Today brings news that American Apache attack helicopters attacked ISIS positions in the town of al Baghdadi in Iraq. This is the town that adjacent to the air base housing US and Iraqi troop which was attacked yesterday. Al Baghdadi was captured by ISIS two days ago in a significant victory for the terrorists.
Until now, American helicopters have not been used against ISIS in attacks. The helicopters are much more vulnerable to attack from the ground than the fighters and bombers that have been used previously. This move represents a major step up in the American air campaign against ISIS. Until now, it was thought to be too risky for American troops to fly helicopter missions against ISIS for fear that the copters might be shot down.
So president Obama has raised the level of American involvement in the fight against ISIS once again. Sadly, he did this in response to a major success by ISIS that threatened hundreds of American troops at the airbase. This is a moronic way to set military policy. It is reminiscent of the "escalations" the president Johnson and his geniuses used in the Vietnam to up the troop levels slowly to try to reach just the right point where America had enough troops to defeat the North Vietnamese, but not too many to appear to use excess force. It was a failure in the 1960s when the liberal academics around Johnson came up with the plan, and it will likely fail again now when the liberal fools around Obama push it as a solution.
Supposedly, the one thing that came out of the Vietnam War of a positive nature for the American military was the doctrine of using overwhelming force. The USA has much more military power than any adversary; the doctrine says that America will make full use of that power to quickly destroy and defeat any opponent. That will prevent long drawn-out wars with heavy casualties. During the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban, America has been fighting terrorists rather than an opposing army, but ISIS has organized itself in Iraq and Syria as an army. If the USA is going to fight that army, then the lessons of Vietnam ought to be considered. Gradual increases in the power of attacks allow the opponent (in this case ISIS) to adjust tactics and prevent defeat while inflicting continuing casualties on American troops. Failure by Obama to use our full strength may sound good on college campuses, but it is a formula for much higher casualties on the battlefield and the surest way for the USA to give up its military advantages.
Until now, American helicopters have not been used against ISIS in attacks. The helicopters are much more vulnerable to attack from the ground than the fighters and bombers that have been used previously. This move represents a major step up in the American air campaign against ISIS. Until now, it was thought to be too risky for American troops to fly helicopter missions against ISIS for fear that the copters might be shot down.
So president Obama has raised the level of American involvement in the fight against ISIS once again. Sadly, he did this in response to a major success by ISIS that threatened hundreds of American troops at the airbase. This is a moronic way to set military policy. It is reminiscent of the "escalations" the president Johnson and his geniuses used in the Vietnam to up the troop levels slowly to try to reach just the right point where America had enough troops to defeat the North Vietnamese, but not too many to appear to use excess force. It was a failure in the 1960s when the liberal academics around Johnson came up with the plan, and it will likely fail again now when the liberal fools around Obama push it as a solution.
Supposedly, the one thing that came out of the Vietnam War of a positive nature for the American military was the doctrine of using overwhelming force. The USA has much more military power than any adversary; the doctrine says that America will make full use of that power to quickly destroy and defeat any opponent. That will prevent long drawn-out wars with heavy casualties. During the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban, America has been fighting terrorists rather than an opposing army, but ISIS has organized itself in Iraq and Syria as an army. If the USA is going to fight that army, then the lessons of Vietnam ought to be considered. Gradual increases in the power of attacks allow the opponent (in this case ISIS) to adjust tactics and prevent defeat while inflicting continuing casualties on American troops. Failure by Obama to use our full strength may sound good on college campuses, but it is a formula for much higher casualties on the battlefield and the surest way for the USA to give up its military advantages.
No comments:
Post a Comment