High civilian casualties in Iraq - "coalition air strike"?

[mikeymikec]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-39383989

I'm confused: A coalition between which forces exactly? I was under the impression that at least the British had left Iraq:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq–United_Kingdom_relations#Present_day
Though a presence in Kuwait suggests the British could have conducted an airstrike from there?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-led_intervention_in_Iraq_(2014–present)
The US are apparently still there to combat ISIS.

 

[Ventanni]

The US, British, and French at least. There are more as well.

As for civilians dying; it's war. It doesn't excuse the fact that civilians die, but it's war. Also, they're in an enormous civilian center - Mosul.

 

[sdifox]

Looks like it may have been Americans

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...ul-airstrikes-caused-mass-civilian-casualties

 

[Genx87]

I cant imagine why we are seen as bad guys in the region. In the past couple weeks our airstrikes have killed 300ish civilians.

 

[JSt0rm]

I cant imagine why we are seen as bad guys in the region. In the past couple weeks our airstrikes have killed 300ish civilians.

I mean we only look like Satan himself.

We are what we hate and fear.

 

[FIVR]

Actually the claimed figures for the last month are over 1,000 civilians killed by the coalition. Iraqi civilians just can't compete with all the win in the USAF. Murica F yeah Pew Pew Pew.

 

[JSt0rm]

Actually the claimed figures for the last month are over 1,000 civilians killed by the coalition. Iraqi civilians just can't compete with all the win in the USAF. Murica F yeah Pew Pew Pew.

Spreading freedom around the world.

 

[Jaskalas]

The nature of terrorism these days forces your hand in highly populated civilian centers. The alternative is letting genocidal ISIS carry on with its genocide. AKA, not an option. Press on and see the job done.

 

[JSt0rm]

The nature of terrorism these days forces your hand in highly populated civilian centers. The alternative is letting genocidal ISIS carry on with its genocide. AKA, not an option. Press on and see the job done.

yellow cake.

 

[mikeymikec]

The nature of terrorism these days forces your hand in highly populated civilian centers. The alternative is letting genocidal ISIS carry on with its genocide. AKA, not an option. Press on and see the job done.

Err, what? You're saying the only way to deal with ISIS is to kill more civilians than ISIS soldiers? If that's what the top brass are recommending, if I was their boss I'd tell them that nothing is going to happen until they come up with a better option that doesn't feed ISIS's ranks in such an obvious manner.

Just off the top of my head, I'd recommend investing in sufficient facilities near the city, get the UN in to highly document, continually inspect and publicise those facilities, probably staff it with UN peacekeepers with a military detachment that only gets used in an emergency, then tell the people in the city to evacuate (recommending the facilities that have been set up for them), and if they're going to the evacuation facility then they should take nothing with them except what is necessary (such as medication) as everything else will be provided and they will be searched on entry, expect to take care of those people for at least a few months, then once as much evacuation has been done as possible, then the military gets to go in.

Inspection points would need to be set up around the city with the expectation that they might be attacked by ISIS.

Of course there's still the possibility of civilian casualties, but the odds of killing civilians drop sharply if the job is done right, and it doesn't make the coalition forces look like a bunch of gung-ho prats who think that a cure as destructive as the disease is still a cure. As much of the city should be left standing as possible

 

[JSt0rm]

Err, what? You're saying the only way to deal with ISIS is to kill more civilians than ISIS soldiers? If that's what the top brass are recommending, if I was their boss I'd tell them that nothing is going to happen until they come up with a better option that doesn't feed ISIS's ranks in such an obvious manner.

Just off the top of my head, I'd recommend investing in sufficient facilities near the city, get the UN in to highly document, continually inspect and publicise those facilities, probably staff it with UN peacekeepers with a military detachment that only gets used in an emergency, then tell the people in the city to evacuate (recommending the facilities that have been set up for them), and if they're going to the evacuation facility then they should take nothing with them except what is necessary (such as medication) as everything else will be provided, expect to take care of those people for at least a few months, then once as much evacuation has been done as possible, then the military gets to go in.

Inspection points would need to be set up around the city with the expectation that they might be attacked by ISIS.

Of course there's still the possibility of civilian casualties, but the odds of killing civilians drop sharply if the job is done right, and it doesn't make the coalition forces look like a bunch of gung-ho prats who think that a cure as destructive as the disease is still a cure.

but yellow cake

 

[Maxima1]

Err, what? You're saying the only way to deal with ISIS is to kill more civilians than ISIS soldiers? If that's what the top brass are recommending, if I was their boss I'd tell them that nothing is going to happen until they come up with a better option that doesn't feed ISIS's ranks in such an obvious manner.

So just leave ISIS alone? Sounds like the trolley problem.

 

[mikeymikec]

So just leave ISIS alone? Sounds like the trolley problem.

IMO there's an ethical obligation to help clean up the mess we made.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

So just leave ISIS alone? Sounds like the trolley problem.

The US could also support the ground troups with equipment and other stuff. You know, the Kurds, the Iraqi government and especially the Iranians.