Viscious

If you are sensitive, stop reading now.

OK, you were warned.

What is the main US action in the war on IS? Airpower. How is IS dealing with this event? First, they have decentralized much of their C2 (command and control). Secondly they have adopted in clothes and vehicles as much as a civilian look as possible. Finally and most importantly in combining the first two they have dispersed and blended into the general populace as much as possible.

Some of this is helpful for us and some of it is not. And by us I mean the people aligned against IS.

But first let's do a little history. Looking at the 6 Day War that Israel won and Desert Storm that was a US success a major if not the key factor in winning was the use of airpower. An air attack of a short time, against a known, identifiable enemy. Air superiority, quickness and intel all lead to success on the actual battle field.

Now we have an air campaign where we no longer are quick. The enemy's actions reduce our intel and ability to attack them. Importantly though, attack them in a way that people are OK with. In today's battle space that means low civilian casualties. High civilian death tolls make us look bad and give the enemy propaganda to be used in popular support.

Let's remind a little further in history. The Battle of Britain and Blitz. Fat Man and Little Boy. Fire bombing of Japan. Sustained day and night bombing of Germany by the RAF and the USAAF.

The V1 and V2 attack on the UK didn't really work. The BoB wasn't that long of a battle. But what do the rest have in common? They were all over a long period of time. They all had generally defined targets, maybe specific on paper but with the technology in weapons, targeting and recon they fall far short of today's standards.

But they worked. And why did they work? Why did long term, inaccurate air attacks work? Precisely because of their massive civilian damage and death toll.

The Arab partners against IS have pitiful land armies. (an open secret and not one they want proved in the harsh daylight of battle)The regional politics of our partners sometimes conflict with ours. The US does not want to involve regular ground troops again in the area. So we're stuck with an air assault of IS.

Which they are thwarting. It's my opinion that the only way this air campaign against IS can be effective to to stop worrying soo much about collateral damage. No matter what we do, it will be spun in world and Arab opinion against us. If our goal is to truly degrade and dismantle IS as a fighting force, who has chosen to hide amongst civilians, then we need to use the full force of our air superiority and up the damage.

Simply put if we are going to use a 25 million dollar plane to fight against a 25 thousand dollar truck with a heavy machine gun we need to kill more people and more types of people. Using history as a guide, the only way for this air war to work is to simply kill as many people as possible, as fast as possible. We have the technology to do so, we have the people and weapons in place but we lack the political and diplomatic will power to do so.

Unless each sortie starts killing more people this is never going to work. No ground army in the region will be successful. The foreign policy of those in the area is at too great of odds to be overcome and lags behind the realities on the ground. The way we've chosen to prosecute IS can only be won now by upping the death toll, and greatly.