# Coalition air offensive against ISIS/ISIL



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

A very interesting article on BBC's Radio 4 yesterday, it stated that Qatar, for one, was very unhappy that the Arab "alliance" pilots were not being supported by the US. The US has a sophisticated pilot rescue organisation, fast helicopters with US Marine landing parties, ready to rescue downed aircrew. The US will only deploy it to rescue US pilots, despite requests from Qatar specifically, and the Arab nations don't have the technology to provide such a service. Curious isn't it, the US want Arab help in their "coalition", but won't fully support them, even when they're doing what the US want them to do. If the support isn't available to their allies, such that they wthdraw from the operation, isn't that rather self-defeating?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/04/uae-united-arab-emirates-isis-air-attacks-pilot


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

It is self defeating and par for the course with our current President. 

Whether the U.S. likes it or not, it is THE global leader and any military operation of any size needs to be led, by conducted by, supported by the U.S. military. 

I don't blame the Arab countries for being upset. ISIS isn't their problem and they are being asked to sacrifice their blood and treasure for something that does not directly affect them.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

I understand why the Qataris are upset and also understand why they would withdraw.

On the other hand, I totally understand why the US is reluctant to put our troops in harm's way - because lets be honest here, what ISIS really wants is to be able to capture and kill a US soldier. There are also logistical problems that would come into play. With US pilots, the US knows the training they have received, the instructions that thy have been given, their familiarity with the rescue process, etc. All of those are potentially unknown variables with another country's pilot (probably less so for NATO or other countries that the US trains with often).

Finally, while there is a code to leave no man behind, this does not necessarily extend to your allies - as harsh as this may sound.

There are rules - and limitations - to rescue. And rule number one is that a rescue should avoid creating more rescue targets if at all possible.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> A very interesting article on BBC's Radio 4 yesterday, it stated that Qatar, for one, was very unhappy that the Arab "alliance" pilots were not being supported by the US. The US has a sophisticated pilot rescue organisation, fast helicopters with US Marine landing parties, ready to rescue downed aircrew. The US will only deploy it to rescue US pilots, despite requests from Qatar specifically, and the Arab nations don't have the technology to provide such a service. Curious isn't it, the US want Arab help in their "coalition", but won't fully support them, even when they're doing what the US want them to do. If the support isn't available to their allies, such that they wthdraw from the operation, isn't that rather self-defeating?
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/04/uae-united-arab-emirates-isis-air-attacks-pilot


Pish Posh!!

All our allies love us since that Cowboy Bush left office.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Addendum - this is why you should always read the article before commenting. 

I did not hear the report obviously, but its content is sharply at odds with the info listed in the OP. The UAE seems to be upset by the location of the SAR resources, not that they are unavailable.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

The article was a more general article about the situation, the representative from Qatar was more specific, hence them pulling out from operations.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> I understand why the Qataris are upset and also understand why they would withdraw.
> 
> On the other hand, I totally understand why the US is reluctant to put our troops in harm's way - because lets be honest here, what ISIS really wants is to be able to capture and kill a US soldier. There are also logistical problems that would come into play. With US pilots, the US knows the training they have received, the instructions that thy have been given, their familiarity with the rescue process, etc. All of those are potentially unknown variables with another country's pilot (probably less so for NATO or other countries that the US trains with often).
> 
> ...


Indeed, but if your allies are there at your behest, and if you want them to continue to publicly support you, then that risk should be a risk worth taking to show that the US values them. This policy makes the Arab allies look as if they are considered to be expendable. It seems, to me, to be a major political mistake.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

vpkozel said:


> Addendum - this is why you should always read the article before commenting.
> 
> I did not hear the report obviously, but its content is sharply at odds with the info listed in the OP. The UAE seems to be upset by the location of the SAR resources, not that they are unavailable.


The location may as well make it unavailable. CSAR resources are located hundreds of miles from where the aircraft sorties are flown. Time is of the essence.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Someone remind us why there is no US airbase in Iraq. 

(Which likely would have contained ISIS to Syria to begin with)


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Someone remind us why there is no US airbase in Iraq.
> 
> (Which likely would have contained ISIS to Syria to begin with)


This really is the crux of the matter now isn't it? This President was so wedded to the idea of pulling out of Iraq and "ending the war" and gave no consideration as to what would realistically happen if we all of a sudden retreat out of Iraq. Well, we now know.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Chouan said:


> The article was a more general article about the situation, the representative from Qatar was more specific, hence them pulling out from operations.


It's from the Guardian, a notoriously biased and unreliable publication. You have to factor that in to anything it prints.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> It's from the Guardian, a notoriously biased and unreliable publication. You have to factor that in to anything it prints.


Unlike the Daily Heil, I suppose. But, oh look! the Daily Heil has the story as well! https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...rstrikes-Syria-Jordanian-pilot-shot-down.html and the Telegraph https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...s-United-Arab-Emirates-stops-air-strikes.html Perhaps they'll all making the story up?


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

SG_67 said:


> The location may as well make it unavailable. CSAR resources are located hundreds of miles from where the aircraft sorties are flown. Time is of the essence.


So, if a Blackhawk crash lands while dropping off SEALs in - oh, let's say Pakistan - while they are on a covert mission to - I don't know kill or capture a major bad guy - then there would be no rescue team on hand to pick them up?

You still sure that is the position you want to take?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> So, if a Blackhawk crash lands while dropping off SEALs in - oh, let's say Pakistan - while they are on a covert mission to - I don't know kill or capture a major bad guy - then there would be no rescue team on hand to pick them up?
> 
> You still sure that is the position you want to take?


Makes no sense.

Helicopters travel with other helicopters to facilitate rescue which is what actually happened.

Jet pilots need to evade capture until a copter shows up.

Smarty Pants!!


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Chouan said:


> Unlike the Daily Heil, I suppose. But, oh look! the Daily Heil has the story as well! https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...rstrikes-Syria-Jordanian-pilot-shot-down.html and the Telegraph https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...s-United-Arab-Emirates-stops-air-strikes.html Perhaps they'll all making the story up?


I don't read the Mail, and I will take as read the Guardian report, but the Telegraph report seems to tell a slightly more complex story, to do with Iran, while admittedly also mentioning the issue of helicopters. Bear in mind that getting together any sort of coalition of Middle Eastern countries was never going to be straightforward, the people in those countries are so fickle...

Perhaps what they need is not helicopters, but the system of gooley chits, traditionally relied upon by all RAF officers whenever flying over desert areas?



> To all Arab peoples
> Greetings and Peace be upon you
> The bearer of this letter is an officer of the British government and a friend of all Arabs.
> Treat him well, guard him from harm ... and you will be liberally rewarded.
> Peace and the Mercy of God be upon you.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

vpkozel said:


> So, if a Blackhawk crash lands while dropping off SEALs in - oh, let's say Pakistan - while they are on a covert mission to - I don't know kill or capture a major bad guy - then there would be no rescue team on hand to pick them up?
> 
> You still sure that is the position you want to take?


The support we give to our coalition partners is different from support we would give our own troops. I think the Gulf states are grumbling that our assets are too far away.

Let's face it, our aircraft are virtually invulnerable. Our countermeasures are superior to those of Gulf state aircraft.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Makes no sense.
> 
> Helicopters travel with other helicopters to facilitate rescue which is what actually happened.
> 
> ...


Inaccurate. The Chinooks were not flying with the Blackhawks. They left afterwards precisely so that they would be available if needed.

It's not like the SAR teams sit around and wait for a call. They are always in the air when there is a mission going on.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

SG_67 said:


> The support we give to our coalition partners is different from support we would give our own troops. I think the Gulf states are grumbling that our assets are too far away.
> 
> Let's face it, our aircraft are virtually invulnerable. Our countermeasures are superior to those of Gulf state aircraft.


But that is not what you said. You said that the SAR teams would be too far away. Which is what I was disputing.

And no aircraft are invulnerable.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

SG_67 said:


> Whether the U.S. likes it or not, it is THE global leader and any military operation of any size needs to be led, by conducted by, supported by the U.S. military.


Baloney. It's not our place to serve as the policemen for the entire earth.

I'm entirely fed up with everyone expecting the USA to put our young men at risk to serve somebody else's needs. Screw them. There are plenty of ways for the US to remain engaged in geopolitics without going to war with every half-baked despot.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

MaxBuck said:


> Baloney. It's not our place to serve as the policemen for the entire earth.
> 
> I'm entirely fed up with everyone expecting the USA to put our young men at risk to serve somebody else's needs. Screw them. There are plenty of ways for the US to remain engaged in geopolitics without going to war with every half-baked despot.


But, if the Arab states are operating at the request of the US, so that the US action can be seen as legitimate, and to further US policy, for the benefit of US policy, then surely it makes sense for the US to support US allies? Otherwise it makes the US appear, to international eyes, to be regarding it's allies' aircrew as expendable, to be sacrificed to US policy. If, however, the US SAR people were deployed to rescue Saudi or Jordanian aircrew it would demonstrate US solidarity with it's Arab allies, and build respect and credit with the Arab world. Throwing away such a political advantage seems to be rather short sighted.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

MaxBuck said:


> Baloney. It's not our place to serve as the policemen for the entire earth.
> 
> I'm entirely fed up with everyone expecting the USA to put our young men at risk to serve somebody else's needs. Screw them. There are plenty of ways for the US to remain engaged in geopolitics without going to war with every half-baked despot.


That's a straw man argument. No one is saying we need to go to war on behalf of every despot but when it is in our national interest. The Middle East is a geoplitically critical and it's certainly a place where we need to have a large footprint, if not militarily then at least politically. But then again, the former really is necessary to establish the latter.

There is plenty of nasty stuff going on in the world and we're not in the middle of every one of them. But in critical areas I would rather us be influencing events than the Russians or the Chinese.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> They are always in the air when there is a mission going on.


A mission, a big mission, sure.

When there are twenty or more missions simultaneously, no.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

My understanding of our involvement in the air campaign is that it is largely supportive and providing coordination and logistics. Radar jamming, air refueling, etc. 

The sorties we fly are high altitude with long range missile strikes. I don't think we're providing the close air support that would put our aircraft and personnel at risk. To the extent that there is close air support, again it is mostly strategic and done by drones. 

If I'm wrong I will gladly accept a correction.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Chouan said:


> But, if the Arab states are operating at the request of the US, so that the US action can be seen as legitimate, and to further US policy, for the benefit of US policy, then surely it makes sense for the US to support US allies? Otherwise it makes the US appear, to international eyes, to be regarding it's allies' aircrew as expendable, to be sacrificed to US policy. If, however, the US SAR people were deployed to rescue Saudi or Jordanian aircrew it would demonstrate US solidarity with it's Arab allies, and build respect and credit with the Arab world. Throwing away such a political advantage seems to be rather short sighted.


Good Lord. From the information that you have posted, the US is providing SAR - just not from locations where the UAE wanted it. So, unless you can post another source that says the US is not providing any SAR, please stop acting like they are hanging our allies out to dry.

Also - and very importantly - the US SAR teams are coming from the same place - meaning that the US pilots are receiving the exact same level of support.



> But a US defense official said that American pilots face the same risks as coalition pilots from the UAE or elsewhere.
> 
> "When American pilots fly over enemy territory, they know there are risks involved, but they also know they are backed by an unswerving commitment to recover them if they go down," the defense official said.
> 
> ...


So, basically - every assertion that you are making is inaccurate.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

WouldaShoulda said:


> A mission, a big mission, sure.
> 
> When there are twenty or more missions simultaneously, no.


SAR operations are part of any missions - singular or otherwise. For larger missions they will most likely have more resources in the air and on standby, but these guys are there, trained, and on station to perform.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> Good Lord. From the information that you have posted, the US is providing SAR - just not from locations where the UAE wanted it. So, unless you can post another source that says the US is not providing any SAR, please stop acting like they are hanging our allies out to dry.
> 
> Also - and very importantly - the US SAR teams are coming from the same place - meaning that the US pilots are receiving the exact same level of support.
> 
> So, basically - every assertion that you are making is inaccurate.


I think you'll find, on reflection, that I'm not asserting anything myself, I'm reporting what others have said. If a Qatari government spokesman says that the reason why Qatar has stopped joining in in the coalition airstrikes for the reason given, who am I to argue about it?


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Chouan said:


> I think you'll find, on reflection, that I'm not asserting anything myself, I'm reporting what others have said. If a Qatari government spokesman says that the reason why Qatar has stopped joining in in the coalition airstrikes for the reason given, who am I to argue about it?


Did the Qatari spokesman say this, or did you?



Chouan said:


> But, if the Arab states are operating at the request of the US, so that the US action can be seen as legitimate, and to further US policy, for the benefit of US policy, then surely it makes sense for the US to support US allies? Otherwise it makes the US appear, to international eyes, to be regarding it's allies' aircrew as expendable, to be sacrificed to US policy. If, however, the US SAR people were deployed to rescue Saudi or Jordanian aircrew it would demonstrate US solidarity with it's Arab allies, and build respect and credit with the Arab world. Throwing away such a political advantage seems to be rather short sighted.


Also, are you saying that anything that any government spokesman says must be taken as 100% true? Or just ones that you agree with?

And since it has been pretty conclusively proven that he either misspoke, was unaware of the facts, or was flat out being untruthful, I am not sure why you continue to fight the battle using his quote as the end all, be all.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

While many in the region may publically be denouncing ISIL/ISIS, Qatar, UAE and Saudi Arabia are all predominantly Sunni countries. ISIL/ISIS is a Sunni organization. They are at war with a predominantly Shiite enemy. 

The U.S. seems either unwilling, unable (likely both) to do anything to halt the march of Iran to exert more influence in the region. They have a foothold in Iraq, Syria and with Hezbollah as a shadow army, threaten Lebanon. It won't be long until Yemen completely falls into that orbit which will give them a foothold in the heart of the Arabian peninsula. 

I don't think many of these governments are eager to go to war with ISIL as they share a somewhat similar goal. I'm not saying it's a wise decision; simply stating what is likely going through the minds of many a nervous Arab despot right now. 

Using the pretext of limited CSAR support is likely as good as any other to limit overall support.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> Did the Qatari spokesman say this, or did you?


As I posted initially, the Qatari government spokesperson said it on BBC's Radio 4, their serious news station. I *think* that I made that clear .....



vpkozel said:


> Also, are you saying that anything that any government spokesman says must be taken as 100% true? Or just ones that you agree with?


No. I reported what I heard.



vpkozel said:


> And since it has been pretty conclusively proven that he either misspoke, was unaware of the facts, or was flat out being untruthful, I am not sure why you continue to fight the battle using his quote as the end all, be all.


I'm not.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Chouan said:


> As I posted initially, the Qatari government spokesperson said it on BBC's Radio 4, their serious news station. I *think* that I made that clear .....


What you posted initially was refuted by the story that you linked to. And none of that was covered in the assertion you made about the US responsibility to protect our allies.



> No. I reported what I heard.


And since I haven't heard it, I have no idea. I am only going from every other source - which shows that the spokesman was incorrect on his facts



> I'm not.


Really? Is there any article that has been posted that says that the US has absolutely no SAR forces available? Or did they say that they forces are in a different location from what the UAE wants?

What would it take to convince you that the spokesman was incorrect on what he said?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> What you posted initially was refuted by the story that you linked to. And none of that was covered in the assertion you made about the US responsibility to protect our allies.
> 
> And since I haven't heard it, I have no idea. I am only going from every other source - which shows that the spokesman was incorrect on his facts
> 
> ...


You seem to be keen on shooting the messenger than listening to the message. It matters not a jot what I think, what matters is the way that the US is being viewed by an ally in the Gulf. If you don't like what was said, there's little I can do about it. I have no involvement in this, I just posted what I heard.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> You seem to be keen on shooting the messenger than listening to the message. It matters not a jot what I think, what matters is the way that the US is being viewed by an ally in the Gulf. If you don't like what was said, there's little I can do about it. I have no involvement in this, I just posted what I heard.


Along with the following editorial;


> If the support isn't available to their allies, such that they wthdraw from the operation, isn't that rather self-defeating?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

BTW~How many more American hostages are being held by ISIS and why didn't I know about this one??

ISIS claims U.S. hostage killed in Jordan airstrike

https://edition.cnn.com/2015/02/06/world/isis-jordan/

Amman, Jordan (CNN)Was an American hostage held in Syria killed by a Jordanian airstrike? That's what ISIS said in an online posting Friday, claiming that she died in the group's de facto capital, Raqqa.

The posting included a picture of a collapsed building and a claim that the woman -- identified by her family as Kayla Mueller -- was being held there. 
But it did not show a body or provide any proof of death. 
Jordanian government spokesman Mohammed al-Momani said his country is looking into the claim. But, he said, "we are highly skeptical" because of ISIS's proven lack of credibility, and he questioned whether they could identify Jordanian warplanes so high in the sky or would hold a hostage in a "weapon warehouse."
Interior Minister Hussein Majali was even more forthright in knocking down the report, calling it another "PR stunt" by ISIS.
"They tried to cause problems internally in Jordan and haven't succeeded," Majali said. "They are now trying to drive a wedge between the coalition with this latest low PR stunt."
Previously, ISIS has held a number of hostages from the United States, Britain and Japan. As of now, at least two Westerners are thought to be in its custody: British journalist John Cantlie, who has appeared in a number of ISIS-produced videos, and the American woman, who is a 26-year-old aid worker.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Chouan said:


> You seem to be keen on shooting the messenger than listening to the message. It matters not a jot what I think, what matters is the way that the US is being viewed by an ally in the Gulf. If you don't like what was said, there's little I can do about it. I have no involvement in this, I just posted what I heard.


I am reading the messages just fine, thanks.

To make things crystal clear, let's take this point by point.

Here is your OP, with the emphasis added by me on the disputed point.



Chouan said:


> A very interesting article on BBC's Radio 4 yesterday, it stated that Qatar, for one, was very unhappy that the Arab "alliance" pilots were not being supported by the US. The US has a sophisticated pilot rescue organisation, fast helicopters with US Marine landing parties, ready to rescue downed aircrew. *bThe US will only deploy it to rescue US pilots, despite requests from Qatar specifically, and the Arab nations don't have the technology to provide such a service.* Curious isn't it, the US want Arab help in their "coalition", but won't fully support them, even when they're doing what the US want them to do. If the support isn't available to their allies, such that they wthdraw from the operation, isn't that rather self-defeating?
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/04/uae-united-arab-emirates-isis-air-attacks-pilot


So, I ask you - based on all of the other articles posted, do YOU think that the bolded passage is accurte?

Also from you OP



Chouan said:


> Curious isn't it, the US want Arab help in their "coalition", but won't fully support them, even when they're doing what the US want them to do. If the support isn't available to their allies, such that they wthdraw from the operation, isn't that rather self-defeating?




Who's opinion is that? The BBC's, the official you keep referencing, or yours?


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

SG_67 said:


> Whether the U.S. likes it or not, it is THE global leader and *any military operation of any size needs to be led, by conducted by, supported by the U.S. military.*





MaxBuck said:


> Baloney. It's not our place to serve as the policemen for the entire earth.





SG_67 said:


> That's a straw man argument. No one is saying we need to go to war on behalf of every despot ...


OK, you first say whenever anyone wants to go to war we have to join them, and when I call that baloney you say I'm erecting a strawman.

Well, I'm not erecting a strawman. I'm saying your initial proposition was baloney, and that either you should retract that bolded comment or at least accept that what I said is a valid response to it. Or perhaps clarify that your comment was limited specifically to the war (I guess we need to call it a "police action") against Islamic State.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ My comment about a straw man is regarding the comment about always going to war on behalf of 1/2 baked despots. The credible threat of military force backing diplomacy. 

By the way, when we go to war we do it primarily with our own interests in mind. Otherwise you would see U.S. troops engaged everywhere.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> I am reading the messages just fine, thanks.
> 
> To make things crystal clear, let's take this point by point.
> 
> ...


If true, mine. However, the point that you're ignoring is the international perception. If the rest of he world accepts Qatar's view, what will that mean for the US? As I've already said, my own personal view is irrelevant. I'm simply reporting, in this forum, a view expressed by a spokesman for a government allied to the US. If you don't like that expressed view, why get so hostile with me? Am I an international opinion maker?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> BTW~How many more American hostages are being held by ISIS and why didn't I know about this one??
> 
> ISIS claims U.S. hostage killed in Jordan airstrike
> 
> ...


It is ISIS/ISIL propaganda bollix. How can ISIS/ISIL cause maximum problems for Jordan? Pretend that a Jordanian airstrike has killed an American, that's how!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

It looks as though our discussion go the attention of the Pentagon brass! NPR reported today that the UAE may again joint the coalition air campaign.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> I don't blame the Arab countries for being upset. ISIS isn't their problem and they are being asked to sacrifice their blood and treasure for something that does not directly affect them.


It's hard to tell without hearing your tone of voice&#8230;is the above meant to be ironic? That's how I read it, because it obviously affects them very much.

Regarding such matters as CSAR, I have read enough and know enough to judge that journalists seldom know what they are talking about when discussing things such as military operations, and the same might be said of any grumpy Qataris. I'm not accusing said journalists of bias one way or another, but rather of ignorance.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Chouan said:


> The article was a more general article about the situation, the representative from Qatar was more specific, hence them pulling out from operations.


Qatar has played a significant role in fueling Islamic extremism world wide, or at least in a corner of the Islamic world I make it my business to know a lot about, West Africa. Like the Saudis, they play weird double games.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> The support we give to our coalition partners is different from support we would give our own troops. I think the Gulf states are grumbling that our assets are too far away.
> 
> Let's face it, our aircraft are virtually invulnerable. Our countermeasures are superior to those of Gulf state aircraft.


It has yet to be established that we provide different levels of support; no doubt there are volumes of Memoranda of Understanding worked out at the highest levels detailing all that.

I also must add that "our aircraft" are not virtually invulnerable," nor are our countermeasures necessarily superior to those of Gulf state aircraft. Those countries have a lot of cash, which they like to splash out on hi-tech military kit that may be superior to our own. Qatar and UAE, for example, fly a lot of Mirage 2000s, which are terrific planes and may have been updated; UAE has a lot of top tier F-16 variants. Saudi has Typhoons! So maybe they're not flying F-35/22s, but are we? Much depends on whatever specific countermeasure bells and whistles have been packed on to the specific airframe. And training.

Lastly, has anyone actually been shot down?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I don't know about the policy of the Europeans to sell weaponry to the Gulf states but U.S. sales of Aircraft do not have the same avionics, weapons systems and overall tech as those bought by the DoD. The Gulf states have a lot of cash, but I'd put our tech up against anyone else. 

Besides, weapons systems are intended to integrated into an overall strategic and tactical game plan. Most of these countries maintain militaries that are intended to first and foremost, serve the vanity of the ruling dynasties and second mostly defensive and not offensive. 

That's why the U.S. is providing the offensive logistics, command and control and radar jamming. The U.S. is able to project it's power where as most of the Gulf states lack this ability. Our pilots are better trained and understand how to operate within a fully functional offensive air campaign. 

As for our aircraft being virtually invulnerable, I say this because from what I understand our actual contribution beyond command and control, the actual dropping of ordnance, has been done from high altitudes and there's no weapons system in theater that can counter that.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

tocqueville said:


> Qatar has played a significant role in fueling Islamic extremism world wide, or at least in a corner of the Islamic world I make it my business to know a lot about, West Africa. Like the Saudis, they play weird double games.


Indeed they do, with a far more repressive government than even Saudi Arabia.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Indeed they do, with a far more repressive government than even Saudi Arabia.


There are SOB's we have to deal with and those we don't. It's not a perfect world.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Chouan said:


> A very interesting article on BBC's Radio 4 yesterday, it stated that Qatar, for one, was very unhappy that the Arab "alliance" pilots were not being supported by the US. The US has a sophisticated pilot rescue organisation, fast helicopters with US Marine landing parties, ready to rescue downed aircrew. The US will only deploy it to rescue US pilots, despite requests from Qatar specifically, and the Arab nations don't have the technology to provide such a service. Curious isn't it, the US want Arab help in their "coalition", but won't fully support them, even when they're doing what the US want them to do. If the support isn't available to their allies, such that they wthdraw from the operation, isn't that rather self-defeating?
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/04/uae-united-arab-emirates-isis-air-attacks-pilot


I can't say I'm surprised. What did the US have to gain by helping us during the Falklands back in 82? Nothing. 
What did they have to lose? Quite a bit actually - diplomatic relations with and arms sales to other right wing dictatorial states like the USA. (Isn't it ironic that very few americans seem to reflect on the fact that it is only the US and former and existing communist dictatorships that have one & the same person as the the head of state and head of government)

Which is why the US didn't help us. God Bless Pinochet, he let our boys land and attack the Argies from the west!


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I can't say I'm surprised. What did the US have to gain by helping us during the Falklands back in 82? Nothing.
> What did they have to lose? Quite a bit actually - diplomatic relations with and arms sales to other right wing dictatorial states like the USA. (Isn't it ironic that very few americans seem to reflect on the fact that it is only the US and former and existing communist dictatorships that have one & the same person as the the head of state and head of government)
> 
> Which is why the US didn't help us. God Bless Pinochet, he let our boys land and attack the Argies from the west!


I'm not sure I follow, Earl. The US provided substantial assistance to the UK war effort, despite a strong relationship with the Argentine junta, which was providing important assistance to US anti-communsim efforts in Central America. The US sacrificed its strategic interests in the Americas for the sake of its relationship with the UK and Reagan's affinity for Thatcher.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> I don't know about the policy of the Europeans to sell weaponry to the Gulf states but U.S. sales of Aircraft do not have the same avionics, weapons systems and overall tech as those bought by the DoD. The Gulf states have a lot of cash, but I'd put our tech up against anyone else.
> 
> Besides, weapons systems are intended to integrated into an overall strategic and tactical game plan. Most of these countries maintain militaries that are intended to first and foremost, serve the vanity of the ruling dynasties and second mostly defensive and not offensive.
> 
> ...


First of all, don't assume that we only sell tech that's inferior to what we have in our inventory. Not even we can afford to have only the latest stuff. We hold back if we worry about the tech becoming a threat to us, but otherwise, business is business. And then there are plenty of other vendors.

Weapons systems ideally are integrated into an overall strategic and tactical game plan, but that's rarely the case even in our own country. Why? First, conceiving of an overall strategic plan and then understanding and articulating how to translate that plan into an appropriate force structure and appropriation program are immensely difficult activities; having the political will to follow through all the more so. Thus, most if not all countries end up buying things that don't fit into a coherent strategic plan for a number of possible reasons. These include:
1. Being attracted to bright and shiny things
2. Corruption: one buys a particular kind of plane for no better reason than the fact that someone high up is able to profit personally
3. Interagency politics and rivalry
4. Vanity
5. Decision makers don't know what's good for them and simply misunderstand their strategic environment or real needs.
6. Often military leaders and politicians want a silver bullet and don't have the interest or patience to focus on bread and butter items and capabilities.

My point being is that lots of countries spend lots of money on big ticket items like top-notch aircraft, with all the bells and whistles even if they have no need for them, can't maintain them, and are at the same time neglecting fundamentals like paying their troops regularly and adequately, or enabling them to train or practice live firing, etc.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

An interesting article. I don't vouch for any of it; I'm just saying it's interesting.

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/what-this-video-of-jordanian-f-16s-striking-isis-tells-1684343681

Assuming he's right about some of the facts, esp. Jordan's reliance on "dumb bombs," I think he's wrong to dismiss their value. Also, he has no real insight into targeting lists and the kinds of information Jordan and everyone else is using. So really he's just speculating. That said, I fear he might be right about the larger point: no descernable strategy.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> It is ISIS/ISIL propaganda bollix. How can ISIS/ISIL cause maximum problems for Jordan? Pretend that a Jordanian airstrike has killed an American, that's how!


Of course it is, but my question was... "How many more American hostages are being held by ISIS and why didn't I know about this one??"


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Of course it is, but my question was... "How many more American hostages are being held by ISIS and why didn't I know about this one??"


I don't know and I don't know are my answers.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

tocqueville said:


> I'm not sure I follow, Earl. The US provided substantial assistance to the UK war effort,


Really? Well, If you think that half of the US government agreeing politically with the Brits after a month and a lot of umming and aahing by telling the Argies they were naughty boys is substantial assistance, then we use the word substantial very differently. *The US provided NO physical support of any kind to the UK or UK forces during the Falklands War.* I was serving at the time & I know the bad feelings it caused between UK and US troops in the UK and Germany. That is what maddened Thatcher and made a mockery of Reagan's "special relationship with the UK".


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Chouan said:


> If true, mine.


What has to be true for it to be your opinion?



> However, the point that you're ignoring is the international perception.


I am not ignoring anything at all, thank you. I am referring to the accuracy of the specific comments you posted. Whether the world believes these comments or not has no effect on their accuracy.



> If the rest of he world accepts Qatar's view, what will that mean for the US?


Have we established Qatar's view? Or are you now saying that the opinion of one Qatari spokesman, which was based on incorrect facts, is now the opinion of his entire government?



> As I've already said, my own personal view is irrelevant.


Then why did you include it? And since you did include your opinion and I am asking you to clarify it, you can't then pretend that you never posted it or attribute your opinion to the Qatari spokesman.



> I'm simply reporting, in this forum, a view expressed by a spokesman for a government allied to the US. If you don't like that expressed view, why get so hostile with me? Am I an international opinion maker?


Asking you to clarify your opinion is not getting hostile. And you most certainly did more than post someone else's view - you added your own, so please don't act like it is somehow out of line to point out that the Qatari spokesman was wrong in what he said and then ask you which parts of your posts are your opinions.

Don't get me wrong - you are by all means free to say whatever you want about anything and anyone, but if someone calls you on the facts, don't act like that person has somehow done something untoward.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

tocqueville said:


> An interesting article. I don't vouch for any of it; I'm just saying it's interesting.
> 
> https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/what-this-video-of-jordanian-f-16s-striking-isis-tells-1684343681
> 
> Assuming he's right about some of the facts, esp. Jordan's reliance on "dumb bombs," I think he's wrong to dismiss their value. Also, he has no real insight into targeting lists and the kinds of information Jordan and everyone else is using. So really he's just speculating. That said, I fear he might be right about the larger point: no descernable strategy.


To be honest, pat of me wishes that we would just dispatch a squadron of B52s to hit a known terrorist camp, film the whole thing and have it broadcast and post it to the web. Basically, the military version of - you sure you want some of this?

I know that this will not happen for a variety of reasons - including some very good ones - but it can certainly be frustrating watching the US flail about with both of our hands - and sometimes a foot - tied behind our back.

And generally we don't sell our best stuff to anyone. We sell things that are a generation or two old. But these are all still highly capable weapon systems.


----------



## ChrisRS (Sep 22, 2014)

WouldaShoulda said:


> BTW~How many more American hostages are being held by ISIS and *why didn't I know about this one*??


Curious to understand why you have the expectation to know this?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ Sales of weapons systems to other countries is an incredibly regulated thing and the congress is involved as well. Their are different rules for different countries. I recall watching an episode of Nova on PBS once regarding the development of the F35 and Great Britain was involved in this as well as being a customer. I'm sure the variant sold to them was quite different from that which is used by our armed forces. I'm even more certain that weapons systems sold to Middle East countries are likely a generation or two behind and still even more denuded than what we used. 

As for "Going Roman", I'm actually all for this. For better or worse, we're dealing with people and a culture that understands only violence and force. This, at least, is the impression that they give. ISIS, especially, is like this. Does anyone really see negotiation and Clausewitzian subtleties such as limited vs. total war weighing on decisions made by this group? To some extent the Iranians as well. 

The cold war notion of containment and for that matter the way the cold war was fought, was within the context of western culture and civilization. The Soviets were not apocalyptic and their overall foreign policy and global strategy was not only coherent but practical, as was ours. 

When we go to war against another culture is when we need to reconsider notions of warcraft that make sense in the west. We will never win hearts and minds because their hearts and minds work differently than ours. We cannot appeal to the Middle East with notions of western freedom and democracy because they are ours, and a product of our civilization over the past 2500 years. 

So our options are to either stay out of the region and strike deals for oil and turn a blind eye to everything else, or when we go in, we go in to decimate. The third option, and perhaps the most effective yet most difficult to achieve, is to convince Arab governments that it is in their best interest to manage these affairs and to maintain some relative balance of power in the region. They can do this on their own terms and within the context of their culture and religion but as long as these lands are not breeding grounds for terrorists, with governments so weak that they can easily be toppled and manipulated, then we can do business with them.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

ChrisRS said:


> Curious to understand why you have the expectation to know this?


Just part of living in a Free Society??

It is consistent with The Obama's vision of an over-hyped terror threat to keep our citizens kidnapping quiet, however.


----------



## ChrisRS (Sep 22, 2014)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Just part of living in a Free Society??
> 
> It is consistent with The Obama's vision of an over-hyped terror threat to keep our citizens kidnapping quiet, however.


I was curious. I don't know that living in a Free Society gives you the right to know this. Maybe that a kidnapping victim exists but not the personal details. Maybe this information helps an individual make a risk-informed decision. The areas from which an American can be kidnapped and sold to ISIS is growing. Personally, I would choose not become the next Fox or MSNBC cause celebre, and maybe that's why she was not well known.

And I can't claim to know Obama's vision.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

ChrisRS said:


> And I can't claim to know Obama's vision.


He will be happy to tell you...



> Yglesias asked Obama if he thinks the media "sometimes overstates the level of alarm people should have about terrorism" as opposed to longer-term problems like climate change and epidemic disease.
> "Absolutely," the president responded, saying he doesn't blame the press for embracing the old adage, "If it bleeds, it leads." Obama acknowledged that it's lot harder to make climate change or cutting infant mortality a "sexy story."
> But, at the same time, Obama said, "It is entirely legitimate for the American people to be deeply concerned when you've got a bunch of violent, vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris. We devote enormous resources to that, and it is right and appropriate for us to be vigilant and aggressive in trying to deal with that - the same way a big city mayor's got to cut the crime rate down if he wants that city to thrive."
> "But we also have to attend to a lot of other issues, and we've got to make sure we're right-sizing our approach so that what we do isn't counterproductive," he continued.


https://www.mediaite.com/online/if-it-bleeds-it-leads-obama-says-media-overstates-terror-threat/


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ Yeah that was a really bizarre interview, at least the parts that I saw and some of the comments from the POTUS.

But then again, this is a guy who went golfing 8 minutes after announcing to the country that an American citizen had been beheaded by a terrorist organization, on video and available for viewing.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Really? Well, If you think that half of the US government agreeing politically with the Brits after a month and a lot of umming and aahing by telling the Argies they were naughty boys is substantial assistance, then we use the word substantial very differently. *The US provided NO physical support of any kind to the UK or UK forces during the Falklands War.* I was serving at the time & I know the bad feelings it caused between UK and US troops in the UK and Germany. That is what maddened Thatcher and made a mockery of Reagan's "special relationship with the UK".


Perhaps no physical support, but plenty of intel, which is not nothing in that kind of campaign in which the UK had very little ability to see what was going on in the south Atlantic and really only had one crack at winning. See here:
https://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB374/


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

By the way, I just read in Le Monde that Egypt and Qatar are buying Rafales. Those arguably are at least as good as anything in the US inventory other than the F-35s and F-22s. See here:

https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/art...t-rafale_4573455_3234.html?xtmc=rafale&xtcr=2

Oh, and a correction: apparently the US is flying F-22s in Iraq/Syria.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

tocqueville said:


> Perhaps no physical support, but plenty of intel, which is not nothing in that kind of campaign in which the UK had very little ability to see what was going on in the south Atlantic and really only had one crack at winning. See here:
> https://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB374/


However, that was not known until many years later. And as such is irrelevant to the knowledge and feelings of the time amongst UK troops and the UK population, who knew nothing of it. For all intents and purposes the US did not help us.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> However, that was not known until many years later. And as such is irrelevant to the knowledge and feelings of the time amongst UK troops and the UK population, who knew nothing of it. For all intents and purposes the US did not help us.


So because you didn't know about it at the time it didn't happen??

Obama's request for congressional authorization to fight the Islamic State
President Obama on Wednesday against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. Here is the full text of the proposed new Authorization for the Use of Military Force, or AUMF, against the Islamic State "and associated forces."
*JOINT RESOLUTION
*
To authorize the limited use of the United States Armed Forces against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.
***
Whereas the terrorist organization that has referred to itself as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and various other names (in this resolution referred to as "ISIL") poses a grave threat to the people and territorial integrity of Iraq and Syria, regional stability, and the national security interests of the United States and its allies and partners;
Whereas ISIL holds significant territory in Iraq and Syria and has stated its intention to seize more territory and demonstrated the capability to do so;
Whereas ISIL leaders have stated that they intend to conduct terrorist attacks internationally, including against the United States, its citizens, and interests;
Whereas ISIL has committed despicable acts of violence and mass executions against Muslims, regardless of sect, who do not subscribe to ISIL's depraved, violent, and oppressive ideology;
Whereas ISIL has threatened genocide and committed vicious acts of violence against religious and ethnic minority groups, including Iraqi Christian, Yezidi, and Turkmen populations;
Whereas ISIL has targeted innocent women and girls with horrific acts of violence, including abduction, enslavement, torture, rape, and forced marriage;

Gee, isn't this making more out of this than necessary??


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Does the Arab alliance planes etc talk to NATO systems? Otherwise, not a very good idea and hard to make work.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ I'm by no means an expert but there's probably some rudimentary method of communicating friend or foe through either AWACS or other means.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> However, that was not known until many years later. And as such is irrelevant to the knowledge and feelings of the time amongst UK troops and the UK population, who knew nothing of it. For all intents and purposes the US did not help us.


I'd argue the opposite. What you felt at the time from the fox holes is not relevant. What mattered is that the US did help.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Bjorn said:


> Does the Arab alliance planes etc talk to NATO systems? Otherwise, not a very good idea and hard to make work.


Unclear. I don't know if there's a US/NATO policy regarding selling stuff that's fully NATO compliant, and in any case getting different aircraft with different systems to talk to one another is not a simple task. From what I've read, even the French have a relatively hard time because they've been outside of NATO for so long, so there's a belated effort to get their Rafales etc. to work well in a NATO/US-run environment, or perhaps I should say as well as UK aircraft or Dutch, etc.. Most NATO countries build and buy stuff and train with the presumption that they will be going to war working hand-in-glove with the US. The French have kept their distance, at least until recently. Now they're fully on board the interoperability train. (FYI the Swedes have been working hard over the past decade to get their planes to work well with NATO systems. This includes being able to do aerial refueling with US and NATO-standard tanker planes. I think the Swedish participation in Libya was to some extent motivated by a desire to put the Swedish Air Force's new interoperability to the test.)

I am inclined to assume that Arab air forces, even if they are flying US-made planes and tech, are not going to be able to communicate/interoperate with US/NATO systems as seamlessly as NATO aircraft. Which is not to say they can't talk to one another, but it requires extra effort and might never work as well. That said, including the Arabs is politically important even if working with them is a headache and their contribution, militarily


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> So because you didn't know about it at the time it didn't happen??


No, of course not. My point is that NOBODY knew at the time because it was kept secret because the US govt was afraid to come right out and say it for fear of losing influence in South America and upsetting the Argies after they'd helped the CIA with the Contras! Other countries supported us openly from day one but not the USA.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303816504577313852502105454


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> No, of course not. My point is that NOBODY knew at the time because it was kept secret because the US govt was afraid to come right out and say it for fear of losing influence in South America and upsetting the Argies after they'd helped the CIA with the Contras! Other countries supported us openly from day one but not the USA.
> 
> https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303816504577313852502105454


That's called diplomacy!!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Gee, isn't this making more out of this than necessary??





> SEC. 6. REPEAL OF AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ.
> 
> The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243; 116 Stat. 1498; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) is hereby repealed.


Why do you suppose that got snuck in there??

Can someone remind us who voted for The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243; 116 Stat. 1498; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) ??


----------

