ISIS Airstrikes: Expensive and Ineffective

ISIS Airstrikes: Expensive and Ineffective

494
0
SHARE

As of September 30, 2014, estimates claim that nearly a billion dollars has been spent by the United States in an attempt to bomb the terrorist group into submission. Recent reports suggest that the ISIS airstrikes are both expensive and ineffective.

ISIS is steadily advancing on the Iraq Capital of Baghdad, and has nearly captured a Kurdish town on the Syria-Iraq border. Iraqis report that in some areas the terrorist forces are only ten kilometers from the capital city.

Citizens of the Kurdish town of Kobani are fearful that ISIS will soon control their home. ISIS forces are reported to be on five kilometers away in the east and southeast.

The cost estimates were revealed by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA). “The total cost to date from mid-June through September 24 is likely between $780 and $930 million.”

The group’s own estimate covers the period from August 27 through September 24 and is based on “what is publicly known about the number of targets struck, the types of aircraft and munitions used, the basing options available to US forces in the region, and the number US ground forces in the region.”

The CSBA has also calculated expenses if the strikes continue and ground forces join the campaign.

With 2,000 forces on the ground and the continuation of what they term a ‘moderate bombing campaign,’ the United States would be forced to spend 200 to 320 million dollars per month.

5,000 deployed soldiers and an intensified airstrike campaign would require 350 to 570 million dollars each month.

Worst case scenario; 25,000 ground troops and a heavy air campaign would raise the monthly cost to 1.1 billion dollars and as high as 1.8.

Our country’s broke; but we always manage to find money for a war. Although President Obama professes that there will not be ‘U.S. boots on the ground,’ he is receiving enormous pressure from Republicans to do just that.

Although the airstrikes have not appeared to slow down ISIS’ progress, they have apparently accomplished something; and it’s not good news.

The Daily Telegraph is reporting that Sunnis inside Iraq are pleased to see the Shiite led government forces being push back. There exists similar support in Syria.

There are also reports in the region of a growing sympathy for the terrorist group from jihadists since the aerial bombardment began.

This possibility is the most frightening: Jabhat Al-Nusra, the Al-Qaeda affiliate inside Syria who denounced ISIS is now communicating with the jihadist group. After both groups were attacked by airstrikes, they are considering a reconciliation.

Let’s sum this up and see where our nation is now that we are once again waging a war in the Middle East.

Our government is spending billions of dollars on foreign soil when the money is so badly needed here within our own shores. Progress is minimal, and there continue to be fears that American soldiers will once again be sent to the region. We are making more enemies in the area; creating more individuals who want to see our nation crumble. And we’re aiding ISIS’ recruiting campaign for both funds and fighters.

Now that forty other nations are joining the battle, the United States is committed. We will be there throughout the remainder of Obama’s term and beyond. I have no doubt that our government will send troops to the region once more, and in the end we will have lost lives and billions of dollars, and leave defeated.

We never learn from the past. ISIS airstrikes are expensive and ineffective

James Turnage

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/09/29/isis-edging-closer-to-baghdad-despite-u-s-led-bombing-campaign/

http://rt.com/usa/191708-estimate-cost-isis-war/

SHARE
Previous articleNo Water for You
Next articlePaper or Plastic? No More
James Turnage is currently a writer and editor for The Public Slate, a subsidiary of the Guardian Liberty Voice. He is also a novelist who is in the process of publishing his fourth effort. His responsibilities include Editing, reporting , managing.

NO COMMENTS

Leave a Reply