Earlier this month it was reported that Obama has blocked 75% of all airstrikes against ISIS. Obama justified this on claims that he wants “no civilian casualties. Zero.” A noble goal, but one that’s also completely impossible in warfare. In fact, drone strikes actually result in fewer civilian casualties per enemy combatant killed than boots on the ground so Obama may want to rethink his opposition to drone warfare.
A large chunk of ISIS’ revenue comes from sales of oil from oil fields seized by the “State” – up to $3 million a day from an estimate in 2014. Bombing ISIS oil fields would thus destroy a major stream of revenue for ISIS. But when it comes to the justification of why we aren’t doing that, things get a bit ridiculous.
To quote Rare:
In an interview with PBS, former CIA director Michael Morell said that the White House “didn’t go after oil wells, actually hitting oil wells that ISIS controls, because we didn’t want to do environmental damage, and we didn’t want to destroy that infrastructure.”
Morell, who left the top CIA post in 2013, said that instead of hitting ISIS controlled oil wells, the U.S. is targeting oil trucks.
“There seemed to have been a judgment that, look, we don’t want to destroy these oil tankers because that’s infrastructure that’s going to be necessary to support the people when ISIS isn’t there anymore, and it’s going to create environmental damage,” Morell said on “Charlie Rose.”
Meanwhile, Russian airstrikes have destroyed nearly 500 terrorist targets in the course of two days. It’s time to step up our game.
What do you think of Obama’s handling of ISIS? Let us know in the comments below and support Headline Politics by liking us on Facebook.