4 ms·
>Russia has hit 4 times as many strategic ISIS targets, than the entire Western coalition, all while supposedly being more interested in hitting moderate Syrian
by knowaveragejoe 11y ago
>Russia has hit 4 times as many strategic ISIS targets, than the entire Western coalition, all while supposedly being more interested in hitting moderate Syrian forces.
Do you have a source for this? The coalition has supposedly flown more than 8,000 strikes(40,000 sorties), hit more than 16,000 targets and spent north of $5bn. I have a very, very tough time believing Russia has quadrupled this effort in the handful of months they've been flying sorties.
- merpnderp 11y agoI'm just going with the only real strategic targets ISIS has, oil equipment. Russia claims to have destroyed 500-1000 oil tankers (that's a huge gap), and the US says 116 tankers. And if the coalition had really hit 16,000 targets, there wouldn't be any ISIS left. They only have ~30,000 soldiers, and maybe a few thousand military vehicles. 16,000 military targets would have ground them into proverbial dust. There would be no command centers, no military vehicles, a huge reduction in combat soldiers. So maybe 16,000 bombs (or leaflet canisters) have been dropped, but they certainly haven't hit 16,000 important targets. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-19/caught-tape-russian-air-force-destroys-dozens-isis-oil-trucks http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-19/caught-tape-russian... http://edition.cnn.com/2014/09/11/world/meast/isis-syria-iraq/ http://edition.cnn.com/2014/09/11/world/meast/isis-syria-ira...
- knowaveragejoe 11y ago> I'm just going with the only real strategic targets ISIS has, oil equipment. This is completely arbitrary nonsense. > And if the coalition had really hit 16,000 targets, there wouldn't be any ISIS left. So is this. This also belies a misunderstanding of both the situation and warfare in general. The key difference between the two parties involved here is that Russian doctrine has exactly zero considerations for collateral damage and civilians. For example, Russian news sources would have you believe one cruise missile "killed 600 terrorists".
- merpnderp 11y agoThis might help clarify why no one thinks the US has been effective against ISIS. Because they haven't. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/11/23/analysts-accuse-centcom-of-covering-up-cooked-isis-intelligence.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/11/23/analysts-ac...
- knowaveragejoe 11y agoThis doesn't convince me that they've been entirely ineffective, but rather makes me believe that those claiming they are completely ineffective don't know what that actually means.
- merpnderp 11y agoWhat's the word for when you call something nonsense and and then don't explain why? And when you point out the "key difference" between the West and Russia, what's your point exactly? If the goal is to not hurt innocents, then the best way to do that would be to go home. The goal is to degrade ISIS's ability to wage war.
- knowaveragejoe 11y agoDo you understand how doctrine works? Degrading ISIS and avoiding civilian casualties aren't mutually exclusive things. My point is that if you think the US strikes have been ineffective, is because you don't know what "effective" looks like. You want to see many bombs drop and big explosions with not thought as to what that's actually accomplishing.
- merpnderp 11y agoI think you've lost sight of the original point. That Russia was degrading ISIS faster than the western coalition.
- knowaveragejoe 11y ago