U.S. Central Command Airstrike updates

[eagle1462010]

U.S. Central Command Oct. 11 U.S. Military Conducts Airstrikes Against ISIL in Syria and Iraq

TAMPA, Fla., Oct. 11, 2014 - U.S. military forces continued to attack ISIL terrorists in Syria Friday and today using bomber and fighter aircraft to conduct six airstrikes. Separately, U.S. and partner nation military forces used attack and fighter aircraft Friday and today to conduct three airstrikes against ISIL in Iraq. Also in Iraq Friday and today, U.S. military forces conducted multiple airdrops to help resupply Iraqi security forces at the request of the Government of Iraq.

In Syria, four airstrikes north of Kobani struck an ISIL fighting position, damaged an ISIL command and control facility, destroyed an ISIL staging building and struck two small ISIL units. Two airstrikes south of Kobani destroyed three ISIL trucks. To conduct these strikes, the U.S. employed bomber and fighter aircraft deployed to the U.S. Central Command area of operations. All aircraft exited the strike areas safely.

In Iraq, an airstrike north of Tall Afar struck a small ISIL unit and destroyed an ISIL armed vehicle. Two airstrikes northwest of Hit struck two small ISIL units. To conduct these strikes, the U.S. employed attack and fighter aircraft deployed to the U.S. Central Command area of operations. In addition, the Kingdom of the Netherlands participated in these airstrikes. All aircraft exited the strike areas safely.

In addition, at the request of the Iraqi government, U.S. military forces conducted multiple airdrops in Iraq in the vicinity of Bayji Friday and today to resupply Iraqi security forces operating in the area. The airdrops were conducted from multiple airbases in the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility. The aircraft delivered 36 container delivery system bundles containing 7,328 halal meals, 2,065 gallons of water, and 16,000 pounds of ammunition. All aircraft exited the airdrop zone safely. The airdrops were intended to support the ISF, which continues to control Bayji. Areas external to Bayji, however, are contested as ISIL continues to conduct operations in the area.

You can follow the military Air Campaign at this site. Daily briefings on combat operations in Iraq and Syria.

Mainly a FYI thread.

 

[eagle1462010]

DoD Videos Fort Riley Soldiers Will Deploy to Middle East

Fort Riley Soldiers Will Deploy to Middle East
The Pentagon, United States

200 Soldiers from Fort Riley going to Baghdad

 

[The Rabbi]

Why does anyone think this is going to succeed? It won't. Useless waste of resources.

 

[eagle1462010]

Supply drop to Iraqi Forces

Defense.gov News Article U.S. Continues Strikes on ISIL Drops Supplies to Iraqi Troops

At the Iraqi government’s request, U.S. aircraft from several air bases in the Centcom area of operations airdropped 36 container delivery system bundles containing 7,328 halal meals, 2,065 gallons of water and 16,000 pounds of ammunition to Iraqi security forces near Bayji, officials said, and left the airdrop zone safely.

The airdrops were intended to support the Iraqi forces, which continues to control Bayji, Centcom officials said, noting that areas outside the city remain contested, as ISIL continues to conduct operations in the area.

 

[Sunni Man]

The november mid term elections are coming up.

So the administration is staging this PR show in order to appear tough on terrorists.

But just as soon as the elections are over the bombing will be halted and declared a major success. .....

.

 

[eagle1462010]

Why does anyone think this is going to succeed? It won't. Useless waste of resources.

I'm simply passing on information from the source. Figured some people here might be interested in the current ops.

I believe air strikes will cause some damage to ISIL, and they do give the Kurds and Iraqi troops a better chance than without them, but ultimately they are still losing ground. Baghdad airport could soon be in artillery range by ISIL, which wouldn't be a good thing at all as we are operating attack Helicopters from there.

If we are there to destroy ISIL then we will have to put boots on the ground and drive them away from Baghdad.

 

[Sunni Man]

American boot's on the ground would be a fool's errand. ......

 

[The Rabbi]

Why does anyone think this is going to succeed? It won't. Useless waste of resources.

I'm simply passing on information from the source. Figured some people here might be interested in the current ops.

I believe air strikes will cause some damage to ISIL, and they do give the Kurds and Iraqi troops a better chance than without them, but ultimately they are still losing ground. Baghdad airport could soon be in artillery range by ISIL, which wouldn't be a good thing at all as we are operating attack Helicopters from there.

If we are there to destroy ISIL then we will have to put boots on the ground and drive them away from Baghdad.

No, I understood the intent and thank you for your post. I didnt mean to be critical.

You are right: airstrikes will cause some complications but will ultilmately do nothing to defeat ISIS. For that we will need ground troops. Obama has royally fucked up yet another foreign policy issue. His alliance with Qatar is straining alliances with other countries. His disdain for Turkey is keeping them out of the war. His pledge of no boots on the ground is laughable and self-defeating.
A total clusterfuck of policy designed to appease domestic interests insted of solving the problem.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Why does anyone think this is going to succeed? It won't. Useless waste of resources.

I'm simply passing on information from the source. Figured some people here might be interested in the current ops.

I believe air strikes will cause some damage to ISIL, and they do give the Kurds and Iraqi troops a better chance than without them, but ultimately they are still losing ground. Baghdad airport could soon be in artillery range by ISIL, which wouldn't be a good thing at all as we are operating attack Helicopters from there.

If we are there to destroy ISIL then we will have to put boots on the ground and drive them away from Baghdad.

No, I understood the intent and thank you for your post. I didnt mean to be critical.

You are right: airstrikes will cause some complications but will ultilmately do nothing to defeat ISIS. For that we will need ground troops. Obama has royally fucked up yet another foreign policy issue. His alliance with Qatar is straining alliances with other countries. His disdain for Turkey is keeping them out of the war. His pledge of no boots on the ground is laughable and self-defeating.
A total clusterfuck of policy designed to appease domestic interests insted of solving the problem.

Oh! Goodness no! Heavens to Betsy! You'd never want to seem critical!

Ass kissing becomes you, Rabble.

Thanks for the links, Eagle. Interesting stuff. Even for those of us who would like to see America focus on policing terrorists and not declaring war on them.

 

[The Rabbi]

Why does anyone think this is going to succeed? It won't. Useless waste of resources.

I'm simply passing on information from the source. Figured some people here might be interested in the current ops.

I believe air strikes will cause some damage to ISIL, and they do give the Kurds and Iraqi troops a better chance than without them, but ultimately they are still losing ground. Baghdad airport could soon be in artillery range by ISIL, which wouldn't be a good thing at all as we are operating attack Helicopters from there.

If we are there to destroy ISIL then we will have to put boots on the ground and drive them away from Baghdad.

No, I understood the intent and thank you for your post. I didnt mean to be critical.

You are right: airstrikes will cause some complications but will ultilmately do nothing to defeat ISIS. For that we will need ground troops. Obama has royally fucked up yet another foreign policy issue. His alliance with Qatar is straining alliances with other countries. His disdain for Turkey is keeping them out of the war. His pledge of no boots on the ground is laughable and self-defeating.
A total clusterfuck of policy designed to appease domestic interests insted of solving the problem.

Oh! Goodness no! Heavens to Betsy! You'd never want to seem critical!

Ass kissing becomes you, Rabble.

Thanks for the links, Eagle. Interesting stuff. Even for those of us who would like to see America focus on policing terrorists and not declaring war on them.

Because policing them worked so well under Clinton, right, shit-for-brains?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Why does anyone think this is going to succeed? It won't. Useless waste of resources.

I'm simply passing on information from the source. Figured some people here might be interested in the current ops.

I believe air strikes will cause some damage to ISIL, and they do give the Kurds and Iraqi troops a better chance than without them, but ultimately they are still losing ground. Baghdad airport could soon be in artillery range by ISIL, which wouldn't be a good thing at all as we are operating attack Helicopters from there.

If we are there to destroy ISIL then we will have to put boots on the ground and drive them away from Baghdad.

No, I understood the intent and thank you for your post. I didnt mean to be critical.

You are right: airstrikes will cause some complications but will ultilmately do nothing to defeat ISIS. For that we will need ground troops. Obama has royally fucked up yet another foreign policy issue. His alliance with Qatar is straining alliances with other countries. His disdain for Turkey is keeping them out of the war. His pledge of no boots on the ground is laughable and self-defeating.
A total clusterfuck of policy designed to appease domestic interests insted of solving the problem.

Oh! Goodness no! Heavens to Betsy! You'd never want to seem critical!

Ass kissing becomes you, Rabble.

Thanks for the links, Eagle. Interesting stuff. Even for those of us who would like to see America focus on policing terrorists and not declaring war on them.

Because policing them worked so well under Clinton, right, shit-for-brains?

Policing is what we do when we have individuals and groups breaking laws and causing destruction. War is what we do when we have nations doing shit.

 

[deltex1]

There is something about having to re supply friendly troops from the air that hints that normal supply routes are compromised. And we claim that Baghdad is in control? Or that the unprecedented coalition is a winning strategery?

 

[The Rabbi]

Why does anyone think this is going to succeed? It won't. Useless waste of resources.

I'm simply passing on information from the source. Figured some people here might be interested in the current ops.

I believe air strikes will cause some damage to ISIL, and they do give the Kurds and Iraqi troops a better chance than without them, but ultimately they are still losing ground. Baghdad airport could soon be in artillery range by ISIL, which wouldn't be a good thing at all as we are operating attack Helicopters from there.

If we are there to destroy ISIL then we will have to put boots on the ground and drive them away from Baghdad.

No, I understood the intent and thank you for your post. I didnt mean to be critical.

You are right: airstrikes will cause some complications but will ultilmately do nothing to defeat ISIS. For that we will need ground troops. Obama has royally fucked up yet another foreign policy issue. His alliance with Qatar is straining alliances with other countries. His disdain for Turkey is keeping them out of the war. His pledge of no boots on the ground is laughable and self-defeating.
A total clusterfuck of policy designed to appease domestic interests insted of solving the problem.

Oh! Goodness no! Heavens to Betsy! You'd never want to seem critical!

Ass kissing becomes you, Rabble.

Thanks for the links, Eagle. Interesting stuff. Even for those of us who would like to see America focus on policing terrorists and not declaring war on them.

Because policing them worked so well under Clinton, right, shit-for-brains?

Policing is what we do when we have individuals and groups breaking laws and causing destruction. War is what we do when we have nations doing shit.

Because that approach worked so well under Clinton, right, Shit-For-Brains?

 

[eagle1462010]

There is something about having to re supply friendly troops from the air that hints that normal supply routes are compromised. And we claim that Baghdad is in control? Or that the unprecedented coalition is a winning strategery?

I agree with that. Having to bring in pod drops shows the supply lines are probably compromised.

 

[eagle1462010]

Not related to Iraq, but Liberia. We are now increasing troop strength there to 4000.

Defense.gov News Article DoD May Deploy up to 4 000 Troops to Combat Ebola

Troop deployments

The U.S. Army announced the units that will deploy to the region beginning in mid-month and running through November. With the previously announced unit deployments, this will bring the total Army commitment to about 3,200 soldiers.

More than 1,800 Fort Campbell, Kentucky-based soldiers will arrive in Liberia sometime late this month. Other soldiers will deploy from the 101st Sustainment Brigade, the 86th Combat Support Hospital of the 44th Medical Brigade, and a Military Police company from the 16th Military Police Brigade.

These units will provide medical and logistic support, as well as site security, to the Joint Task Force. Soldiers will deploy from other bases as well including, Fort Hood, Texas; Fort Carson, Colorado; Fort Bliss, Texas; Fort Bragg, North Carolina; Fort Stewart, Georgia; Fort Benning, Georgia; Fort Eustis, Virginia and Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland.

 

[eagle1462010]

Troop Strength in Iraq is going to 1600. Mission Creep?

Defense.gov News Article U.S. Sending 475 More Service Members to Iraq

U.S. Sending 475 More Service Members to Iraq
By Jim Garamone
DoD News, Defense Media Activity

WASHINGTON, Sept. 10, 2014 – The United States will not hesitate to strike the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant terrorists in Syria, President Barack Obama said tonight, and the U.S. military is ready.

“Decisions about when to conduct these actions will be made at a prudent time as we continue to prosecute our comprehensive strategy against these ISIL terrorists,” said a senior defense official, speaking on background.

The president also announced he is sending more U.S. service members to Iraq as part of the strategy.

“Over the next week or so, approximately 475 additional service members will be deployed to Iraq to conduct the following missions: advise and assist the Iraqi security forces in order to help them go on the offense against ISIL, conduct intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance flights to increase U.S. capacity to target ISIL, and coordinate the activities of the U.S. military across Iraq,” Pentagon Press Secretary Navy Rear Adm. John Kirby said in a statement.

Once these men and women arrive, 1,600 U.S. personnel will be in the country, Kirby added, not including service members serving in the Office of Security Cooperation-Iraq.

 

[deltex1]

I hope Gwen approves of these initiatives.

 

[eagle1462010]

U.S. Central Command Decisive Air Power Thwarts ISIL s Capabilities Official Says

Maj. Gen. Jeff Harrigian, the Air Force’s assistant deputy chief of staff for operations, plans and requirements, said airmen are working closely with joint and coalition partners to execute current operations as part of the “persistent and sustained” campaign against the terrorist group.

“Air power’s targeted actions are disrupting ISIL’s command and control, their logistics and infrastructure, and their freedom of movement,” Harrigian said. “We see air power as one of the fundamental components of the comprehensive strategy.”

But U.S. air power alone, the general asserted, will not destroy ISIL.

“We’ve been working with our coalition partners and sister services for years to develop the full array of air power capabilities that we’re bringing into this fight, leveraging our lessons from both combat and training to execute these current operations,” he said. “This broad coalition has been and will continue to be the cornerstone of the strategy against ISIL.”

 

[eagle1462010]

I hope Gwen approves of these initiatives.

Who is Gwen?

 

[Katzndogz]

obola's brilliance knows no bounds. Isis didn't know what they were doing when they challenged the American presidunce. Yep, they really got a tiger by the tail.

War against Isis US strategy in tatters as militants march on - Comment - Voices - The Independent

War against Isis: US strategy in tatters as militants march on
World View: American-led air attacks are failing. Jihadis are close to taking Kobani, in Syria – and in Iraq western Baghdad is now under serious threat

America's plans to fight Islamic State are in ruins as the militant group's fighters come close to capturing Kobani and have inflicted a heavy defeat on the Iraqi army west of Baghdad.
The US-led air attacks launched against Islamic State (also known as Isis) on 8 August in Iraq and 23 September in Syria have not worked. President Obama's plan to "degrade and destroy" Islamic State has not even begun to achieve success. In both Syria and Iraq, Isis is expanding its control rather than contracting.