US Airstrikes against ISIS Destroy 184 Humvees and 58 Tanks

ISIS HumveeAt least 184 Humvees, 58 tanks and nearly 700 other vehicles have been destroyed or damaged in the more than 1,600 airstrike missions that have hit more than 3,200 ISIS targets in Iraq and Syria since bombing began last Aug. 8, the U.S. Central Command said Wednesday.

In addition, a total of 26 MRAP (Mine Resistant Ambush Protected) vehicles and armored personnel carriers, 79 artillery and mortar positions, and 673 infantry fighting positions were destroyed, CentCom officials said.

An unknown number of Humvees, M1A1 Abrams tanks and MRAPs were captured by ISIS when Iraqi national security forces fled and abandoned their equipment as ISIS swept into Iraq last June.

The list of targets hit through Jan. 7 put out by CentCom also included 14 small boats which the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) was using to ferry personnel and supplies on the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers in Iraq.

The target list also showed that U.S. and coalition aircraft have gone after ISIS infrastructure. At least 980 ISIS buildings and barracks, 92 checkpoints, 23 munitions caches, 52 bunkers and 673 infantry fighting positions were attacked.

The Pentagon and CentCom have repeatedly pledged to cut off the sale of oil on the black market, which has been a main source of income for ISIS. The target list showed that the small refineries and storage facilities run by ISIS were hit 259 times.

On Tuesday, Rear Adm. John Kirby, the Pentagon press secretary, said that the cumulative effects of the airstrikes had put ISIS on the defensive and severely restricted the terror group’s ability to communicate and maneuver.  The airstrikes have averaged about 11 daily since President Obama authorized them to begin on Aug. 8.

About the Author

Richard Sisk
Richard Sisk is a reporter for He can be reached at
  • Coalition

    Why not give our partners some credit for their airstrikes? The title is very misleading in stating that it’s “US Airstrikes”.

    You might want to run a spell checker on the title, too…

    • William_C1

      No offense to the allied pilots and crews actually performing operations against ISIS (I have a lot of respect for them) but statistically we’ve done an overwhelming proportion of the airstrikes. The penny-pinching of our European allies tends to result in that.

    • William_C1

      Wish they’d tell me my comment had been deleted by some sort of broken spam filter or whatever that is versus suggesting an admin instantaneously decided to delete it the very second I pressed submit comment.

      Anyway, the allied pilots and crews working with us have my complete respect but it seems like many of our allies haven’t sent much in the way of military assets to help.

      • ccc40821

        In total numbers many of the smaller nations may not have sent much, compared to the US. Relative to their population size, they may well have sent more.

    • Ron g

      I would like to see some proof all this stuff was destroyed. I stopped believing the Pentagon some time ago. I am not sure we can believe anything from the Kirby.

  • Jeff

    So will we just “give” Iraq new tanks, humvees and MRAPs to replace the ones they lost…I mean gave away? What a freaking waste.

    • savuporo

      Your tax dollars at work. Every Abrams is what, $4 million ? Each AGM-114 to take one out is an extra $100K.
      Nice price to pay for target practice. But at the same time, whenever can you test US armor against US ordnance ?

  • 009

    What a joke! Created out of our own pocket, destroyed from our own pocket.

  • blight_

    Anyone glad we didn’t give the Iraqis SHORAD or MR-AD?

    Imagine if they abandoned PAC-3 in place…holy crapola.

    • doctordave777

      Don’t worry - we sold them to Qatar last October. Won’t be long till it’s in Hamas and ISIS hands.

      • blight_

        Of note:…

        “The Government of Iraq has requested a possible sale of 40 AVENGER Fire Units, 681 STINGER Reprogrammable Micro-Processor (RMP) Block I 92H Missiles, 13 AN/MPQ-64F1 SENTINEL Radars, 7 AN/YSQ-184D Forward Area Air Defense Command, Control, and Intelligence (FAAD C2I) Systems, 75 AN/VRC-92E SINCGARS Radios, 3 HAWK XXI Batteries (6 Fire Units) which include 6 Battery Fire Direction Centers, 6 High Powered Illuminator Radars, 216 MIM-23P HAWK Tactical Missiles, 2 Mobile Battalion Operation Centers (BOC), 3 HAWK XXI BOC Air Defense Consoles (ADCs), 1DS/GS Shop 20, 1 DS/GS Shop 21, 1 Mini-Certified Round Assembly Facility (MCRAF), Air Command and Control (C2) systems and surveillance radars for the Integrated Air Defense Systems that includes TPS-77 Long-Range Radars (LRR) and Omnyx-I0 Air Command and Control System, and 10 Medium Range Radars. Also included: Ground Air Transmit Receive Ultra High Frequency/Very High Frequency radio capability, facilities and construction for one (1) underground Air Defense Operations Center and two (2) Air Defense Sector Operations Centers, spare and repair parts, repair and return, software support, systems integration, long haul communication technical integration, communications equipment, support equipment and sustainment, tools and test equipment, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. Government and contractor representative engineering, technical, and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is $2.403 billion. ”

        Anyone worried?

  • Big-Dean

    well, it’s good to know we can “take out” our own stuff….

  • BlackOwl18E

    Iraq has a total of 140 Abrams recorded as being delivered. I’m guess there are now only 82 left in their inventory.

    • Auyong Ah Meng

      Don’t think the 58 panzers destoryed are all M1A1 Abrams….should be others like T-55/T-62/etc….

      The Iraqi army screwed the pooch cos of Maliki BS policies and his cronies/flunkies turning a credible non-political (trying its best to be a professional army for Iraq and her people) military trained by the US/coalition partnes years ago into a mess….zzz

      Just need time to turn it around again. And put in place measures from allowing politicians turing the army into a mess again in the future.

      • BlackOwl18E

        Hahaha! I was joking. I know most of the tanks ISIS has are a bunch of old Soviet tin cans. I don’t think we’re going to ever “fix” Iraq. It’s their country and they don’t appreciate our form of government the way we do. Democracy is something that only works when the people under it have faith in the system and the will to fight for it. I think we should just sit back and let the Iraqis screw up their country. We’ve given up enough trying to help them.

        • John Deere

          The problem is: Blow-back….

          The Taliban were created by the CIA, effectively. We saw the problem they’ve caused us. ISIS were also funded and equipped by the CIA to fight Assad’s Syrian regime, as we can see that hasn’t gone very well…

          Entering a region and destroying local power relations creates a power vacuum, it’s not something we should do lightly; it has a habit of returning to bite us on the ass.

          • Auyong Ah Meng

            Wondering why we cannot create conditions to allow as well as empower middle east women to also be part of the solution. So far the male gender of the population or not enough of them finding solution in that part of the world….too much living in the past instead of the now and looking to the future for the children….sad.

          • ccc40821

            You cannot ‘create’ conditions, where - say - you want two warring sides stop hostilities. You only act when the local conditions make it possible to intervene - which could be when both sides have a willingness to stop fighting.

          • blight_

            The problem is this. If we create “democracy”, then governance will switch from easily bribed Saudi princes to the fickle masses. During the Cold War they might easily sway to communism..and that is why we preferred dictators to the uncertainties of “democracy”.

          • ccc40821

            All we need now is a photo-op and a ‘MISSION ACCOMPLISHED’ banner in the background.

          • majr0d

            We gave most of Afghan/Soviet aid to Pakistan who chose who got the aid.

            The Taliban were created by Pakistan. They created the Taliban after the Soviets left to exert control in Afghanistan.

            ISIS was not funded by the CIA unless one considers the measly support we gave rebels who had it stolen by radical Islamist groups.

          • blight_

            The Pakis backed Hekmatayar and the Haqqanis; both who became notorious in the Afghan Civil War. Other players were Dostum, Ismail Khan and Massoud in the Panjshir, and these three received far less (due to them being more difficult to supply, lacking geographic contiguity with Pakistan).

            Unsure if the ISI directly engineered the student movement which became the Taliban, but it wouldn’t surprise me. Pakistan has been meddling in its neighbor for a long time, and the efflux of Afghan refugees into Pakistan has reinforced border ties. The Durand Line was an artificial construct as Pashtuns live on both sides of it, so the ability to seperate the two countries is tenuous at best.

          • majr0d


            I would not characterize the Taliban as a “student movement”. Is that based on them attending madrassas? It would follow all radical Islam is a “student movement”. We sure didn’t start madrasses either which is congruent with my bigger point and those that try and blame America for the Taliban.

          • Guest

            Supplying Arms to the Muslim radials in Afghanistan, in the 1980s was a huge mistake. A mistake that the West is paying dearly for today.

            The Soviets of the 1970s and 1980s weren’t the Soviets of the 1950s and 60s. The Russians were building Roads and Hospitals in Afghanistan and sendings girls to school. The Radical Muslims hated the Soviets because they were “Godless”.

            The Muslim “Victory” in Afghanistan set the sage for 9/11/2001, the Afghan War (2001), the Iraq War (2003) and most of the terrorism
            we see today, including al-Qeada and ISIS. Another Case of “Be Careful what You Wish For”!

          • blight_

            It’s worth noting that the Zaher Shah courted both the United States and the Soviets, since both had neighboring spheres of influence (the ‘stans were part of the USSR, Pakistan was an American puppet). Both contributed to the development of Afghanistan, and when Shah was removed things began to slide towards the Soviet camp.

          • majr0d

            Guest - you don’t know what would have happened if we had not supplied the rebels who eventually defeated the Soviet Union.

            Like many who relish in the twisted logic and blaming of the US for radical Islam you don’t address the impact Afghanistan had on causing the Soviet Union to implode nor what the USSR may have done had it not been deterred from further expansion in th eregion.

            As for “a different Russia in the 80’s”, you don’t know your history. Russia INVADED Afghanistan in the 80’s just like it did to a couple of countries in the decades before…

          • Guest

            Major - The US and the Soviets both had enough sense to back away from using their Nukes. Although they came close in 1962, cooler heads prevailed.

            If al-Qaeda or ISIS had a Nuke, they would attempt to Nuke a major Western City, there’s absolutely no doubt about that!

            Just look at the amount of terror attacks that have taken place in recent years by radical Islam. Kenya, India, Russia, England, Spain, Nigeria, Indonesia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Western China,
            Egypt, Israel, etc. The USA in 1993 and 2001.

            What’s it going to take, to wake the American People up?
            No wonder the American Government Leaders didn’t show up in Paris, they don’t get it!

          • majr0d

            I don’t disagree with anything you just said but it’s a non-sequitur from “guest’s” previous post.

          • Guest

            Major - Let us “suffer” a few Facts:

            Did the Afghan-Soviet War cause the “Fall of the Soviet Union”? It did play a small part but the real reason the Soviet Union collapsed was because the Soviet Economy couldn’t sustain a first class Soviet Military. In short, the Soviet Union was close to Bankruptcy in 1991.

            The two main “Goals” of the Islamic radicals are:

            1- Do great damage to the Western Economies. Needless to say, they are having success in Europe and the US.
            (For the US. - Add up the Costs of post 9/11/2001. Endless wars and the ever increasing cost of US Homeland Security)

            2- Overthrow secular Governments in the Middle East and North Africa. Replace secular leaders with an Islamic State. On course this is the “fly in the ointment” Major.
            Because the US Government has aided the radicals in Iraq, Libya, Egypt, (since undone) and *Syria. *Ongoing
            And that my friend is the “Be Careful what YOU wish for”
            part of the equation.

          • majr0d

            You aren’t “suffering” enough facts.

            There were many factors that impacted the Soviets collapse. Afghanistan wasn’t the only one and it wasn’t a major resource draw in regards top other areas but what it did to the Soviet psyche isn’t minor. Look at how Vietnam impacted our culture.

            Predictably you didn’t even touch how the world may have looked quite different if the Soviets weren’t resisted in Afghanistan. Success there could have been the key factor in confirming armed action in other places was the answer. Once that wargaming starts there’s no telling where it would have taken us to the point that maybe today’s woes are preferable.

            One could make the case that resisting the Nazis caused the Cold War. That whimsical thinking falls apart when you consider the Nazis goals. You aren’t applying any analysis to what would have happened with the Soviets successful in Afghanistan in your efforts to blame America for radical Islam (and ridiculously assert we are directly aiding radicals in Iraq, Libya and Syria).. I guess we are in someway responsible in your eyes for the radical aspects of Islam since Muhammad walked the earth.

            “Be careful what you wish for” cuts both ways…

          • Guest

            Major- Lets back up a second. If you studied to become an Officer, in the US Army, doing the 1960s, 70s and 80s, your entire focus was on the Soviet Union. Guerrilla Warfare, Islamic terrorism and asymmetrical warfare was on your short list of subjects to study, no doubt.

            So the bottom line is, I know the Era that you are coming from. And by the way, the Soviet economy started to take a steep down turn in the 1970s, do to Soviet hardliners canceling Soviet reforms.
            The “Electronics Revolution” also left the Soviet
            military planners in the dust. They just couldn’t keep up with the Western World.

            I do agree Major, the Afghan-Soviet War did damage the moral of the Russian people. Their conscript Army wasn’t up to fighting a war that they were lied into. But the Soviet Union was on the way out by the 1980s, the war just made the end
            come quicker. The poor performance of the Russian Military in the Chechnya Wars should give you another clue. The Russian (Soviet) Military
            has had trouble fighting wars beyond Russia’s borders. (They did defeat the Nazis with our help but with frightful numbers of Russian dead)

            Like the Generals of the 1930s, you wish to fight
            yesterdays wars. This is 2015, that means Economic warfare, cyber warfare, terrorism and the endless threat of a large scale terrorist attack on western soil. The Soviet Union lasted about 70 years. How long will this “War” with radical Islamics last Major, you tell me.

          • crackedlenses

            ” How long will this “War” with radical Islamics last Major, you tell me.”

            They have been fighting for hundreds of years, and the thing that ultimately slowed them down (and continues to today) is the loss of unity.

            The price of peace is eternal vigilance. In the case of stopping Islamic crazies, it very well may mean eternal war. So be it.

          • majr0d

            I’m an 80’s through ’00’s soldier and my experience and schooling has covered everything from asymmetrical (the previous buzzwords were revolutionary or unconventional) to conventional warfare. Some of us actually paid a lot of attention in the 80’s to asymmetrical threats. It was what we were facing and fighting in S. America.

            Chechnya started off badly for the Russians but in the end they have won in typical Russian style…

            No where have I stated how we should fight this war. You making things up so you have a strawman to knock over isn’t a “win” though you seem desperate to get something right.

            I’m not fighting yesterday’s wars but we shouldn’t forget how we won those either. Avoid assuming what my background, education or thinking is. It’s a sure way to be wrong which you seem to have a pretty good handle on.

            As for how long this war will last it’s pretty simple. We fight until we win or you should buy a prayer rug.

  • joe

    To quote Moe Szyslak ‘Ahh they shouldna been there in the first place’

  • Joe

    Wasted billions of US dollars on a people that did not stand up and fight. Big part of that was ex-pres maliki and his corrupt government.

    • Herb Wynans

      Waste? What the hey! Look at all the people it took to make those armaments not to mention all the money poured into their replacements. Our military folks may die or suffer catastrophic injury in the pointless pursuit of “victory” but at least the political/industrial complex profits.

  • royrdsjr

    Thank God we’re sending ISIS 170 New tanks. What,it’s going to Iraq? Isn’t that what I just said?

    • jossie lawless

      they should have new F-16 soon too. I guess we know what the Raptors first combat kill will be.

      • royrdsjr

        And that’s why ISIS will not kill that Sunni Muslim Jordanian pilot,unless they can’t turn him to their side.

        • blight_

          You don’t think so? They are okay killing Sunnis in the Iraqi Army, and previously alienated Al-Anbar with indiscriminate killing of civilians. I don’t think anyone is safe from those psychopaths unless they have value as leverage.

          Bowie Bergdahl was leverage, and that is why they didn’t hack his head off with a meat cleaver.

          • royrdsjr

            He is a pilot & they have jets that they captured from the Syrian Air Force. If they can successfully turn him & he CAN fly one of those jets(since they aren’t F-16’s),it would be a real coup for them. ISIS is ruthless but they are not idiots. He has a skill they both need & desire. If they do kill him,it’s because he wouldn’t turn.

  • Phono

    I’m glad the strategy is working and I hope it will further help the kurds in Irak and the moderate oppositoion in Syria.

  • JohnD

    And all these raids have stopped ISIS? NOT! They will just steal more stuff or just use up armoured civvy vehicles! They have control over a chunk of Iraq and Syria. they know that they can wait us out and we will leave then they will move in. Kinda like in 1975 Viet Nam,remember?

  • Peter

    I don’t see an easy answer to the ISIS problem, or maybe any answer at all. No Iraqi army is ever going to fight them into defeat for three reasons (as I see it)
    1:- They are not an enemy nation. You can’t expect a peace treaty from them without giving them what they want (as of now Syria and Iraq, in the future everywhere else). Otherwise what else are they going to do, just disband and vanish?
    2:- Tempting though it might be to try you can’t simply kill them all. They have vast local and international support. They can keep bringing in “martyrs” who don’t mind getting killed at least as fast as we can kill them.
    3:-The Iraqi army, is and always will be just a joke. Most people seem to overlook one fact here. There is NO Iraq. It is not, never was and never will be a nation. It’s an area that the West called a country but in reality it’s just dozens of tribes with differing views who just happen to live close to each other. You can’t just put them all in an army, train them and give them equipment and then expect them to become a cohesive fighting force. Who are they going to fight for? Certainly not Iraq because they know it doesn’t exist.
    The best we can hope for is to let all the wanna be Jihadis go there to fight and pick them off as fast as we can. And, though I may detest the regime, I would give Syria some support here as well. At the very least they are looking like the lesser of two evils.

    • Doubtom

      You seem to be under the mistaken impression that our foreign policies are based on common sense.

      • Peter

        That made me chuckle! But you’re right of course. If common sense had prevailed then I daresay Sadaam would still be in power, Iran would be keeping a lower profile to avoid another war with him, a lot of US and British lives would have been saved, I seriously doubt anyone would have stood up and suggested establishing an Islamist Caliphate (or they wouldn’t have stood for very long anyway), the West would have saved a truly vast sum of money and really, would the average Iraqi have been any worse off then they are now?

        • ray

          You are so right and this is what I have been saying for several years now. Saddam was what keep Iran in check. He was our friend when he attacked Iran and could have been again. He would not have invaded Kuwait if he knew we would respond so. Bush and Cheny Haliburton created this mess and I dare say even one of our marines having so much as a bad day is not worth one Iraqi right to vote.

      • Guest

        Hahahahaah Yeah, I agree. Many are under that ASS UMPTION!! :-)

      • Guest

        But on a more serious side, it just breaks my heart, that so many of our young men and women have given their lives and limbs, to a war that we should have NEVER been involved with to begin with. In my opinion of course. I say that, as Afghanistan was the issue/problem at the time, but because of Bush/Chaney and their own separate reasons, we attacked Iraq. Yeah, Saddam was a bad guy, but so what. Was getting rid of him worth all the lives we have lost ( COST) and all the money and material we have wasted. IOn the BIG picture, I don’t think so…but hey, Im just a good ole DUMB American. What do I know :-).

    • @markworks1

      An answer to the ISIS problem is supporting the Kurds.Kurds stand their ground and fight ISIS win lose or draw.Mostly win.Kurds in Syria have taken an area away from ISIS the size of the state of Maine and continue to do so.Kurds in Iraq have taken land away from ISIS all the way to Kirkuk .

  • bbabbitt

    The Iraqi Army giveth, the US Air Force taketh away.

    • blight_

      American foreign military sales giveth, ISIS taketh away, the USAF smites.

      • jossie lawless

        The American taxpayer payeth

  • Doubtom

    Wow! talk about a nice convenient “circular game”-manufacture Humvees and then destroy them. What a profit making machine that is!
    Nice to know our tax dollars are being so well used. Who’s getting rich off this scheme? It damn sure isn’t the American taxpayer!

    • blight_

      I don’t have my copy of 1984 handy but it is described in Goldstein’s manifesto.

  • hitthedeck

    The idiot that is in command of our military is getting ready to have the same thing happen in Afghanistan. More American military hardware for our enemy’s that’s paid for the American people to be used against us. It seems the greatest ally for ISIS and radical Islamists lives in the Whitehouse.

    • Lightingguy

      Please recall as well, the idiot that was in command of our military and got is into Iraq in the first place, none of this would be happening right now except for that little “Mission Accomplished”

      • majr0d

        Do you mean the mission accomplished that Bush stood in front of on the carrier or what Obama said after he prematurely pulled all Americans out of Iraq?

        • orly?

          The First Bush.

          That premature pull out of Americans out of Iraq.

      • Guest

        EXACTLY!!!!!!!! Damn, it gets old blaming hearing people just blame Obama for everything, that his predecesor started!! I am no Obama fan, believe me. I WAS a Bush fan when he was elected ( as there were no other choices :-), but as soon as he started beating the old war drums for Irag, then, well, I regressed to wishing for someone else….but who, unfortunately. I just missed Viet Nam by 3 years, BUT, I STILL REMEMBER THE GULF OF TONKIN….hahahahah yeah, they attacked us…right!!! Everyone seems to forget that BIG OLE LIE!! It just faded away…….
        The GOP is soooo invested in putting the oldest, wrinkliest (?) most overrated and under powered candidates they can find to run for president, it just amazes me they keep coming up with them. Now who do we get, another Bush…hahahahaha I would THINK he would be better than his brother, but, PLEASE, give us someone new, vibrant, ELECTABLE!. That damn Petreaus, had to go get some booty trouble. I think he would have been a GREAT candidate, not sure about President. BUT, he would not have been worse. Hahahahahahah That is what I believe we are left with, the lessar of multible evils. Sad, just plain sad!!

        • Guest

          1 last comment here…err..thought. Closing on quick on 60 years old, it is my belief, that as long as we still have the 2 party system, we will be stuck with lousy choices for president. It may need a mini revolution of some sort, but, what do others think about this. Chime in please.

          • blight_

            It will require voting for a different party ideology than -D and -R. I don’t think people have the guts to do it. The Whigs died out, as did the Federalists. Political parties can die if people make it happen. Today, the parties just change their ideology to try to hang onto their base as long as possible.

  • hitthedeck

    I am not interested in our governments number count on the destruction of the American weapons that ISIS have in their procession. I am only interested in the body count of killed ISIS terrorists which the government does not report. It takes trained ISIS to operate Abrams tanks. Kill the operators and the equipment is useless. Obama’s window dressing doesn’t fool me and other veterans with combat experience. The traitor at the top is tying the hands of our military commanders preventing the defeat of ISIS.

    • dos

      Wow, strong words, since when did political polarity mean success or defeat ? War is created by the strong and rich to attain more power and wealth. It doesn’t matter which party you vote for and it involves Europe and very much Israel.

  • Robert Edwards

    We have had 1700 plus missions over the past year and that averages out to less than five missions perday? Where is the air war? ISIS should be able to find five planes a day without even the need of radar-just put lookouts with binoculars. Have we ever had an all out attack like when we went into Bagdad under Bush? We need to have some days when 300 missions hit all at once so that ISIS can’t figure out where to run and hide. It looks like Obama is micromanaging the war like he does everything else. I’ll bet some White House peon determines what five targets will be picked for each particular day. If this is not what is happening then our air war is strickly restricted to reactive strikes rather than a complex and destructive proactive attack. We need to get some generals who have the balls to destroy ISIS immediately instead of day by day-5 strikes here and 5 strikes there. And if POTUS won’t allow that then we need to know it!

    • jossie lawless

      POTUS = piece of totally useless ….

    • majr0d

      Good point but we don’t have the targeting data to support 300 sorties a day. That’s what happens when you don’t have troops on the ground…

      • Robert Edwards

        Come on, where did we have any troops on the ground when we bombed Bagdad and Iraq back in 2002? By now we have all kinds of sattelite, air recce photos, sigint intell, and a host of other data on ISIS locations and movements. Surely someone can put the dots together like they did in years gone past. If not then are military is really in need of bringing back a lot of old folks to show them how to do it.

        • blight_

          We had guesstimates and bombed infrastructure targets to generate those high sortie rates.

          What are we going to bomb in Iraq? Random villages? Trucks in the desert? Iraq is a big country to scan its entirety for vehicles carrying black flags. And that assumes they always run around in black flags…it may simply be a ruse for social media/PSYOPS.

          • Robert Edwards

            ISIS is scattered in the northwest section of the nation of Iraq. There is a huge area of Iraq where ISIS is no threat. Much of that area is the Shiite region of Iraq and ISIS will not mess with them because it would invite Iran into the conflict against them. ISIS is scattered along the northern part of the country of Syria. We have to pick and choose who we support in Syria. Our government has chosen to stay away from Hassad since he is tied in with the Russians, and he is considered to be a dictator and of course we never have dealings with dictators. Hassad and the Russians could probably give us a lot of targeting info since their troops are also fighting against ISIS-but, we can’t cooperate with the Russians either since they are trying to overrun the Ukraine-at least the eastern portion so they can have a warm water sea port somewhere. We are now warming up to a dictator in Cuba, but we can’t deal with one in Syria. Yet, if we don’t choose to deal with Hassad and the Russians in Syria then the rebels that we have been supporting may turn and join ISIS and make them much more formidable. Sometimes you have to be very careful which side you choose becasue it might be that we get stung by those we have been feeding.

          • blight_

            The western half of Kurdish lands were raided, and only recently liberated from ISIS. All of Anbar province is potentially ISIS territory.

            If ISIS is smart they won’t bother trying to take and hold territory in the face of aerial attack. They are better off raiding, moving from village to village and darting out to attack army convoys and massacre innocent civilians. Triangle of death, Sunni triangle, Anbar province, all areas traditionally at odds with the Shia government. And those areas are a considerable chunk of Iraq. Then there’s eastern Syria under their control.

        • majr0d

          Rob - Come on, you aren’t really confusing the bombing campaign of a long established nation state with conducting an air campaign against a terror movement trying to replace standing gov’ts and establish itself as a state in the last 1-2 years (out of view of US assets).

          If “someone can put the dots together like they did in years gone past” (which they really didn’t because you are comparing very different enemies) why do you think they haven’t done so?

          You don’t think ISIS reads the newspapers and avoids using electronic communications for its most important, internal and non mobile infrastructure communications?

          • USMC

            Too bad they dont have a real uniformed army like years past. Seems like we can defeat those.

          • Robert Edwards

            Hey, guys. You make ISIS out to be some ragtag outfit that is scattered all over the area and has no punch. Heck they took over an entire city along the Turkish border and the Kurds are now driving them out. How many troops did it take to capture that city, what kind of communications did they have to use, and what kind of heavy equipment was involved, and how much did we end of destroying? Where was the coordinated attacks to prevent that takeover? I agree that we need troops on the ground, but we have to get a general with enough guts to tell the POTUS. I would hate to be the CJCS under this president. We have a POTUS who will not take recommendations and who has kept us in the war much longer than we should be by not heeding the recommendations. POTUS was told straight out that we needed troops on the ground. We need some generals who will be big enough to say, “If you can’t take our recommendations then you have 30 days to find my replacement.”

          • Robert Edwards

            No I am not confusing a bombing campaign…a terror movement should be much easier to destroy. They have to be attacking Iraqi forces or Kurds. All we need is to get communications established between those forces and our own to find out where the ISIS offensive is taking place and then go get them. It is my opinon that Iraqi forces and Kurds would be very glad to pass that information on…what would it take? We now live in the advanced technological era. Can’t we send them communications gear to pass on to a linguists to translate for an American headquarters who can then dispatch aircraft. Put a linguist at which ever end you want, but all we would need would be coordinates, type of target, present direction of movement, anticipated resistance to the offensive and things like that. If there is no offensive then ISIS must not be the threat that everyone is making them out to be.

          • majr0d

            ISIS didn’t take those major cities like Mosul, Tal Afar, Falujah etc. with anything heavier than a pick up. Those cities are where they captured that heavy equipment.

            You do realize that tactical communications have fleeting location value? The house, hut or hole you radioed from in the morning likely isn’t the same one you are in hours later let alone days later when our analysts look at the intercepts. Communication can also be made secure rather easily e.g. couriers.

            I’m all for straight shooting generals but you are making challenging targeting tasks much simpler than they are. It’s hard for trained people to do it let alone people that have gone from internal policing type tasks to fighting a conventional war. That’s without an enemy who practices basic offensive/defensive tactics like moving one’s position, concealing them or protecting them with civilians. I guess you don’t know they are taking Kurds and Iraqis straight off the street, giving them a rifle and sending them to the front? Getting them to submit a call for fire might be difficult when the average dude can’t read a map let alone plot a coordinate.

            If defeating terror campaigns with air power were as easy as you seem to think it is we would have defeated the Taliban in Pakistan long ago versus fighting them for over a decade.

            Technology is great. Once we have see through wall from technology that can be mounted on aircraft with technology that can read people’s minds so we can differentiate the terrorists from the civilians we’ll be set.

          • Robert Edwards

            I have been saying all along that we should have had boots on the ground. I agree that hit and run targets are not easy to find. If this is the case then it means even more that we need boots on the ground. We also need drones in the skies from which we can get current intel on troop movements. It takes a combination of assets. POTUS has made us like a fighter that has one armed tied behind his back. The Generals who are going along with this simply have no guts and it means many civilians and other people loosing their lives.

          • dos

            Under Bush and Cheney the world universally hated the U.S. and almost destroyed the U.S. financially so are you going to tell me its all Obamas’ fault ? I have never seen a president get as little respect and never given a break as Obama. Sorry but he is doing the best he can to bring the U.S. back from the brink.

          • Robert Edwards

            You speak to extremes…there have been far more nations who have turned against us in the past six years than any under Bush in eight years. We had strong coalitions under Bush, but we don’t under Obama. Not everything is Obama’s fault; nor was it Bush’s fault either. The economy does not totally depend upon the WH. However, the WH does have an impact. Why is it that it has taken so much longer to get out of this recession than under Reagan for example? I keep hearing that lower gas prices will hurt us-what has Obama done that brought about lower gas prices? He has been against fracking all along just like he is dead set against the Keystone Pipeline. The WH made a big mistake in not sending someone big to Paris last Sunday-football was more important.

  • navbb62

    Regardless of how they got the equipment it is being destroyed. Unfortunately we never have learned a lesson.

  • USMC

    Being an old Corps vet. I dont see this ending in my lifetime. Different generations produce different enemies. My forcast ……Explosions and gunshots will ring out … Be ready.

  • The_Dude

    it’s a good thing we gave the Iraqis all those HMMWVs, tanks, and uh, we could destroy them.

  • ajaxwinter

    So we spent millions of dollars worth of U.S. military assets to to destroy a millions of dollars worth of U.S. military assets.

  • cjkosh

    11? 11 per day in the entire theater. Assad is right. The U.S. isn’t serious.

  • storagewembley

    I hope they become more effective for what we spend!

  • anthony

    We are still hitting them hard but let them realize its their country.Look at Nam now a Top Tourist Atraction for alot of countries.Who helped them?We need to hit them were it counts,we all know it wont be long until pakistan starts,then maybe we can leave ,but our private contracters will stay to keep oil flowing..

  • anthony

    China should send about a halve million troops it would help?

    • blight_

      I guess if they just massacred their way across the countryside half a million troops would do it. Granted, we could’ve done it with ~200,000 troops if we were so inclined to simply exterminate the Iraqi people.

  • rim budrys,armour

    i am canadian. iran should be scared.blockade the straight pls.

  • sackme

    I don’t understand the issue of we are going to stop the oil. Bunk do it and do it now. And get the H out of there

  • @markworks1

    One answer to the ISIS problem is supporting the Kurds.Kurds stand their ground and fight ISIS win lose or draw.Mostly win.Kurds in Syria have taken an area away from ISIS the size of the state of Maine and continue to do so.Kurds in Iraq have taken land away from ISIS all the way to Kirkuk .Kurds dont go for Wahabbist or Islamist insanity like making women cover up everything but their eyes and due to their Western perspective and oil and foreign investment in the Kurdish capitol of Erbil is a booming center of business.