Posted on Feb 2, 2016
6
6
0
Lt. Gen. MacFarland has gone on the record to say that we shouldn't look into carpet bombing the ISIS in fear of causing mass casualties among the civilian population.
Do you agree with him or should we look into this type of bombing as a way to end the ISIS?
Do you agree with him or should we look into this type of bombing as a way to end the ISIS?
Posted in these groups: 
ISIS
ISIS
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 19
15
15
0
A few thoughts:
- Carpet bombing is only the answer in a sterile combat environment with no non combatants in the kill zone.
- Carpet bombing is a tactic and not a strategy. Tactics win (or lose) battles while strategies win (or lose) wars.
- The defeat of ISIS will require a whole of government approach (more than just DoD) at all three levels of war (strategic, operational, tactical) and within all domains (sea, air, land, cyber, space, human) over a sustained period of time using kinetic and nonkinetic means.
- We have not had much success against ISIS because the current administration is doing little to nothing with the five points in the above bullet. The first problem is that the administration will not admit there is a problem or use the correct term (radical Islam) to define the problem. It is what it is.
- Carpet bombing is only the answer in a sterile combat environment with no non combatants in the kill zone.
- Carpet bombing is a tactic and not a strategy. Tactics win (or lose) battles while strategies win (or lose) wars.
- The defeat of ISIS will require a whole of government approach (more than just DoD) at all three levels of war (strategic, operational, tactical) and within all domains (sea, air, land, cyber, space, human) over a sustained period of time using kinetic and nonkinetic means.
- We have not had much success against ISIS because the current administration is doing little to nothing with the five points in the above bullet. The first problem is that the administration will not admit there is a problem or use the correct term (radical Islam) to define the problem. It is what it is.
(15)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
Bingo on the tactic vs strategy, sir. I was going to say that myself, but saw you beat me to it.
IMHO, the problem is that the administration is dithering because taking action that WILL be effective requires commitment. This administration does not want to commit to anything.
IMHO, the problem is that the administration is dithering because taking action that WILL be effective requires commitment. This administration does not want to commit to anything.
(4)
(0)
PO2 Steven Erickson
Although my Thumbs-Up photo doesn't look very "precise" in the application of ordnance, I agree 100% with your statements, COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM!!!!
(2)
(0)
CPT Gary Jugenheimer
Only if the carpet dropped is wet and soggy.....this would be water carpet bombing and probably cause suffocation vs just putting them in the dark!
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
How did it work when we were looking for Bin Laden? Bombing will NOT destroy an ideal. Killing won't either (although it helps). Need a way to discredit them. They're MUCH better than we are in Cyber and media relations. And that's where we need to be to fight them.
(6)
(0)
4
4
0
Carpet bombing hasn't been a viable answer since the Gulf War when the Iraqi Army was deployed out in the middle of the desert. Honestly, I think our ends would be best served with next to no bombs dropping from the air. Our answers lie in more subtle means to break their will and fracture their unity. I'd go after their revenue streams, specifically.
However, what the General was doing was a direct response to a statement by Senator Ted Cruz, where he was talking tough about taking on ISIS. It wasn't the smartest statement by Cruz, but it is unusual for a General Officer to weigh in that directly against a sitting Senator unprovoked.
However, what the General was doing was a direct response to a statement by Senator Ted Cruz, where he was talking tough about taking on ISIS. It wasn't the smartest statement by Cruz, but it is unusual for a General Officer to weigh in that directly against a sitting Senator unprovoked.
(4)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google