Conducting U.S. airstrikes in Iraq would be complicated, former military officers say

WaPo ^ | 6/16/2014 | Craig Whitlock

[mojito]

The Defense Department has enough forces in the Persian Gulf to conduct airstrikes that would probably prevent Sunni insurgents from marching into Baghdad, but other missions would be far more complex and risk drawing the United States back into an Iraqi civil war, according to retired military commanders.

The Pentagon announced that the USS Mesa Verde, an amphibious transport dock ship, had arrived in the gulf on Monday to join an aircraft carrier, a destroyer and a guided-missile cruiser. Together, the warships carry a large number of fighter jets and search-and-rescue aircraft, along with Tomahawk cruise missiles and other ordnance, that would give President Obama an assortment of tactical options should he decide to take military action in Iraq.

[...]

The Pentagon’s ability to deploy drones to conduct surveillance and carry out airstrikes — a move endorsed by many in Congress — may be limited. The U.S. military has Predator and Reaper drones at several bases in the region but would have to get permission from reluctant host countries to use them in Iraq.

Targeting fighters from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) would not be difficult if they continue to advance toward Baghdad along highways and other visible routes, the former military commanders said. But airstrikes would become far more complicated if the insurgents stay within the cities they have taken control of in recent weeks, raising the likelihood of civilian casualties.

[....]

Without forces on the ground to verify that U.S. airstrikes had hit legitimate military targets, the United States would become more vulnerable to enemy propaganda about mass civilian casualties, said Gary Roughead, a retired four-star admiral and chief of naval operations from 2007 to 2011.

[mojito]

Barry said at his presser today that he's considering airstrikes, but no US troops committed to combat.

This WaPo story from a couple of days ago indicates that some ground forces are necessary to conduct effective airstrikes; hence, no ground forces, no airstrikes.

[Tennessee Nana]

shock n awe is just not an Obama thing...

[molson209]

Obama would no problem with a lot of shock n awe on US citizens

[Blood of Tyrants]

But shuck and jive is!

[mojito]

Neither is committing to a course of action.

Now “dithering” and “prevaricating” - those are Barry at his best.

[DoodleDawg]

Barry said at his presser today that he's considering airstrikes, but no US troops committed to combat.

Airstrikes aren't combat?

[TangledUpInBlue]

I don’t understand? Do we not see these people approaching the refinery? Bagdhad? Any other rag road they may be on??

What’s so hard about a strafing run? A good old fashioned AC-130 obliterating anything squirming.

Send a note: if you’re friendly, GET OUT. Anyone still there gets vaporized. I’m so over the muzzies.

Friendly fire??? I see no friends.....

[rdcbn]

A hand full of Special Forces in Afghanistan armed with laser target designators to spot targets for JDAM laser guided bomb attacks routed the Taliban in the space of several months.

We have 1000x times the capabilities now that we did then.

The ISIS al-qaeda insurgents would not stand a chance if our military decided to get serious with them.

[the anti-mahdi]

Does Congress no longer have the responsibility to approve military actions against another country?

Wretches.

[affan76]

Remember Benghazi? Stinger missiles to Syria?

AC130 against our technology (stingers) is not a good bet.

This admin is corrupt and inept.

[DoodleDawg]

Does Congress no longer have the responsibility to approve military actions against another country?

Have you been watching the news lately? Most of the Republicans in Congress seem pissed that we aren't in combat in Iraq.

[the anti-mahdi]

They can require authorization from congress. And, since this will be pin-prick strikes with no end-game strategy, the whole discussion stinks of waste and tragedy.

If we do not intend to occupy and slaughter Iraqis until they beg us to stop and will agree to unconditional surrender, well, it is just another meatgrinder to put our sons and daughters into.

Let them kill each other. Saves us the effort and expense. I don’t care, I really don’t.

How about this, protect our own borders and let the Satanists worry about theirs.

[NEMDF]

Exactly. How hard can it be? They ought to put in Lois Lerner as SoD, as she seems to be the only one around who is good at targeting.

[SMARTY]

Right, “O” understands warfare just about as well as he understands anything else...

[mojito]

Airstrikes aren't combat?

I was not as precise as I should have been. 0bama said there would be no sizable commitment of US ground forces to combat in Iraq, but that he has not "ruled out" airstrikes.

[Iron Munro]

Nancy Boy Obama has snatchd defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq.

Now that he knows his tactics work he is doing the same thing in Afghanistan.

[grania]

Meanwhile drones that hit wedding parties and school children in Pakistan and Afghanistan mountains are acceptable loss of life.

ISIS is a rogue terrorist group, not doing the terrorist things the US trained and armed them to do. They're a danger to everyone and should be eliminated while they're still in identifiable columns in the desert. Instead Obama wants the rest of Iraq and the US to be sympathetic to Sunni sympathy for their terror.

Does anybody really know what ISIS will do next? Add that to the out-of-control maniacs BokaHaran and it's apparent that this is the real threat....terrorists so bad that AlQaida disavows them.

[Political Junkie Too]

The complicated part is getting Obama to approve it. The targets are his people, after all.

-PJ