25 Sep 2014
Is it commonsense to shoot "a guy with a gun" using an Air Strike?

Is it commonsense to shoot

Air Strikes are generally used to destroy the opponent's infrastructure and machinery. For example, a naval base, army base or an air force base.

There is a lot of submarines, tanks and fighter planes stocked at those bases. If you take down those bases ... you destroy the opponents military strength.

But if you look at ISIS, they don't have any navy, air force or army. They don't have any submarines, fighter planes or tanks. They are nothing but a bunch of guys with some guns. Now, how is it common sense to invest billions in trying to air strike "a guy with a gun"?


Huge number of civilian casualties


The most you will do is kill 2-3 of them and in the process destroy a lot of buildings meant for civilian use and also accidentally kill a lot of civilians. Yes ISIS might be in an anti-social group ... but they are located in civilian areas. Are the lives of those civilians also expendable?


Yes, they may have 30,000 fighters. But they are spread across the country through several cities. We are not fighting an organized army here ... it is guerilla warfare. 


The technique already proved to fail in Iraq


We already did air strikes in Iraq and after spending a billion in a few days, we learnt that air strikes are not sufficient to handle ISIS. Then why are we continuing with this stupidity in Syria? Is it to get ISIS or piss off Assad for a war?


We choose to train Iraqi forces and Air Strike Syrian targets?


Can't we get a more effective result in using trained and well equipped forces on the ground? We decided to train Iraqi forces against ISIS ... then shouldn't we do the same with Syrian armed forces? Why the training for Iraq and air strikes for Syria?


Why should Americans bother?


One week of Air Strikes cost us about $1 Billion. Each Tomahawk missile used costs us $1.5 Million. Why are we raining missiles worth $1.5 million each on these clowns? We are told that this campaign may last of 2-3 years. It has already proven to be ineffective in Iraq then why waste our tax payer money in Syria?


Doesn't Assad have his own fighter jets?


That too, when Assad himself has his own fighter jets ... when he can do this activity all on his own ... why are wasting our money? Assad does not even want us involved ... we are not even welcome there. 


Assad was the first one to carry out air strikes on ISIS in Iraq ... upon request that is. They are very much capable on handling the situation on their own. 


Aren't we wasting American tax payer money only to piss off Syria and Iran for another major war?