-
I feel like you may not be exactly clear on how bombing works. The planes we launched today were carrying Paveway bombs - laser guided, which should increase accuracy, except that you need a laser designator on the ground to make use of that, which is exactly what we don't have.
Right now we may be able to find targets with low densities of civilians, but if there is any end-game in mind, then bombing Raqqa is presumably part of that. ISIS have been building tunnels under other cities against exactly this eventuality, so I suspect the civilian to insurgent hit rate is going to skew pretty radically at that point.
General_Strike-
Laser guidance can be done from the ground, from a support aircraft, or from a pod on the attack aircraft. You don't need a designator on the ground, in fact. But thanks for being patronising.
I really don't think bombing Raqqa is a good idea. I think bombing the oil logistics and cutting off their revenues is a great idea. Weaken Daesh and let local forces sort out the situation on the ground. Like the way the Iraqi army has been taking back cities from Daesh over the last few weeks (with Western air support).
But this is again part of the problem - I say I want us to hit their oil smuggling operation, you say that must mean I'm happy for urban areas to be bombed. That's not what I've said at all.
-
I think the key issue with Afghanistan was leaving too early. In terms of 'nation building' it was undoubtedly a very challenging situation. From a geographical spread the progress made was enormously varied but in many cases when ISAF left Afghanistan local communities were much better off.
'except that you need a laser designator on the ground to make use of
that, which is exactly what we don't have'They can be guided by lots of means. We do have people on the ground precisely for coordinating this kind of thing too.
h2o
fallschirmjäger
No worse than the anti-bombing straw man that has the choice as bombing civilians or not bombing at all.