort the accuracy of their perceptions about President Trump as Commander in Chief.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-14-2017).]
If "cliffw" (and others) want to develop an accurate perception of President Trump as Commander in Chief, they cannot indulge themselves by too freely "buying into" misleading perceptions of President Obama as Commander in Chief. Because that will detract from the accuracy of any perceptions they may maintain or develop about President Trump as Commander in Chief.
MOAB body count upped from just 36, to "90 and change"
quote
The assessment of the death toll from the largest non-nuclear bomb available to the U.S. military, called "MOAB", had nearly tripled by Saturday, with Afghan officials saying that at least ninety ISIS fighters were killed. U.S.-led forces are conducting clean-up operations across the rugged terrain.
"At least 92 Daesh [ISIS] fighters were killed in the bombing," Achin district governor Esmail Shinwari told AFP on Saturday. Nangarhar provincial spokesman Attaullah Khogyani gave a toll of "90".
Previously, Afghan officials said that the bombing had killed 36 ISIS-K degenerates.
The temptation of MOAB-colored glasses Michael Kugelman of the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington cautions against looking at the current situation in Afghanistan through MOAB-colored glasses:
quote
"The Trump administration made a lot of noise with this bomb, but the general state of play on the ground remains the same: The Taliban continues to wage a formidable and ferocious insurgency. ISIS, by comparison, is a sideshow,"
From the AFP's report (previously cited).
"To my esteemed successor in the Oval Office"
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: Not a good guess. It took that long for the United States of America to have a Commander in Chief with the "balls" to WIN.
The Trump administration is waging war on militant Islamic radicals using an operational framework that it inherited from the Obama administration, including forward-deployed Special Operators and Ground Warfare Train-and-Equip Missions in already established partnerships with local forces in Iraq and Syria.
Reaction from nearby Achin village
quote
In Achin village, about 3 miles (5 km) from the remote, mountainous area where the bomb was dropped, witnesses said the ground shook, but homes and shops appeared unaffected.
Qari Mehrajuddin first saw "lightning like a thunder storm" followed by the roar of an explosion, an all-to-familiar sound for residents of the war-torn area.
"I thought there was a bombing just outside my home," he said. In reality, the blast was around three miles away, its massive impact bigger than any before seen in the region.
Some locals welcomed the strike.
"If you want to destroy and eliminate Daesh [ISIS], then even if you destroy my home we won't complain, because they are not human beings, they are savages," said Mir Alam Shinwari, using an Arabic term for Islamic State.
Quick as a blink, MOAB is visible on its way to the ground just before it explodes (0:05). This is video from a drone that was monitoring the target area.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-15-2017).]
Mom's Bomb "All of the bombs in America's non-nuclear arsenal have one, big, beautiful mother..."
MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell opened his hour-long segment on Thursday with a sardonic exploration of the colloquial designations or "nicknames" that become attached to various aspects of the U.S. military establishment--especially its weapons. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4J_KgMayEzY
I enjoy viewing a news and opinion anchor who's good at his craft--putting "sardonicism" on display in this instance--regardless of whether or how much I agree or disagree with his overarching message.
Leaving aside the high-level or strategic policy decisions, such as how to think about the situation in Syria as it began to fragment into warring fiefdoms in 2011, one fair criticism of President Obama as Commander in Chief is that he tried to micromanage the military's missions and tasks, and would probably have achieved more (overall) if he had delegated or devolved more of the military authority and latitude for tactical decision-making to the front line commanders.
At the same time, no single missile launch or airstrike can wipe out 100 or more Islamic militants in one fell swoop, unless or until 100 or more Islamic militants have assembled themselves into a single, clearly identifiable location that can be impacted by one or a small number of bombs or missiles. And--if there is a desire on the part of the "striker" to avoid unintended casualties or "collateral damage"--that is another restriction that limits the availability of "100+ Level Targets".
This is a basic law or principle of what is (perhaps euphemistically) referred to these days as battlefield "kinetics". It's a concept that every successful student of Battlefield Kinetics "101" has come to understand, and always remembers, even when they are asleep.
Such was the case in Libya and also in Syria during the very last days and hours of Obama's second term.
Someone (now who would that be?) who could hardly ever bring himself to refer to President Obama using any designation other than "Nobama" is not someone that I could freely credit as a reliable authority on President Obama's military targeting "proclivities" during his eight years as Commander in Chief.
If "cliffw" (and others) wish to have an accurate perception of President Trump as Commander in Chief, they cannot indulge themselves by too freely "buying into" misleading perceptions of President Obama as Commander in Chief. That can only detract from and distort the accuracy of their perceptions about President Trump as Commander in Chief.
Oh, you are good. Bravo, . I am tempted to come out there and let you buy me a beer, .
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: Leaving aside ... At the same time, ...
What the hell does that mean ? Did 'ga know ... biographies are out, where in two high level leaders of intelligence officials complain about many three hour National Security policy meetings that resulted in no decisions being made.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: At the same time, no single missile launch or airstrike can wipe out 100 or more Islamic militants in one fell swoop, unless or until 100 or more Islamic militants have assembled themselves into a single, clearly identifiable location that can be impacted by one or a small number of bombs or missiles.
Says you ?
The count of the evaporated militants is now up in the 90's. Likely to go higher as the ruckheads succumb from their injuries and lack of NobamaCare. I will go one or two further.
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: Why didn't we do the one two punch ?
There will be 100 or more Islamic militants in the area right now ! It would be a shame, maybe, if we bombed a funeral procession of a fallen militant. But hey, they want to kill us.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: And--if there is a desire on the part of the "striker" to avoid unintended casualties or "collateral damage"--that is another restriction that limits the availability of "100+ Level Targets".
The first desire of anybody in any kind of fight should be that there are no rules. If you want to hang out with the bad guys, die like the bad guys ? Ruck their human shields and hiding in hospitals and schools.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: Someone (now who would that be?) who could hardly ever bring himself to refer to President Obama using any designation other than "Nobama" is not someone that I could freely credit as a reliable authority on President Obama's military targeting "proclivities" during his eight years as Commander in Chief.
To each his own. I trust you too.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: If "cliffw" (and others) wish to have an accurate perception of President Trump as Commander in Chief, they cannot indulge themselves by too freely "buying into" misleading perceptions of President Obama as Commander in Chief. That can only detract from and distort the accuracy of their perceptions about President Trump as Commander in Chief.
The misleading perceptions of Nobama ? Perceptions are forethought. Nobama went down in history.
No, I am not in the least way negative about the decision to use the MOAB on that particular target in Afghanistan.
I am responding to other ideas or comments that came into this thread--a thread which I started because I thought it would provoke an interesting discussion. And it has provoked an interesting discussion--at least, in terms of what I myself call "interesting"--although more is always welcome.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-15-2017).]
"The Hill" reports a contretemps (or something a bit more substantial?) having to do with some public comments emanating from U.S. Central Command or CENTCOM.
First, on April 13--a day that Congress may eventually vote to designate as an annually recurring U.S. national holiday--"MOAB Day"
No, I am not in the least way negative about the decision to use the MOAB on that particular target in Afghanistan.
I am responding to other ideas or comments that came into this thread--a thread which I started because I thought it would provoke an interesting discussion. And it has provoked an interesting discussion--at least, in terms of what I myself call "interesting"--although more is always welcome.
Well, I asked first because I didn't want to build a straw-man against you. Some of the arguments I hear (either on here or elsewhere) are worthless, but one that stands out which justifies consideration is... why didn't we use a less expensive weapon that provided a more targeted attack with less firepower. I think realistically, most people that are complaining are simply doing so because it's the latest thing they've been told their supposed to complain about, but the truth is... we could have used some different weapons to resolve this.
That said, using the biggest non-nuclear bomb in our arsenal is in itself a statement (if that wasn't already discussed here). It's basically saying that we're going to pull all the stops. The nuclear bombs we dropped on Japan were totally unnecessary for what our goal was, and the people killed didn't deserve to die; however, the power was so immense that it literally confronted the (then) Japanese culture which didn't even have a word for surrender, and made them realize that they would face total extinction if they didn't submit. On the other hand, every last radical Muslim would love to be sent to hell because they believe they're going to get 72 virgins. So the approach would be different. I'm not suggesting this MOAB is anywhere near the ramification of big and little boy, but I am saying that we're willing to pull out the stops... and "ramp up" the fight.
There's also the aspect that we had these bombs in our arsenal, and Obama was unwilling to use them (fearing the political back-lash), and Trump probably was encouraged when his Generals used them BECAUSE it was going against the Obama doctrine of a thousand cuts rather than napalm.
That MOAB attack was designed not to destroy a cave network (although it did that pretty good).
It was to send a global message that we have these, we will use them, and we can make more. We dont have to resort to nukes to put you back in the stone age.
Well Todd, I am not all that convinced that President Obama "refused" to use this super-sized but non-nuclear bomb against the warring Muslim extremists.
I am open to that interpretation. But I wonder if there was actually a suitable target and a suitable time for a MOAB strike, before what came to pass on April 13--just two days ago--when MOAB was finally given it's "combat debut".
Was there something in all of the exact circumstances about this particular target area, where MOAB was used, that came together in a solved or completed jigsaw puzzle (so to speak) in a way that never quite happened before Obama's last day as President?
At the very end of Obama's second term--just days (even just hours) before President Trump was inaugurated (although I think maybe President Trump was actually in charge at the end of the week preceding his official inauguration)--President Obama struck the Islamic militants in Libya with an airstrike that used B-2 stealth bombers flying all the way from the U.S. to Libya and back--and after that, an airstrike in Syria that involved a single B-52 strategic bomber. The Libya strike, against ISIS, and the Syria strike, against an Al-Qaeda affiliated group, were both reported as having killed over 100 "wayward Muzzies" at one fell swoop.
I think it's fair to say that Obama was not "parsimonious" when it came to using missiles fired from unmanned aircraft or "drones".
I don't want to dominate the discourse here, so I will (for the moment) just leave it at that.
Well Todd, I am not all that convinced that President Obama "refused" to use this super-sized but non-nuclear bomb against the warring Muslim extremists.
I am open to that interpretation. But I wonder if there was actually a suitable target and a suitable time for a MOAB strike, before what came to pass on April 13--just two days ago--when MOAB was finally given it's "combat debut".
Was there something in all of the exact circumstances about this particular target area, where MOAB was used, that came together in a solved or completed jigsaw puzzle (so to speak) in a way that never quite happened before Obama's last day as President?
At the very end of Obama's second term--just days (even just hours) before President Trump was inaugurated (although I think maybe President Trump was actually in charge at the end of the week preceding his official inauguration)--President Obama struck the Islamic militants in Libya with an airstrike that used B-2 stealth bombers flying all the way from the U.S. to Libya and back--and after that, an airstrike in Syria that involved a single B-52 strategic bomber. The Libya strike, against ISIS, and the Syria strike, against an Al-Qaeda affiliated group, were both reported as having killed over 100 "wayward Muzzies" at one fell swoop.
I think it's fair to say that Obama was not "parsimonious" when it came to using missiles fired from unmanned aircraft or "drones".
I don't want to dominate the discourse here, so I will (for the moment) just leave it at that.
So we're clear, the MOAB is usually dropped from a cargo plane, which is manned.
But Obama did have a refusal to use it. The bomb was developed in 2003, and despite the news saying we've never used it before, it was actually used in one raid against a tunnel compound under Bush when we were trying to go after Osama Bin Laden. I don't know why the media keeps saying it's the first time, because it isn't. But... largely a lot of the military response that was used was calculated, considering the sensibilities of his constituency. The use of such a bomb is considered aggressive and mean (or whatever), and liberals don't like that.
For whatever reason, the dropping of this bomb has actually had a positive impact on Trump's poll numbers, as has the raid on the Syrian airport. But... we still don't want war, so it's interesting to say the least. But yeah, Obama was totally against using it because of the perception it would create. He had many arguments, which were recently aired from his former aides, after this current bomb was dropped. They said that most military action was decided in war rooms that included a mix of 20 and 30 something political strategists, along with military advisors. The military advisors were near-suicide (metaphorically speaking) because they had to consider Obama's political sensibilities.
The nuclear bombs we dropped on Japan were totally unnecessary for what our goal was, and the people killed didn't deserve to die...
Wrong, both parts.
Our goal was to defeat Japan, and to minimize Allied losses.
Using the two bombs actually saved lives.
If the Allies had invaded Japan, more human lives on both side would have been lost. The Japanese civilians were trained and motivated to defend their Homeland and would have fought any invasion force.
[This message has been edited by olejoedad (edited 04-15-2017).]
Our goal was to defeat Japan, and to minimize Allied losses.
Using the two bombs actually saved lives.
If the Allies had invaded Japan, more human lives on both side would have been lost. The Japanese civilians were trained and motivated to defend their Homeland and would have fought any invasion force.
Man... you're totally misrepresenting my comments. You're basically pulling a Democrat / Liberal move here, totally taking my comments out of context so that it comes off meaning exactly the opposite of what I'm saying.
Here's the rest that you left out...
"however, the power was so immense that it literally confronted the (then) Japanese culture which didn't even have a word for surrender, and made them realize that they would face total extinction if they didn't submit."
We both agree on the purpose and need. No reason to argue this because I'm not disagreeing with you. Jeeze...
quote
Originally posted by Jake_Dragon:
People can feel bad about the loss of life in Japan all they want It's my opinion that the families and people that lost their lives at Pearl Harbor have a very different view
See? Olejedad... this is why you don't pull a Democrat move like you just did. Now you've got Jake Dragon thinking I don't support the end-means to the war in the Pacific Theater for defeating the Axis of Evil.
Damn...
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 04-15-2017).]
Our goal was to defeat Japan, and to minimize Allied losses.
Using the two bombs actually saved lives.
If the Allies had invaded Japan, more human lives on both side would have been lost. The Japanese civilians were trained and motivated to defend their Homeland and would have fought any invasion force.
People can feel bad about the loss of life in Japan all they want It's my opinion that the families and people that lost their lives at Pearl Harbor have a very different view
As far as the atomic bombs that were dropped just prior to the end of World War Two, I have two other thoughts about it.
The U.S. government, all the way up to President Truman, perceived an urgent need to "persuade" the Japanese to surrender before the Soviet Union could mount an amphibious invasion of Japan and get in on the post-war military occupation of Japan by the victorious Allied powers. That would have been a most unwelcome development for the United States, and I don't think it is all that necessary for me to expand on that thought--isn't it kind of a "no brainer"..? So the atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and then Nagasaki as a "shock weapon" to induce the Japanese to surrender ASAP and remove any pretext (or even possibility) of the Soviet Union getting itself entrenched on the mainland of Japan.
If I recall it accurately--the history that I read on this point--the Russian soldiers were virtually stepping into the amphibious invasion boats even as the atomic bombs were being unleashed on Japan. It really was a race against time that was about to go to the Soviet Union, if the atomic bombs had not been used ASAP by the United States.
My other thought--putting the first thought here aside--is that the U.S. could have refrained from using the atomic bombs, and opted for a total naval blockade of Japan that would have brought the Japanese to the brink of literal starvation, and then accepted a Japanese surrender, after a period of perhaps several more weeks or a few months of continuing with this naval blockade, but the downside--unacceptable, I think--would have been that more American servicemen would have been lost in the course of this somewhat prolonged naval blockade. The Japanese would have still been able to get through to the American naval vessels with kamikaze aircraft attacks (although in severely diminishing numbers), and as was demonstrated (tragically) with the U.S.S. Indianapolis, there was a lingering threat from the Japanese submarines that were still operational.
Now whether that is a matter of historical retrospect or was predictable at the time--before the decision to use the A-bombs--I guess I'd have to go over the history narratives in even greater detail.
Were you all actually aware that even the second of the two atomic bombings--the destruction of Nagasaki--did not push the Japanese to surrender until there was one more airstrike on Japan with B-29 bombers that dropped the standard non-nuclear bombs of that time?
In the actual history, there was an attempted overthrow of the Emperor by some Japanese Army officers that still did not want to surrender, even in the immediate aftermath of the Nagasaki bombing. This B-29 strike with non-nuclear bombs--which the History Channel presented as "The Last Combat Mission of World War Two" (or something like that)--had the effect of interfering with the "Die Hard" Japanese officers and stopping them from getting to the Emperor before his prerecorded surrender message was broadcast to the entire population on Japanese radio. An unintended or unanticipated outcome on the part of the U.S. generals who authorized this mission--they did not and could not have known what was going with these rebellious Japanese Army officers who were about to close in on the Emperor's palace in Tokyo.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-15-2017).]
Were you all actually aware that even the second of the two atomic bombings--the destruction of Nagasaki--did not push the Japanese to surrender until there was one more airstrike on Japan with B-29 bombers that dropped the standard non-nuclear bombs of that time?
If I remember correctly, it wasn't the additional bombing, it was the threat that we made (propaganda) that had them convinced that we actually had more atomic bombs prepared that we were planning on dropping... (but just didn't have them immediately ready).
...and queue BB-63!
Sad though, I never actually learned about WW1 or WW2, or Vietnam or the Korean war in school (for that matter). Or the Spanish American war, or anything after the Civil War. I went to school in the VERY liberal Fairfax County in Northern Virginia. We were supposed to take "American History - Part 2" (not the Mel Brooks variety), and that class was cancelled because they wanted us to take a year-long class called "World Religions." This was in 1996... by the way.
The teacher literally said... "You all know about Christianity, so we're going to skip that." and then we focused pretty much more than 50% of our time on Islam and Judaism. We did also cover Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism. But man... they spent way too much time on Islam. Back in 1996... at least for my friends and I, we didn't really think anything about Islam... it didn't really mean anything to me... bad or good. 9/11 hadn't happened yet, and TWA and PAN AM terrorist attacks just seemed like some crazy people that wanted to get something. The 1979 Islamic Revolution certainly meant nothing to me in 1996, and I barely even remember the WTC getting bombed.
They also pulled that crap in our American History - Part 1 class. We spent an ENTIRE month studying about Dr. Martin Luther King. Don't get me wrong... the man is awesome, I have full respect for him. But does he really deserve more time than George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin combined?
Good news I suppose is that they were so concerned about teaching what they perceived to be "liberal" things, that I have an inordinate amount of knowledge on Eli Whitney's cotton gin, Harriett Tubman's underground railroad, Frederick Douglass, the 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry, Dred Scott, Harriett Beacher-Stowe and Uncle Tom's Cabin, blah blah... etc...
But everything else I had to learn about American history, I got from the history channel, so if I'm wrong about what I said above about the threat of a third or fourth bomb, then please forgive me! Until the early 2000s... I thought WW1 was with the Germans and WW2 was with the Japanese (I was partially right, hahah...).
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: See? Olejedad... this is why you don't pull a Democrat move like you just did. Now you've got Jake Dragon thinking I don't support the end-means to the war in the Pacific Theater for defeating the Axis of Evil.
Damn...
It's my fault you wrote that? It could have been clearer in meaning, if worded differently.
It's my fault you wrote that? It could have been clearer in meaning, if worded differently.
Look, I'm not mad at you... but you did clearly quote only part of what I said, for the specific purpose of making a point. A great point I'll say... but you tried to make an example out of me by misquoting me.
Again, no feelings hurt, not mad, just thinking... damn... you're trying to make me look like a liberal here.
I dont think they used a MOAB bomb in what you mention. I think that was a 'bunker buster' thats supposed to penetrate deep into the ground before exploding. The MOAB, like an atomic bomb, detonates above ground to cause more widespread damage and cause cave ins. I dont think theyll even have a number for the Pakistan MOAB because no telling how many more are buried in those tunnels that will never be found. If you caved in all the tunnels and caverns in a 2 mile radius, there could be thousands buried forever 200' down.
. I am tempted to come out there and let you buy me a beer, 
.
