The coalition united in bombing ISIS, is becoming increasingly reliant on the US to do the job they
86 replies, posted
[QUOTE]Reuters) - As U.S. fighter jets pound Islamic State targets in Syria, Washington's coalition allies appear increasingly absent from the air war.
Although President Barack Obama's administration announced the Syrian air strikes three months ago as a joint campaign by Washington and its Arab allies, nearly 97 percent of the strikes in December have been carried out by the United States alone, according to U.S. military data provided to Reuters.
The data shows that U.S. allies have carried out just two air strikes in Syria in the first half of December, compared with 62 by the United States. [/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/17/us-mideast-crisis-syria-strikes-exclusiv-idUSKBN0JV2JB20141217[/url]
Sounds about right. You can see people from random ass countries saying WE NEED BOOTS ON THE GROUND in a lot of the ISIS news threads on fp. Worst thing is those boots are probably american.
[QUOTE=KommradKommisar;46744261]Sounds about right. You can see people from random ass countries saying WE NEED BOOTS ON THE GROUND in a lot of the ISIS news threads on fp. Worst thing is those boots are probably american.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]The drop in air strikes by coalition partners in Syria underscores the contrast with the campaign in Iraq.
Across the border, the United States has allies with highly trained and equipped air forces, including Britain, France, Canada and Australia. They see the air campaign in Iraq on far more solid legal ground, since they are there at the invitation of Baghdad.
Syria, on the other hand, is considered off-limits by many allies, particularly those in Europe, because of the Syrian government's public opposition to the U.S.-led air strikes.
"It's legal issues. It's concerns that our European partners and others have about where Syria is going," one U.S. official said. "So the reality is, even though we say the problem knows no border, by definition there's a distinction."
The United States intensified its campaign in Syria in October, carrying out 233 strikes, as the battle over the Kurdish border town of Kobani became a focal point. It carried out another 146 in November.
In total, the United States carried out 488 air strikes in Syria through Dec. 15, according to U.S. military data.[/QUOTE]
This article only talks about allies doing bombing raids in Syria, and the allies in the coalition are middle-eastern, not European. We don't have many middle-eastern users here on Facepunch.
[QUOTE=KommradKommisar;46744261]Sounds about right. You can see people from random ass countries saying WE NEED BOOTS ON THE GROUND in a lot of the ISIS news threads on fp. Worst thing is those boots are probably american.[/QUOTE]
What I think is a tad funny is that recently ISIS attempted to overrun a base in which US advisers were operating out of to help coordinate the Iraqi Army and such. Definately seems like something ISIS has been wanting right? To kill American Soldiers and embarrass the US with their great caliphate? Iraq Army soldiers, 100 US advisers, and some air support ended up repelling the attack easily but also forced the ISIS attackers 10 KM away from where they were attacking out of, if the US were to actually send a sizable force then ISIS would start going back to it's insurgency roots. Double edge sword honestly the US troops would be a big help to the Iraqis and many of the regional tribes in the area but it would make ISIS start planting IEDs everywhere and doing a shitton more VBIEDS.
War costs money, a lot of it.
[editline]18th December 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=RG4ORDR;46745422]What I think is a tad funny is that recently ISIS attempted to overrun a base in which US advisers were operating out of to help coordinate the Iraqi Army and such. Definately seems like something ISIS has been wanting right? To kill American Soldiers and embarrass the US with their great caliphate? Iraq Army soldiers, 100 US advisers, and some air support ended up repelling the attack easily but also forced the ISIS attackers 10 KM away from where they were attacking out of, if the US were to actually send a sizable force then ISIS would start going back to it's insurgency roots. Double edge sword honestly the US troops would be a big help to the Iraqis and many of the regional tribes in the area but it would make ISIS start planting IEDs everywhere and doing a shitton more VBIEDS.[/QUOTE]
So they go back to their insurgency roots, then what?
American presence leaves and they come back again? Does this not sound familiar to 2011? Just a worthless cycle, America can't and shouldn't micromanage a country across the globe with little in common. This isn't some moralistic crusade that the American people want its just some geopolitical power play to keep Iraq in American influence rather than fall into a 3rd party. Which is stupid anyway because Iraq is already leaning quite heavily to being Iran's buddy not America's that's for sure. The moralist "We gotta do somethin!" crusade is parroted on TV and news to the public but really I doubt anyone in the administration gives zero fucks about Iraqi lives.
ISIS was created out of American meddling, it isn't gonna be destroyed through American meddling.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;46745225]We don't have many middle-eastern users here on Facepunch.[/QUOTE]
I'm p. sure thats not true
Well of course they're tapering off.
We're literally NATO. France wants to go to Mali? American C130s. They want to bomb Libya? Oh hey our fucking aircraft Carriers.
[editline]18th December 2014[/editline]
Europeans have actually abused the crap out of American Military and Economic power at several key points in history.
[QUOTE=Swilly;46747002]Well of course they're tapering off.
We're literally NATO. France wants to go to Mali? American C130s. They want to bomb Libya? Oh hey our fucking aircraft Carriers.
[editline]18th December 2014[/editline]
Europeans have actually abused the crap out of American Military and Economic power at several key points in history.[/QUOTE]
It's because no other military in the world even comes close to our logistic abilities.
[QUOTE=Swilly;46747002]Well of course they're tapering off.
We're literally NATO. France wants to go to Mali? American C130s. They want to bomb Libya? Oh hey our fucking aircraft Carriers.
[editline]18th December 2014[/editline]
Europeans have actually abused the crap out of American Military and Economic power at several key points in history.[/QUOTE]
Its an alliance, people use other peoples services that they aren't good at. France was able to kick ass on the ground in Mali but they weren't able to get there and the US has extremely good logistics. It makes perfect sense to utilize that strength.
As for Libya, sure the US did a lot of the bombing but which countries actually enforced the no fly zone? Which countries provided airbases and air to air refuelling capabilities?
At the end of the day NATO is an alliance which allows all the nations involved to project a massive amount of power anywhere in the world. It can only do this by combining forces together utilizing each ones strengths and offsetting their weaknesses against other partners.
[editline]19th December 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sir_takeslot;46747029]It's because no other military in the world even comes close to our logistic abilities.[/QUOTE]
Not to mention you guys have a navy that has fleets which swamp a large deal of other countries on their own...
[QUOTE=Jsm;46747165]Its an alliance, people use other peoples services that they aren't good at. France was able to kick ass on the ground in Mali but they weren't able to get there and the US has extremely good logistics. It makes perfect sense to utilize that strength.
As for Libya, sure the US did a lot of the bombing but which countries actually enforced the no fly zone? Which countries provided airbases and air to air refuelling capabilities?
At the end of the day NATO is an alliance which allows all the nations involved to project a massive amount of power anywhere in the world. It can only do this by combining forces together utilizing each ones strengths and offsetting their weaknesses against other partners.
.[/QUOTE]
I'd be fine with the Alliance idea, if we weren't footing the bill for everything, to the point that if we backed out almost every European nation who was part of NATO would become incredibly crippled and unable to even fuel their own forces to the front lines.
When the U.S. does something alone. "STOP TRYING TO POLICE THE WORLD"
When the U.S. tries to work in a coalition "U.S. PLEASE DO EVERYTHING"
Usually how that works, Find it funny Iran is bombing ISIS independantly of the US, and China is now considering it.
Smart on the other countries' parts. Even assume the operations were split 50/50 U.S./Britain. I'm pretty sure Britain's seen how the outcome of getting dug into Middle Eastern affairs has economically impacted the U.S. Becoming attached to those affairs to a larger degree would imply that if the situation escalates that they would be equally prepared to put boots on the ground with the U.S.
I imagine Britain et. al. want to avoid that kind of commitment due to the potential economic impact, so they decided not to invest heavily in those air strike operations.
[QUOTE=WitheredGryphon;46748426]Smart on the other countries' parts. Even assume the operations were split 50/50 U.S./Britain. I'm pretty sure Britain's seen how the outcome of getting dug into Middle Eastern affairs has economically impacted the U.S. Becoming attached to those affairs to a larger degree would imply that if the situation escalates that they would be equally prepared to put boots on the ground with the U.S.
I imagine Britain et. al. want to avoid that kind of commitment due to the potential economic impact, so they decided not to invest heavily in those air strike operations.[/QUOTE]
No, the US is doing all the work because our capabilities are drastically better than everybody else's and almost all of Europe has cut their defense spending to a pittance because they know the US will protect them if anything bad happens. I sigh when I read Internet people arguing about how we should "bomb those ISIS fucks" or "destroy the caliphate ASAP" because I [I]know[/I] who's going to have to do all the bombing and who's going to have to send the lion's share of soldiers.
Well the US does have the excessive money and funds to do it (and wishes to do it). Can't blame us for just letting America do what it wants to do.
[QUOTE=Aman;46745427]War costs money, a lot of it.
[editline]18th December 2014[/editline]
So they go back to their insurgency roots, then what?
American presence leaves and they come back again? Does this not sound familiar to 2011? Just a worthless cycle, America can't and shouldn't micromanage a country across the globe with little in common. This isn't some moralistic crusade that the American people want its just some geopolitical power play to keep Iraq in American influence rather than fall into a 3rd party. Which is stupid anyway because Iraq is already leaning quite heavily to being Iran's buddy not America's that's for sure. The moralist "We gotta do somethin!" crusade is parroted on TV and news to the public but really I doubt anyone in the administration gives zero fucks about Iraqi lives.
ISIS was created out of American meddling, it isn't gonna be destroyed through American meddling.[/QUOTE]
How the hell was ISIS created from American meddeling?
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;46748555]How the hell was ISIS created from American meddeling?[/QUOTE]
By removing Saddam`s state.
In 20 years on Facepunch, some Americans are going to say "America defeated ISIS" and Europeans are going to say, "Hey, it's WE defeated ISIS! We played a MAJOR part!!!"
[QUOTE=Aman;46748607]By removing Saddam`s state.[/QUOTE]
In that the war in Iraq led to Wikileaks led to the Arab Spring led to the unification of radicals in Syria led to the formation of ISIS, sure. That's still a tenuous connection. The underlying conditions that led to the formation and success of ISIS are ongoing political and ethnic conflicts that US intervention in Iraq didn't cause.
The U.S. is the one with the most fucking firepower right? So it's only logical to assume they do most of the fucking job their entire governmental structure is based around to doing, which is providing safety through military fucking superiority.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;46749008]In 20 years on Facepunch, some Americans are going to say "America defeated ISIS" and Europeans are going to say, "Hey, it's WE defeated ISIS! We played a MAJOR part!!!"[/QUOTE]
I'll laugh the day that we fully pull out of Europe.
[QUOTE=KommradKommisar;46744261]Sounds about right. You can see people from random ass countries saying WE NEED BOOTS ON THE GROUND in a lot of the ISIS news threads on fp. Worst thing is those boots are probably american.[/QUOTE]
I'm one of the people who support boots on the ground (but with the Iraqi army still taking the lead, with the coalition functioning more as a backup), and I'm also with the stance, that if we're going to send soldiers in, they're not just going to be American; if you're part of this coalition, you should contribute to the same thing as everyone else.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;46749008]In 20 years on Facepunch, some Americans are going to say "America defeated ISIS" and Europeans are going to say, "Hey, it's WE defeated ISIS! We played a MAJOR part!!!"[/QUOTE]
So like reversed World War II
[QUOTE=proch;46750135]So like reversed World War II[/QUOTE]
What? Every country in that war contributed significantly.
[QUOTE=Lijitsu;46750236]What? Every country in that war contributed significantly.[/QUOTE]
Especially Poland!
Americans spend a lot of money on defence and talk about how necessary it is all the time. If other involved countries aren't pulling their weight, that's one thing, but it makes sense for the country spending the most on the military to be doing a lot of military stuff.
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;46748555]How the hell was ISIS created from American meddeling?[/QUOTE]
ISIS started off as the Islamic State of Iraq (which itself was AQ In Iraq) which started to fight an insurgency against the "occupying" force of Iraq. If the coalition hadn't toppled Saddam you could argue that right now ISIS wouldn't exist.
Of course, if Saddam hadn't been toppled god knows what state the middle east would be in right now.
[QUOTE=Jsm;46750629]ISIS started off as the Islamic State of Iraq (which itself was AQ In Iraq) which started to fight an insurgency against the "occupying" force of Iraq. If the coalition hadn't toppled Saddam you could argue that right now ISIS wouldn't exist.
Of course, if Saddam hadn't been toppled god knows what state the middle east would be in right now.[/QUOTE]
Its origins where still pre occupation by years. Its a huge stretch to blame the US for the current situation. People also temd to forget Saddam was every bit as brutal as ISIS.
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;46751252]Its origins where still pre occupation by years. Its a huge stretch to blame the US for the current situation. People also temd to forget Saddam was every bit as brutal as ISIS.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://civilliberty.about.com/od/internationalhumanrights/p/saddam_hussein.htm[/url]
To be fair the USA does have the most experience in bombing the middle east.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.