When the Russians took flight and went after ISIS, they took video of their bombing run. What did they see?
Row after row of ISIS fuel trucks, all out in the open, with nothing indicating they were in any danger. It was almost as if the United States hadn’t been running bombing operations for months.
How is that possible?
Because President Obama didn’t want to kill people he says aren’t involved with ISIS, and apparently he felt it was immoral to kill them in order to stop the terrorist organization from making millions to fund their war.
The Financial Times noted earlier this month how ISIS was forcing many workers to man their operation. Ahmed said he was happy to get a job, until he found out who his employer was.
“It was frightening, but I didn’t have a choice,” says Ahmed in a phone interview. Like all employees interviewed, he asked to change his name for his family’s safety. “For people like me, you basically have no other work opportunities in Syria.”
He wasn’t alone, of course. It takes a lot of people to run refineries and drive trucks.
The pawns in this deadly game are employees of state-run energy companies and the private groups they contract.
Instead of worrying over valves and pipelines, Ahmed spent much of his time at Tuweinan parsing a high-stakes mind game with his militant overseers. They beat workers regularly, and even killed one in front of his colleagues.
“The worst part is knowing that once you’re there, you belong to no one,” he said. “To both the regime and to Isis, you become untrustworthy.”
That’s why ISIS felt those truck were safe. Obama wouldn’t allow those poor people to die.
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.
“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, according to the Washington Free Beacon. “I don’t understand this strategy at all because this is what has allowed ISIS the advantage and ability to recruit.”
This is the “Just War” theory in full display.
From the essay “Just War Theory vs. American Self-Defense”:
Consider the following passage from the book Just and Unjust Wars by Michael Walzer:
A soldier must take careful aim at his military target and away from nonmilitary targets. He can only shoot if he has a reasonably clear shot; he can only attack if a direct attack is possible . . . he cannot kill civilians simply because he finds them between himself and his enemies.4
Simply not to intend the deaths of civilians is too easy. . . . What we look for . . .is some sign of a positive commitment to save civilian lives . . . if saving civilian lives means risking soldiers’ lives the risk must be accepted.5
Walzer’s prescriptions are not the idle musings of an ivory tower philosopher; they are exactly the sort of “rules of engagement” under which U.S. soldiers are fighting—and dying—overseas.
The Free Beacon reports that a Pentagon official defended the “strategy.”
“The bottom line is that we will not stoop to the level of our enemy and put civilians more in harm’s way than absolutely necessary.”
Only that’s exactly what this strategy does. By allowing ISIS to operate their oil refinery and shipping, they allow them to earn anywhere from $50 to $90 million a month. They use that money to fund their terror network, paying for their atrocities, including the attacks in Paris.
So while the workers in Syria are left to live, the concert goers are killed.
While the engineers man the refineries, the Christians are butchered.
While the truck drivers are spared, the women are raped and the children are sold.
This is the immorality of Obama’s “Just War.”