Coalition airstrikes against ISIS have killed half of their top command and 6,000 fighters. - Polidicks

[QUOTE]Washington (CNN)The coalition fighting ISIS has killed more than 6,000 fighters including half of the top command of the terror group, U.S. diplomatic officials said Thursday. The number of fighters killed has not been publicly discussed before but was disclosed by the U.S. ambassador to Iraq who told Al Arabiya television earlier in the day that an estimated 6,000 fighters have been killed, saying it was having an "devastating" impact on ISIS. The estimated calculated by U.S. Central Command finds more than 6,000 ISIS fighters have killed in Iraq and Syria by coalition airstrikes, according to a US military official. CENTCOM has kept a running estimate of fighters killed, but has not made it public. [/QUOTE] [url]http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/22/politics/us-officials-say-6000-isis-fighters-killed-in-battles/index.html[/url]

Well, at least its working, somewhat.

i'm sure most of those "coalition" airstrikes were done by the US military still, nice to read results on the hell-fire we're dropping on them

On the bright side for isil a bunch of them are getting promotion to top commander now

[QUOTE=Hat-Wearing Man;46988462]On the bright side for isil a bunch of them are getting promotion to top commander now[/QUOTE] "I have some good news and bad news. Bad news is Mahmoud is gone, I know, I know it's terrible. Good news is though we have a new opening for a cell leader, any takers?"

CENTCOM is the only real source on this? I'm not inclined to take their numbers as fact. They have a clear vested interest in overcounting "enemy combatant" deaths and underreporting civilian casualties. Plus, it's virtually impossible to do proper BDA and accurate documenting of casualties through air surveillance alone. The problem we've had with Syria this entire time is a critical lack of credible, firsthand intelligence on the ground. We all remember the bullshit body counts that were published during the Vietnam War, when a dozen VC were reported killed every time somebody blindly fired into the jungle.

How much is this costing us, though? Airstrikes are an extremely expensive way to wage war, and wars like this are as much economic as they are military.

[QUOTE=gman003-main;46988817]How much is this costing us, though? Airstrikes are an extremely expensive way to wage war, and wars like this are as much economic as they are military.[/QUOTE] No they're not. Paying $110,000* to bomb an artillery position while your forces take no damage is much cheaper then sending 20 guys and only 15 return. You must factor in the cost of life. Sitting in a aircraft or controlling a drone cuts the possibility of getting killed out almost entirely.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;46988496]CENTCOM is the only real source on this? I'm not inclined to take their numbers as fact. They have a clear vested interest in overcounting "enemy combatant" deaths and underreporting civilian casualties. Plus, it's virtually impossible to do proper BDA and accurate documenting of casualties through air surveillance alone. The problem we've had with Syria this entire time is a critical lack of credible, firsthand intelligence on the ground. We all remember the bullshit body counts that were published during the Vietnam War, when a dozen VC were reported killed every time somebody blindly fired into the jungle.[/QUOTE] Lol nobody remembers Vietnam. Nobody even remembers 2003.

[QUOTE=LoganIsAwesome;46988844]No they're not. Paying $5,000 to bomb an artillery position while your forces take no damage is much cheaper then sending 20 guys and only 15 return. You must factor in the cost of life. Sitting in a aircraft or controlling a drone cuts the possibility of getting killed out almost entirely.[/QUOTE] A hellfire missile costs $110,000.

[QUOTE=OvB;46988911]A hellfire missile costs $110,000.[/QUOTE] Is that the price of life? No.

[QUOTE=LoganIsAwesome;46988917]Is that the price of life? No.[/QUOTE] No, it is, depending on the estimate, about 25-50% more than the cost it takes to produce a US army infantryman. Though you'd likely spend several times that for medical care of injured soldiers. I get what you mean, of course, just throwing that out there :D

[QUOTE=LoganIsAwesome;46988844]No they're not. Paying $110,000* to bomb an artillery position while your forces take no damage is much cheaper then sending 20 guys and only 15 return. You must factor in the cost of life. Sitting in a aircraft or controlling a drone cuts the possibility of getting killed out almost entirely.[/QUOTE] Okay, but which is cheaper: Dropping a $110,000 smart bomb (plus jet fuel costs and aircraft maintenance) Firing a barrage of M795 artillery shells (~$10K each, plus wear on artillery and transport) Rolling in a squad of tanks and APCs (trivial fuel+ammo costs, likely some repairs needed) Also, even with aircraft, you need people on the ground to spot targets and confirm effect. So there's a risk of death even then. And just operating an aircraft is quite likely to kill someone - in WW2, more pilots died of accidents than in combat. The odds are way lower today, but we still lose a lot of aircraft to accidents. With multi-million-dollar aircraft, that's a good way to lose a lot of money fast, even if the pilot survives.

Its a good thing the financial cost isn't the only thing thats factored in then. If we were losing soldiers in Syria then American support would evaporate. Nevermind that each dead American is a propaganda boon for ISIS. This way they dont have to worry about the public retracting support and we dont give ISIS propaganda tools.

[QUOTE=Kyle902;46989063]Its a good thing the financial cost isn't the only thing thats factored in then. If we were losing soldiers in Syria then American support would evaporate. Nevermind that each dead American is a propaganda boon for ISIS. This way they dont have to worry about the public retracting support and we dont give ISIS propaganda tools.[/QUOTE] It must be frustrating as hell for them that the US and the EU are mainly sticking to covert military action. Like, the whole ATV + Sniper thing is great. So the only actual force ISIS comes up against are the local forces. And while they're bloody battles, they're likely not exactly the glorious affairs they expected to be martyring themselves against.

I simply don't believe those numbers. I wonder if they are counting kills like they do for drone strikes. Fighting age man +1 kill, Female no kill.

$110,000 for a bomb? there's people in jail that could do it with change from a fiver

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;46988496]We all remember the bullshit body counts that were published during the Vietnam War, when a dozen VC were reported killed every time somebody blindly fired into the jungle.[/QUOTE] it's a good thing we have statistics and satellite imagery and smart people looking at all of it to give vague estimations, instead of relying on ground troopers to relay big fish stories of their time in a dense jungle not to say the source isn't coming up with shit, but looking back at 45 years gone american ego stroking from an already blunt-headed escapade isn't really worth anything

How many civilians?

So their head leader dude is probably living in one of saddam's old palaces. Could we theoretically just blow the entire thing up? Do we really give a shit about the surrounding area? I mean the building is probably stocked full of ISIS insurgents.

feel the BRRRT [video=youtube;gKIRkYukcjU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKIRkYukcjU[/video]

[QUOTE=SonicHitman;46988420]i'm sure most of those "coalition" airstrikes were done by the US military[/QUOTE] is that some kind of problem

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;46988496]Plus, it's virtually impossible to do proper BDA and accurate documenting of casualties through air surveillance alone. The problem we've had with Syria this entire time is a critical lack of credible, firsthand intelligence on the ground..[/QUOTE] Well, are you considering that we have the capability of watching a target (for example a cluster of buildings) 24/7 and monitoring the number of pax that enter, stay, and leave the target at any given time? It's not like we take one look at it, engage, and then return later for another snap of the area just for BDA. Not just that but we have the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reporting BOTH epax and civilians killed during the strikes, at least in the more populated areas. So saying it's virtually impossible to do proper BDA using air assets is a bit of a flaky statement, let alone lacking firsthand intelligence on the ground. Not trying to sound like an ass! I'm just throwing in my two cents.

[QUOTE=LoganIsAwesome;46988844]No they're not. Paying $110,000* to bomb an artillery position while your forces take no damage is much cheaper then sending 20 guys and only 15 return. You must factor in the cost of life. Sitting in a aircraft or controlling a drone cuts the possibility of getting killed out almost entirely.[/QUOTE] Paying $110,000 to bomb an artillery position, wipe it out, then just a day later see it get reestablished again because you can't win a damn war through airstrikes.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;46990200]Paying $110,000 to bomb an artillery position, wipe it out, then just a day later see it get reestablished again because you can't win a damn war through airstrikes.[/QUOTE] Yes but the assets isis control are finite. They only have so many artillery pieces, and no ability to manufacture more. Re-establishing one position means the loss of said assets in another area. Besides, the Kurdish, and the Iraqi forces are on the ground. The air strikes are support to those whom are fighting on the ground.

[QUOTE=LoganIsAwesome;46988917]Is that the price of life? No.[/QUOTE] It's a lot lower than 110,000. Each airstrike isn't just going to take out one person. What they're not telling you is that a lot of these airstrikes are taking out a bunch of innocent civilians who happened to be in the wrong general area at the wrong time, thereby creating hundreds more recruits for ISIS.

[QUOTE=gman003-main;46989020]Okay, but which is cheaper: [B]Dropping a $110,000 smart bomb (plus jet fuel costs and aircraft maintenance) Firing a barrage of M795 artillery shells (~$10K each, plus wear on artillery and transport) Rolling in a squad of tanks and APCs (trivial fuel+ammo costs, likely some repairs needed)[/B] Also, even with aircraft, you need people on the ground to spot targets and confirm effect. So there's a risk of death even then. And just operating an aircraft is quite likely to kill someone - in WW2, more pilots died of accidents than in combat. The odds are way lower today, but we still lose a lot of aircraft to accidents. With multi-million-dollar aircraft, that's a good way to lose a lot of money fast, even if the pilot survives.[/QUOTE] I want to point out the "triviality" fallacy here. Where did the Tanks and APCs come from? How are they being mantained? Are they active and on-station for all operations? How are they cleared? How many men does it take to support them? How are they replaced if they are damaged? How are the crewmen replaced if they are damaged? Here, let's do some word wizardry~ Dropping a bomb (plus some [B]trivial[/B] jet expenses) Firing the HIGHEST COST, STATE OF THE ART ARTILLERY ON THE PLANET (plus about 60,000$ per year per crewman salary for a crew of 5) Sending well over a dozen soldiers from an on-site base supplied by a WORLD WIDE NETWORK OF LOGISTICS (plus a few million in maintaining the world's most robust navy to guarantee logistical safety) HMMM. Well I know how I'll take my plate of war any day. Don't even get me started on "accidents" and "ground infantry." The two are practically a synecdoche. It would make just as much sense if you said "The U.S. should deploy more accidents."

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;46990200]Paying $110,000 to bomb an artillery position, wipe it out, then just a day later see it get reestablished again because you can't win a damn war through airstrikes.[/QUOTE] We are not winning the war just from airstrikes, you have several actual ground armies paticipating. Having an enemy destroy your top command with literal impunity isn't very good position to be in

[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;46990876]I want to point out the "triviality" fallacy here. Where did the Tanks and APCs come from? How are they being mantained? Are they active and on-station for all operations? How are they cleared? How many men does it take to support them? How are they replaced if they are damaged? How are the crewmen replaced if they are damaged? Here, let's do some word wizardry~ Dropping a bomb (plus some [B]trivial[/B] jet expenses) Firing the HIGHEST COST, STATE OF THE ART ARTILLERY ON THE PLANET (plus about 60,000$ per year per crewman salary for a crew of 5) Sending well over a dozen soldiers from an on-site base supplied by a WORLD WIDE NETWORK OF LOGISTICS (plus a few million in maintaining the world's most robust navy to guarantee logistical safety) HMMM. Well I know how I'll take my plate of war any day. Don't even get me started on "accidents" and "ground infantry." The two are practically a synecdoche. It would make just as much sense if you said "The U.S. should deploy more accidents."[/QUOTE] Yes, tanks are expensive to keep operational. But they're still way cheaper than jets, and much harder to accidentally destroy (we've managed it, a few times, but armcav do a lot better than pilots at not breaking expensive things, if only by virtue of not having nearly as many expensive things). I basically just said "yes, all three of these have operational costs". Compared to artillery and jets, yes, tanks have lower operational costs. Fueling a half-dozen Abrams will cost far less than a pair of F-16s and whatever tanker support they need. Unless they're firing SABOT for some retarded reason, they're also not going to hit $100K in ammunition costs. And even if ISIS manages to down one (or we take one out with friendly-fire, as has happened before), we're only out $8M, not $18M. Yes, it will expose our people to more risk. But it also will reduce the collateral damage - airstrikes are notoriously bad at targeting combatants only, no civilians. The more civilians we kill, the more recruits ISIS gets, prolonging the war. [b]And ISIS doesn't win this war by defeating us in battle. They win this war by surviving everything we throw at them until we run out of money.[/b] Same way every war since Korea has worked. That's why my #1 concern with this war is "how much are we spending?", followed by "how many civilians are we killing?".