• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US military pilots complain hands tied in ‘frustrating’ fight against ISIS

Status
Not open for further replies.
If only there were fewer rules in place to prevent bombing civilians.

Yeah, we shouldn't bomb ISIS barbarians for fear of hitting nearby civilians. We should back off and let ISIS rape and behead them.
 
Geneva convention rules require the consideration of civilian casualties. If we care about such things anyway.
 
... They aren't a defacto state, doctor.

A common misconception is that ISIS is an actual state with any sort of substantial territory.

All they really have is a large area in which they conduct operations. The lands they truly control are few and far between.

AOs =\= controlled land

But some people will still take the rhetoric hook, line, and sinker. You just can't stop that.
 
Geneva convention rules require the consideration of civilian casualties. If we care about such things anyway.

And how are the civilians fairing under ISIS occupation?
 
A common misconception is that ISIS is an actual state with any sort of substantial territory.

All they really have is a large area in which they conduct operations. The lands they truly control are few and far between.

AOs =\= controlled land

But some people will still take the rhetoric hook, line, and sinker. You just can't stop that.

They aren't a conventional military force, doesen't mean they don't control large swathes of territory.

There is a massive "border" fence through Iraq now (though its now over ran in many areas).

They control the civilians, in population centers and in rural areas.

The Iraqi military does not function there.

There is a primitive but functional govt. with the relevant functions, including a legal system, medical, emergency services, finance, etc.

Islamism is both a religious and political code.

It may be new, it may be primitive by western standards-but it is defacto a state.
 
U.S. military pilots carrying out the air war against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria are voicing growing discontent over what they say are heavy-handed rules of engagement hindering them from striking targets.

They blame a bureaucracy that does not allow for quick decision-making. One Navy F-18 pilot who has flown missions against ISIS voiced his frustration to Fox News, saying: "There were times I had groups of ISIS fighters in my sights, but couldn't get clearance to engage.”

He added, “They probably killed innocent people and spread evil because of my inability to kill them. It was frustrating."


US military pilots complain hands tied in

Talk about frustrating. The chump in chief puts our forces in harms way and then wont let them kill the enemy. The "JV" team WANTS to die, and I want our military to oblige them.

Nothing substantive is going to happen until Obama is out of the whitehouse-that dog wont hunt.

This kind of thing happens whenever you try to provide rules and guidelines of engagement, rather than putting that responsibility on the pilot. It would happen to any pilot, regardless of who is in charge, assuming rules of engagement are created.
 
"Surrender to the terrorists."

:lamo

Man, the rhetoric you guys get fed.

What is US Conservative going to do after Obama is out of office. He is obsessed with him to the point of lunacy. I can't wait to see.
 
That would be a start. If you want to stop ISIS instead of play Air Force you'll need to ramp up the collateral damage.

Well, I see they are coming out of the woodwork on this one.
 
This kind of thing happens whenever you try to provide rules and guidelines of engagement, rather than putting that responsibility on the pilot. It would happen to any pilot, regardless of who is in charge, assuming rules of engagement are created.

The difference is we are losing to terrorists here, and are led by a POTUS who doesn't want to be there-because actually fighting would mean he was wrong to withdraw, and refer to them as the JV team.
 
What is US Conservative going to do after Obama is out of office. He is obsessed with him to the point of lunacy. I can't wait to see.

After he is out of office, I think like most Americans I will do my best to remove him from my memory. Its been a traumatic experience for most Americans.

It will be a happier time, where Americans are reminded what a real president is-most likely.

ISIS will actually be substantively engaged-but it wont happen until this goon is out. That dog wont hunt.
 
The difference is we are losing to terrorists here, and are led by a POTUS who doesn't want to be there-because actually fighting would mean he was wrong to withdraw, and refer to them as the JV team.

This is the result of his rules of engagement. As the quote said. Any administration, that has a systemic rules of engagement, cannot be written for every possible scenario. It isn't humanly possible. I bet the same thing happened under Busch. It doesn't matter what party you are in, it has to do with the approach you take to the war. Some document, listing out rules to engage, creates what just happened. Not a democratic president, not a republican president, but a president that tries to systematically deal with enemy encounters. The best, is to put those decisions in the hands of the pilots.
 
This is the result of his rules of engagement. As the quote said. Any administration, that has a systemic rules of engagement, cannot be written for every possible scenario. It isn't humanly possible. I bet the same thing happened under Busch. It doesn't matter what party you are in, it has to do with the approach you take to the war. Some document, listing out rules to engage, creates what just happened. Not a democratic president, not a republican president, but a president that tries to systematically deal with enemy encounters. The best, is to put those decisions in the hands of the pilots.

Its rules of engagement by a commander in chief who does not want to fight. Pilots need to circle for an hour for clearance to engage-thats BS. If our CIC can't get more aggressive-while subjecting our pilots to harm he shouldn't be sending them.

We know how to fight, we just aren't doing it.
 
And how are the civilians fairing under ISIS occupation?

That has nothing to do with our obligations. Killing civilians to spare civilians doesn't just lack reason, it violates principles that we're suppose to at least, care about.
 
That would be a start. If you want to stop ISIS instead of play Air Force you'll need to ramp up the collateral damage.


Did you just say that?
 
A
This is the result of his rules of engagement. As the quote said. Any administration, that has a systemic rules of engagement, cannot be written for every possible scenario. It isn't humanly possible. I bet the same thing happened under Busch. It doesn't matter what party you are in, it has to do with the approach you take to the war. Some document, listing out rules to engage, creates what just happened. Not a democratic president, not a republican president, but a president that tries to systematically deal with enemy encounters. The best, is to put those decisions in the hands of the pilots.

And civilian casualties would go through the roof.
 
That has nothing to do with our obligations. Killing civilians to spare civilians doesn't just lack reason, it violates principles that we're suppose to at least, care about.

False. Killing the ISIS barbarians that are slaughtering civilians should be our goal. Minimization of collateral damage should be an operational goal, but it is unavoidable. Sitting back and watching ISIS rape and murder its way across Iraq for fear of collateral damage make no sense at all and isn't appreciated by the civilians you want to keep from harm.
 
False. Killing the ISIS barbarians that are slaughtering civilians should be our goal. Minimization of collateral damage should be an operational goal, but it is unavoidable. Sitting back and watching ISIS rape and murder its way across Iraq for fear of collateral damage make no sense at all and isn't appreciated by the civilians you want to keep from harm.

"Hey guys...we're hear to help...don't mind the pile of burnt bodies from our bombs"....good luck spinning that message.
 
"Hey guys...we're hear to help...don't mind the pile of burnt bodies from our bombs"....good luck spinning that message.

Unbelievable isn't it?
 
U.S. military pilots carrying out the air war against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria are voicing growing discontent over what they say are heavy-handed rules of engagement hindering them from striking targets.

They blame a bureaucracy that does not allow for quick decision-making. One Navy F-18 pilot who has flown missions against ISIS voiced his frustration to Fox News, saying: "There were times I had groups of ISIS fighters in my sights, but couldn't get clearance to engage.”

He added, “They probably killed innocent people and spread evil because of my inability to kill them. It was frustrating."


US military pilots complain hands tied in

Talk about frustrating. The chump in chief puts our forces in harms way and then wont let them kill the enemy. The "JV" team WANTS to die, and I want our military to oblige them.

Nothing substantive is going to happen until Obama is out of the whitehouse-that dog wont hunt.

Pilots have been complaining about overly restrictive rules of engagement since Vietnam. There's nothing new under the sun there.
 
False. Killing the ISIS barbarians that are slaughtering civilians should be our goal. Minimization of collateral damage should be an operational goal, but it is unavoidable. Sitting back and watching ISIS rape and murder its way across Iraq for fear of collateral damage make no sense at all and isn't appreciated by the civilians you want to keep from harm.

Advocating killing civilians to stop the Islamic State is your pipe dream, but it's not going to happen, and the pilots can pout all they wish.
 
"Hey guys...we're hear to help...don't mind the pile of burnt bodies from our bombs"....good luck spinning that message.

"Hey guys, here are the burned bodies of the men who an hour ago were raping and beheading you, we regret that some of you were caught in the blast." Easy sell.

Throughout modern history you can find populations who will readily excuse the collateral damage that happened in the course of their liberation.
 
Nothing in the laws of war requires us to take extreme measures to avoid civilian casualties. Only reasonable care is required. An enemy does not gain a safe haven for himself by sheltering among civilians. Doing that is itself a war crime, and the enemy bears full responsibility for any civilians killed as a result.

And I think "have a process to verify a target before dropping a bomb" is reasonable, don't you?
 
Advocating killing civilians to stop the Islamic State is your pipe dream, but it's not going to happen, and the pilots can pout all they wish.

I'm not advocating killing civilians. Civilians are going to die at the hands of ISIS, it is a matter of whether killing ISIS will allow more civilians to live versus letting ISIS run amok.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom