'Desert Drizzle': Obama's Antiseptic Bombing Campaign Won't Defeat Islamic State

Remember from back in January, "Obama's Pathetic Bombing Campaign Hasn't Stopped Expansion of Islamic State in Syria."

This is a common theme, and we'll be returning to it again and again, until the U.S. faces a Paris-style attack on the homeland.

See David Deptula, retired U.S. Air Force general, at USA Today, "We can't stop the Islamic State with a 'Desert Drizzle'":

Is it going to take the equivalent of the Paris bombings here, before Obama takes decisive action against the Islamic State?

Is it going to take the equivalent of the Paris bombings — or worse — in the United States before President Obama takes decisive action against the Islamic State?  Secretary Kerry stated last week that President Obama “has directed every member of his national security team to pick up the pace and move forward with ideas for degrading and defeating Daesh more rapidly, more completely and permanently.” That should not be difficult given that last month the president’s plan resulted in only 4 strikes a day in Syria. That is pathetic. For comparison, the number of air strikes during Desert Storm averaged over 1200 a day. The current operation in Syria is more appropriately named “Desert Drizzle.”

We have it within our capacity to destroy the Islamic State leading to the elimination of their sanctuary for terror. However, to do so will require moving beyond the current anemic, pinprick air strikes, to a robust, comprehensive use of airpower — not simply in support of indigenous allied ground forces, but as the key force in taking down the Islamic State. It will require focusing on the Islamic State as a government, not an insurgency, and for Central Command and their subordinate task force to stop fighting the last war, and start the serious use of airpower....

The moral and strategic menace of the Islamic State warrants the optimal application US air power until the group is decomposed as an effective entity. A more robust and comprehensive air campaign over the past year could have reduced the slaughter of thousands of innocents at the hands of the Islamic State. It would have prevented the migration of terrorists out of Syria, some of who may have been involved in the attacks in France.

Rapid and devastating air attacks can still liquidate the capacity of the Islamic State to wage war and prevent the spilling of more blood. Overwhelming and focused attacks to crush the Islamic State — not episodic, antiseptic bombing — will also send a signal that the US has the will, power and resolve to confront other regional threats.

The danger of attempting to conduct ‘immaculate warfare’ by over-constraining the application of airpower is self-defeating, as it perpetuates the misperception that airpower is incapable of accomplishing what it is actually very capable of delivering under the laws of war — the rapid disintegration of the Islamic State.

It is admirable that Operation Inherent Resolve air operations in the past year plus have produced precise attacks with the fewest possible number of civilian casualties. However, humanity, justice, and civilization demand that the restrictions that are delaying and inhibiting the means to halt the evil of the Islamic State be removed, and that we optimize our asymmetric advantage of airpower...