You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
-Short Attention Span Theater-
Why US troops ‘flattened' Raqqa and Mosul, and why it may herald an era of ‘feral city' warfare
2019-05-12
A response to this editorial from a few years ago.
[MilitaryTimes] The U.S. military’s biggest successes against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria involved uprooting the militants first from Mosul, Iraq, and then Raqqa, Syria.

But those operations are also catching the most flak for what many human rights groups and international organizations viewed as a callous use of artillery and air power that killed too many civilians.
Or - a message that human shields are the responsibility of the assholes holding them
The battles, as terrible as they were, serve as an important bellwether that may mark a new era of urban warfare involving mega-cities, according to retired Army Maj. John W. Spencer, chair of Urban Warfare Studies at West Point’s Modern War Institute.
Posted by:746

#14  Go to the source. Mecca next.
Posted by: Woodrow   2019-05-12 19:22  

#13  If someone attacks America, I have no issue with that nation turning into a poisoned, radioactive wasteland. None. Once we do that, everyone will have a concrete example of why pissing us off is stupid.
Posted by: Silentbrick   2019-05-12 17:28  

#12  But if we don't bomb countries like Syria and Venezuela, they might raise an army and invade America.

Yup. We had better commit war crimes now, rather than allow it to become a worldwide conflagration like World War II. Yup, I read it on Rantburg.

Hooray for war crimes! Let's bomb civilians with the B52s! Bring back the arclight strikes! Murder murder murder! Because those are the values that Americans stand for. Don't let those Venezuelans invade the US! Pull those weeds now!
Posted by: Herb McCoy    2019-05-12 17:22  

#11  I've said it before, the only reason we should go to war is someone attacks us or we have treaty obligations to defend them. Otherwise, we should be keeping any territory we 'pacify'.
Posted by: Silentbrick   2019-05-12 15:41  

#10  I agree Herb, but we've got to stop looking back and start looking forward. I don't think the Orange Man is keen on conflict. He's just like us, he's been watching this meddling and 'endless wars' bullshi* for nearly as long as we have. Exit strategies and solutions are what we need now.
Posted by: Besoeker   2019-05-12 15:17  

#9  Maybe we shouldn't be murdering civilians? In countries that have never declared war on is and are no threat? Just a crazy idea, thought I'd throw it out there.

Nah go ahead and order the B52s in to commit mass killings. Because that worked SO well in Vietnam.

Ever think maybe we shouldn't be involved in these wars in the first place? We ga9n no benefit for our people and with every civilian we kill we create dozens of new enemies.
Posted by: Herb McCoy    2019-05-12 15:08  

#8  Allowing the vermin to aggregate in several cities means flattening a handful of cities instead of an entire country to two. I do not appreciate the slowness of the destruction.
Posted by: Airandee   2019-05-12 12:30  

#7  possibly worsened by the effects of global climate change,

I read that as the beginning of the retreat from Obama-era boilerplate. It is now only possible instead of definite, and soon enough won’t be mentioned at all — no point in ruffling the feathers of the current powers-at-be with concerns that distract from the military’s job of killing people and breaking things.
Posted by: trailing wife   2019-05-12 12:10  

#6  Had we listened to these human rights groups during WWII, Churchill, Roosevelt and Truman would have been war criminals and we would have lost the war. We'd be speaking German or Japanese if they didn't exterminate us first.
Posted by: JohnQC   2019-05-12 10:30  

#5  No mention of fighting opponents who seek to maximize civilian casualties and mask their forces as civilians so that useful idiots oppose actions taken against them?
Posted by: Rob Crawford   2019-05-12 09:35  

#4   possibly worsened by the effects of global climate change,


Soon as I saw this I knew this wasn't serious.
Posted by: AlanC   2019-05-12 08:47  

#3  Afghanistan should have been handled thus: No electricity or clean water until bin laden was turned over, then only dribs and drabs until all taliban higher-ups were turned over. Iraq should have been no electricity or clean water until the entire Hussein clan was turned over along with their henchmen. Then a slow return for those who agreed more sectarian violence was off the table. Maybe tater on a spit as a gesture of good will.
Posted by: M. Murcek   2019-05-12 07:04  

#2  Maybe they can test out their theories on Baltimore.
Posted by: Blossom Stalin3940   2019-05-12 06:26  

#1  Raqqa, Mosul and Baghdad got off lightly. They should study pics of Berlin and Tokyo (among many hundreds of cities in that WAR). Look to non SDF parts of Syria for the future of urban destruction.
Posted by: Omomong Omique2579   2019-05-12 01:17  

00:00