[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
International News Title: Russia: Over 500 sorties put million-dollar dent in daily ISIS oil revenue Give Russia this much credit: when it goes to war, it goes at it rather enthusiastically. Russia’s defense ministry has released video of its soldiers writing messages on missiles and bombs such as “For Our Guys” and “For Paris,” loaded on bombers that subsequently delivered them to ISIS at full speed. Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu claims that the strikes have targeted ISIS’ oil revenues, and have degraded them by over a million dollars a day: Minister Sergei Shoigu reported to President Vladimir Putin on Friday that Russian warplanes destroyed 15 oil refining and storage facilities in Syria and 525 trucks carrying oil during this week’s bombing blitz. He said this deprived IS of $1.5 million in daily income from oil sales. … Russian state TV on Friday showed Russian air force ground crew writing “For Ours!” and “For Paris!” on bombs being attached to Russian warplanes. According to Shoigu, Russian warplanes have flown 522 sorties and destroyed over 800 targets over the last four days. Russian long-range bombers and navy ships have launched 101 cruise missiles in four days, including 18 fired Friday by Russian navy ships from the Caspian Sea. ABC News notes that Russia has been flying bomber sorties since the end of September, but have increased the intensity after ISIS blew up a Metrojet airliner filled with Russian tourists. That’s true, but a bit misleading. Russia had been flying bombing runs over Syria, but mostly in the western part of the country against Syrian rebels more intent on unseating Bashar al-Assad. After ISIS attacked Russians, the priorities have shifted — and pretty dramatically. If Russia is correct about their impact on ISIS’ oil infrastructure, then it’s quite an improvement on American efforts in this regard. Bloomberg’s Cam Simpson reported yesterday that the US not only overestimated the damage it had done in its own airstrikes on ISIS’ oil revenues, it vastly underestimated the amount of revenue the terrorist quasi-state generated from it. “It’s not a rounding error,” Simpson notes, saying that the US missed the mark by $400 million or so: Oil is only one revenue source for ISIS. According to the the AP, they also control the black market on cigarettes in their territory — which is odd, since they forbid smoking, too. They levy taxes on all trade, but especially on sales of passports brought in by foreign recruits, cell phones, human trafficking, and smuggling antiquities, some of which ISIS does itself. But oil is truly where it’s at, and not just in producing crude, but in extortion through oil too: “Because there is no choice. ISIS has the diesel, the oil. Last time, a little bit before Ramadan, the rebels closed ISIS’s crossing.” ISIS responded by turning off the tap. “The price of oil in Syria went up. The bakeries stopped because there was no diesel. The cars, the hospitals, everything shut down.” There’s a knock-on effect to the ISIS energy racket. Abu Khaled says that everything in Syria works on generators now. “I have a huge generator, I can fuel a small area, and people pay me for the power.” And because he could purchase his diesel fuel at cut-rate prices owing to his ISIS membership—one-sixth the cost to civilians—he became a minor energy baron in his own right. ISIS also, famously, sells Assad’s oil back to him. “In Aleppo, people have electricity for maybe three or four hours per day. The electricity station is in Asfireh, ISIS-controlled territory, near Kweris airport. So the regime pays for the fuel to run the station. It pays the salaries for the workers because they’re specialized and can’t be replaced. And ISIS takes 52 percent of the electricity and the regime takes 48 percent. That’s the deal they have with Assad.” Take out the oil, and you take out a significant strut of ISIS’ grip on power. The Russians are aiming at the right target, although it remains to be seen whether their assessment of damage done is accurate. Their aggressive action prompts the question yet again, though: How did the US miss this so badly, and why haven’t we demonstrated the same will to action? Adam Kredo has an answer at the Free Beacon: Strikes against the Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL) targets are often blocked due to an Obama administration policy to prevent civilian deaths and collateral damage, according to Rep. Ed Royce (R., Calif.), chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. The policy is being blamed for allowing Islamic State militants to gain strength across Iraq and continue waging terrorist strikes throughout the region and beyond, according to Royce and former military leaders who spoke Wednesday about flaws in the U.S. campaign to combat the Islamic State. “You went 12 full months while ISIS was on the march without the U.S. using that air power and now as the pilots come back to talk to us they say three-quarters of our ordnance we can’t drop, we can’t get clearance even when we have a clear target in front of us,” Royce said. “I don’t understand this strategy at all because this is what has allowed ISIS the advantage and ability to recruit.” The Russians are clearly not as particular. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 5.
#1. To: TooConservative (#0)
I read Cam Simpson's report and listen to him interviewed on John Batchelor's radio show. He believes that targeting the oil revenue is not enough because most the the IS revenue is internally made (mostly through extortion and taxation). He thinks the way to defeat IS is to retake the territory they have seized......and that won't happen with a bombing campaign alone.
Even if he is correct about this and only a third of the loot comes from oil revenue, why not eliminate that oil revenue? I think a campaign to destroy every oil truck only when it has been stopped for more than 20 seconds might work. Hit them with a few rounds from an aircraft, even better if you have an incendiary-tipped bullet. If they can't stop the trucks to load and unload them, their oil business is gone. And you would avoid destroying these facilities long-term when they are vitally needed in Syria. You want to halt the oil flow, not blow up the entire oil infrastructure in Syria by attacking refineries and such. OTOH, a short campaign of going after major facilities (oil storage tanks and the mini-refineries) might convince ISIS you're serious and they would shut them down, hoping to restart them later rather than see them destroyed now. It might also make the local workers flee these facilities which require a fairly large and experienced labor force to operate. You could thus make the workers more afraid of ISIS's enemies than they are afraid of ISIS. I doubt the West would be that cold-blooded but that kind of thinking comes naturally to the Russians. Cold bastards. : )
Too much PC in our country to do the right thing...
Yes there is. How about just hit the area with a small neutron bomb, eliminate the roaches, save the physical assets? Go in later with dozers, bury the roaches.
Why waste the time or money just let the birds and wild dogs clean up the mess...
#8. To: CZ82 (#5)
LOL, that would be cruel to those animals.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|||||
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|