How successful has the US and it's NATO allies been in their bombing campaign against ISIS? Are they having an effect? Is Russia doing a better job? Pic-semi-not-related.
America drops its bombs on abandoned vehicles and empty buildings and if they can't find those, they'll just warn ISIS to get off the premises before blowing one up.
Russia on the other hand bombs the shit out ISIS, albeit at the cost of civilian lives, which is obvious because ISIS hides among the civilians.
Russia is using strategic bombers carpet bombing civilians from altitude using dumb weapons. They use WP on cities that's why there are civilian casualties, a general lack of precision. They simply have no real supply of smart weapons.
Woops, hit a couple more hospitals.
Better point our fingers at slavaboos
US A-10s bombed city of Aleppo on Wednesday, shifted blame onto Moscow – Russian military https://www.rt.com/news/332109-russian-jets-isis-warlords/
It's a grade AAA clusterfuck. Even Henry Kissenger remarked that the current situation is nothing less than a total collapse of the middle east. See his WSJ article.
Anyway, yes the airstrikes on ISIS are having a moderate effect. American airstrikes on Assad aren't doing much meanwhile Russian airstrikes on ISIS is doing a lot since it's done in tandem with Assad's forces.
The thing is, airstrikes don't win wars. Boots on the ground do. And right now, the boots on the ground are Assad against ISIS, KSA and whatever remains of the FSA.
ISIS is still rampaging around.
Assad's forces are still holding on, and the FSA seems to be on their last legs.
The Russians are bombing the shit out of anyone who is against Assad, and forging a new alliance in the middle East. Even got Iraq on board when, if Obama hadn't pulled out prematurely, was supposed to be our ally. Iran is on the verge of becoming even more of a regional power than they already are. The Saudis and Jordanians are shitting bricks.
Basically yeah, the entire middle East is collapsing. 10 years ago you had Iraq and Afghanistan controlled by the US, and then all the countries like Syria and Egypt and Libya under dictators who had to pussy foot around and keep the peace internationally out of fear of ass kicking. Now you have all these countries unstable and in civil war.
Russian's aren't stupid. They're not going to shoot everything that comes in, they might have said that, but it was only to keep turks at bay. Also, I don't think they will engage a target unless they feel that their aircraft or personnel are in danger, or, if they know for sure its a turk lol
Iraq was on board a year ago when ISIS was right outside Baghdad. Who repelled them? Shite militas, funded by Tehran. Iraq's government, while incompetent, didn't want to get slaughtered or tortured to death. They cut a deal with their neighbors and will survive.
Russia then walked in and sealed it. There's now zero reason for Iraq to cooperate with the US when Iran, Syria and Russia are doing all the heavy lifting.
In all fairness though, better Russia than us. A third US-Iraqi war would be totally irresponsible to start and still would not accomplish anything.
So to clarify, Russia has clear strategy, assets on the ground, feasible goals and objective results. Neither of which US coalition has since September 2014.
Thank you for clearing that out
Well then, where are the pics? If they were able to identify the planes by sight, where are the pics of the A-10 over Aleppo? The A-10 isn't that fast so it would be easy to take pics or videos showcasing the attack or arrival of the plane.
The House of Saud is totally, utterly fucked. Aside from being surrounded by failed states, their decision to not cut production caused them to sever all relations with the US while pissing off Russia. Meanwhile, they have an issue with successorship (they are a monarchy) and a potential civil war brewing between their own factions (some of which have pro ISIS leanings).
Then there's Yemen, which should it fall to Iranian-backed rebels will cut them out of the world oil market entirely and destroy their regime. The US will readily stand by and watch it happen because nobody wants to sent boots in, and ultimately US oil companies benefit. This is especially true when last week king nigger unveiled his plan to fund high-speed rail through a $10 oil import tax.
Their regime won't survive ten years, and will likely be gone in five.
Also, it's worth remembering that while Iran is full of sandniggers they have at least some domestic industries. For example, Iran makes all their own food, guns and ammo. Saudi Arabia does not. Iran even builds their own trains and has a functional railroad network. Saudi Arabia does not.
Basically Iran isn't dependent on foreigners to keep the country running.
The OP asked about the effectiveness of bombing campaigns against ISIS. Russia's campaign against ISIS is basically nonexistant. They are achieving their goal of propping up the Syrian Government quite well, but that wasn't the question asked. Even in the map you posted, you can see the bulk of the Syrian gains were made against non-ISIS rebels.
The problem is that if the US keeps significant military force in Iraq and Afghanistan, ISIS never happens, or at least never becomes the power they are today. Seriously, a few thousand US troops and aircraft and tanks would have put a quick halt to the ISIS invasion of Iraq.
And if the west got their heads out of their asses and realized that military dictators like Assad or ghaddafi are better for world stability than getting rid of them and letting jihadist take over.
>ISIS has lost the capability to carry out large operations.
Still enough capability to deploy suicide bombers into Baghdad. Even after a decade of it, it fucks people's routines up and is very effective in terrorizing them.
Keeping troops in the middle east indefinitely isn't a solution. However, Obama should not have tried to topple all the dictators since it set in motion a chain of events that has led to the destruction of the entire region. Which, in turn, means that the lack of an American presence is all the more bad for US interests.
why not? People always just dismiss staying there as "omg no, don't be silly, you can't just STAY there, you have to withdraw eventually"
No you don't. The US still has military bases in Germany, Italy, Japan and Korea. Today. In some cases, over 70 years after the war.
Because what would have happened if after the US beat Germany and just up and left? It would have fallen into chaos. Either the soviets would have taken it over, or it would have seen a resurgence in resistance and nazi-sympathizing forces. So, we stayed there. And we built military bases. And we're still there to this day.
Seriously, why couldn't the US just turn Iraq and Afghanistan into permanent US military bases? Keep a relatively small presence there, but enough that it keeps the country under control. Giving up Iraq to ISIS and leaving the fledgling Iraqi military to defend the country is nothing short of a death sentence for the Iraqis.
>Giving up Iraq to ISIS and leaving the fledgling Iraqi military to defend the country is nothing short of a death sentence for the Iraqis.
And so much nonsense fuels conspiracy theories.
please, do share what conspiracy theory you're talking about.
It's a fact that the Iraqi army was shit. It's a fact that the US pulled out. It's a fact that ISIS then invaded and the Iraqi army got BTFO.
Because it's expensive, that's why. We keep troops in Germany because they don't do anything other than guard nukes. Ground troops in the middle east actually have to fight, and that means more money has to be spent.
Also, we didn't leave Germany because they served a purpose. They were the front line against Communism which posed a direct threat to the rest of western Europe and the US. What do we gain from Iraq or Afghanistan? Nothing. Of course, Russia gains something since they border many of those countries and don't want instability coming home. Hence why they're plowing cash into helping Assad and Iran.
Sure, it might be more expensive for now. But eventually it will stabilize, the violence will die down, the Iraqi army will be able to take over more work, etc.
And what does it gain? It holds two large countries stable in the most unstable region of the world. It scares other dictators like Qaddafi and Assad into pussy-footing around NATO. It keeps Russia from taking back influence in that region like they used to have. It would help keep Iran calm because they have americans next door. It would keep the peace between the Saudis/Jordanians and the Iranians.
It would basically stabilize the whole region. The two worst things that happened to the middle east in the past years have been the Arab Spring and the US withdrawal.
this. I don't think ISIS is some "muh ebil zionist conspiracy" created by the CIA and the Mossad. But the US' strategic decisions in the middle east directly led to the success of ISIS.
Saudi basically spent their money on stupid shit, maintained a tribal mentality, and pissed away their cash as hard an fast as possible, and still have a surplus but no way to defend it.
Their only potential ally in the region was israle but they chose to blame and attack them instead getting with the times.
>But eventually it will stabilize
No, it won't. At least, it won't happen without trillions of dollars in infrastructure development. Another Marshal Plan. Which is expensive, and takes decades to fully implement. And due to the sectarian nature of the middle east's conflicts, all the hate between sunnis and shias will still be there.
>And what does it gain? It holds two large countries stable in the most unstable region of the world. It scares other dictators like Qaddafi and Assad into pussy-footing around NATO. It keeps Russia from taking back influence in that region like they used to have. It would help keep Iran calm because they have americans next door. It would keep the peace between the Saudis/Jordanians and the Iranians.
These are the same arguments used to keep US troops in Vietnam.
>These are the same arguments used to keep US troops in Vietnam.
A damn good arguement.
The North Vietnamese came to the peace table because they were losing. They only attacked after America left, because they COULD NOT win with america there.
If we stayed in Vietnam as a tripwire force, just like Korea, south Vietnam would exist to this day, and just like Korea, would be a bastion of economic success.
Think if we had china from SK, japan, AND Vietnam.
Everyone who fights against Assad is a salafi jihadist or their affiliate. ISIL, Nusra, Ahrar Al-Sham, Islamic Front - they're all fourth and fifth generation of Al Qaeda. Those are different flavors of the same shit. Which leads us to another reason why Russia succeeds in Syria while America and its sidekicks fail: western governments have no experience dealing with sunni insurgency, they lack basic education on the region and comperehension of its entities, they are completely divorced from reality on the ground.
And you'd still have a north Vietnam sitting about doing a north Korea impression, instead you have united country with a McDonald's in its capital. I'd rather have one united crap, but not ttobcrap country than what you have in Korea.
Stop thinking in the short term.
Thing is keeping the troops in Iraq when the stupid fucking Iraqi's refused to renew legal protection for US troops is suicide.
Sandniggers would have been able to drag US personnel before their farce of a court system for whatever bullshit reason they want.
What would have mattered is finding a way to prevent that specific bill from passing.
ISIS is contained. How many times does this need to be repeated?
As for russia, 200% of their bombs have landed directly on children, on direct orders from putin.
Just watch CNN, it's all explained in a way that even a dummy like you can understand.
This is painfully untrue. If we had stayed as a 'tripwire' force the bloodletting would have just kept on until we did decide to leave. Your plan is basically what was intended from day 1.
Are you retarded? North Vietnam's number one strategic objective was to get America to leave. Nobody had any illusions what the peace talks actually were, save for retards like yourself.
>How many civilians have died as a direct result of russian bombing. Its like 150 or something isnt it?
150,000,000 people have died since putin invaded syria.
Seriously kids, just watch the news.
About 1,380 killed only by russian bombs. If you count those who was killed by russians not directly, by supporting regime with weapon, from AK's to tanks, it will be tens of thousands. Also russians killed about 1,233 of FSA soldiers.