The War Against the Islamic State: The Challenge of Civilian Casualties by Anthony H. Cordesman, Center for Strategic and International Studies
There is no question that the United States should do what it can to minimize civilian casualties. At the same time, war is war, and the United States is fighting an asymmetric war against a movement that does not wear uniforms, may or may not mark its vehicles, and can draw on decades of experience in regional conflicts where irregular forces have used civilians as human shields.
The United States has the most advanced military technology in the world, and its combination of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities give it a unique ability to combine imagery, signals intelligence, electronic intelligence, and unmanned intelligence for targeting purposes. Its unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) give it the capability to watch potential targets in real time, and its unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs) give it the capability to both watch potential targets and strike them in real time…
Comments
While we the West claim we try to have lower civilian loses--these pictures of Assad killing his own civilians go around the Islamist world depicting the simple fact the West does not care and similar pictures have come out from US led bombing strikes.
It is all about perception in the ME.
pic.twitter.com/95zIn9OFbd
#GENOCIDEinSYRIA don't call global attention...
Right now there is a serious perception in the entire ME that the US really does not care about civilian loses via bomb strikes.
There have been countless videos released showing US led bombing strikes and a couple of miles to the left and or right the Assad AF targets strictly civilian targets killing men women and children and yet we the US say nothing.
Example in one month there was just 300 or so US led air strikes and the Assad AF conducted nearly 2500 strikes against alleged jihadi's but hit usually civilians.
Then on top of it the Assad AF is still dropping barrel bombs and chemical barrel bombs again against civilian targets.
Did we not start the Syrian discussion several years ago over the high loses in civilian lives? And now silence. Not even the idea of a no fly zone and what about those chemical bombs being dropped--was not there a red line in the sand on the use of chemical weapons against civilians?
But anyone who has served in the ME knows just how the loss of life among civilians carries in propaganda value.
Piece I did for the King's College blog - Social media and conflict zones: the new evidence base for policymaking https://blogs.kcl.ac.uk/policywonkers/social-media-and-conflict-zones-t… …
Eliot Higgins @EliotHiggins
I see Stratfor put together a diagram of a barrel bomb based on my work pic.twitter.com/tyJ470L8IK
This is a good article, but there is a bottom line not addressed fully. First, the enemy must not be allowed sanctuary. Second, the leadership must love and protect their citizen soldiers more than the enemy and the population they use as a shield. Third, the President's stated policy to our military is destroy ISIS. Get it done!
I have another side issue. During interviews our CJCS slouches in a chair like some 3d World arrogant Dictator, when he should sit up straight and demonstrate some posture respect for the people he is supposed to serve. That is a total distraction to any thing of use he might have to say.