The U.S. should not allow jihadist war criminals to shelter in cities like Raqqa and Mosul. I am sure there are quite a few jihadist targets the U.S. has identified in these and other cities, but that it has decided not to bomb for fear of causing civilian casualties. That is a dangerous mistake, because it concedes to the jihadists a more-or-less permanent safe haven. If civilians are killed in the course of attacking war criminals who are sheltering among them, it is not the attackers who are responsible for their deaths under the laws of war, but the war criminals.
I have thought all along that the precision of modern weapons, and the eagerness to trumpet it as proof of how civilized and humane this country is, has worked against us. It has made very clear to Islamic jihadists that we are less concerned with destroying them than we are with preventing casualties among civilians. Apparently the hope is this exquisite caution will cause the "good" Muslims to realize how nice we Americans are and take our side. But if many of those people are more or less sympathetic to the jihadists, they will take this as nothing but weakness--a sign we are not determined to destroy our sworn enemies. They should be disabused of this idea--dramatically, and soon.
Of course I am not calling for intentional targeting of civilians--that is a war crime. But we should never rule any jihadist target in or near a city off limits just because bombing it might incidentally kill civilians. It is very dangerous for the U.S. to fight these people so half-heartedly, letting them keep control of whole cities. They have even more resources than the jihadists who attacked on 9/11 had to hatch that plot, and we are letting them have a sanctuary as safe as what they enjoyed in Afghanistan fifteen years ago. President Pinprick acts as if there were no urgent need to destroy these jihadists, and his nonchalance and fecklessness are putting Americans at risk of another major terrorist attack on our soil.
