Right-Wing Media: “Level Raqqa,” “Eliminate” Rules Of Engagement That Protect Civilians

Fox's Eric Bolling: “Level Raqqa ... You May Have Civilian Casualties. Sorry, It's War.” On the November 17 edition of The Five, co-host Eric Bolling offered an “alternate strategy” against ISIS that included eliminating rules of engagement and “level[ing] Raqqa,” ISIS' de facto capital and a city with a population that numbered 220,000 before Syria's civil war. After laying out his strategy Bolling concluded, “you may have civilian casualties. Sorry, it's war”:

ERIC BOLLING: So here's a strategy, here's an alternate strategy, one that President Obama or anyone should at least take a look at. Hit every single truck that's on that highway that goes from Syria to Iran. Hit every single one and stay off that highway if you're not supposed to be there. Hit the oil fields, take the oil -- level them. Level out all the oil fields. Hit Raqqa. Level Raqqa. Avoid hospitals and schools and see what happens. There's a strategy. But as -- was it Hayden who points out with the rules of engagement --

KIMBERLY GUILFOYLE: Rules of engagement need to be modified.

BOLLING: -- you got to eliminate those. You have to lift that. You have to say this is war. But in order to do that, you have to declare war on ISIS, and President Obama doesn't want to do it. But if he does, then you can do these things, and you may have civilian casualties. Sorry, it's war. [Fox News, The Five, 11/17/15]

Ralph Peters: “The Generals Who Won World War II Would Start By Leveling Raqqa ... Kill Ten Thousand, Save A Million.” In a November 16 op-ed for the New York Post, Ret. Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, argued, “You must take the war to the enemy -- without restraint.” Peters wrote, “The generals who won World War II would start by leveling Raqqa, the ISIS caliphate's capital. Civilians would die, but those remaining in Raqqa have embraced ISIS ... Kill ten thousand, save a million”:

What can be done? The answer is easy to mouth -- and unwelcome to those who conduct foreign policy by platitudes (such as “there's no military solution”). The base line is that you can't win by playing defense. You must take the war to the enemy -- without restraint. If you're not determined to win at any cost, you'll lose.

Our military has the resources to shatter ISIS, but political correctness has penetrated so deep into the Pentagon that, even should a president issue the one-word order, “Win!,” our initial actions would be cautious and halting. We've bred a generation of military leaders afraid of being prosecuted by their own government for the kind of errors inevitable in wartime. Instead of “leaning forward in the foxhole,” our leaders lean on lawyers.

If lawyers had had to approve our World War II target lists, we couldn't have won. War is never clean or easy, and the strictures imposed on our military today just protect our enemies. Collateral damage and civilian casualties are part of combat and always will be. The most humane approach is to pile on fast and win decisively -- which results in far less suffering than the sort of protracted agony we see in Syria.

The generals who won World War II would start by leveling Raqqa, the ISIS caliphate's capital. Civilians would die, but those remaining in Raqqa have embraced ISIS, as Germans did Hitler. The jihadis must be crushed. Start with their “Berlin.”

Kill ten thousand, save a million.

Unthinkable? Fine. We lose.

And the jihadis? They'll always have Paris. [New York Post, 11/16/15]

Fox's Bill Cowan: “Unfortunately” The Administration Won't “Rain Bombs” On ISIS Because They're “So Worried About Collateral Damage.” On the November 17 edition of Happening Now, Fox News military analyst Bill Cowan lamented that the administration “refuses to aggressively pursue” airstrikes in Raqqa “because this administration is scared to death that we're going to have a couple of civilian casualties.” Cowan praised France for “rain[ing] bombs ... in Raqqa and elsewhere,” saying, “unfortunately, it's not us doing the same thing”:

BILL COWAN: This administration refuses to aggressively pursue -- they're so worried about collateral damage and I say the unfortunate loss of civilian life, and indeed, it is unfortunate. But the reality is, we have to really push this campaign. If we're going to go after the head of the snake, which is there in Raqqa -- if we don't go after the head of the snake, Raqqa's going to continue to plan operations like they conducted in Paris and they're looking to do it here in the United States. We just don't have a willingness in this administration to aggressively pursue an air campaign that has an impact. Consider this, Jenna, last Friday we got a single target in Raqqa, Jihadi John. Caught him coming out of a building and put a predator missile on top of that guy. Our intelligence is very, very good. Very good. And we know where the command and control centers are, where logistic centers are, where planning centers are, where leadership is of ISIS. Why don't we go after it? Because this administration is scared to death that we're going to have a couple of civilian casualties and people are going to get upset with us. Believe me, Jenna. The president of France said they were going to be pitiless in their pursuit of ISIS. And I think the Russians are going to be the same. They're going to rain bombs down upon ISIS in a manner that's going to make a difference in that town, in Raqqa and elsewhere. And unfortunately, it's not us doing the same thing. [Fox News, Happening Now, 11/17/15]

Fox's Chuck Nash Dismisses Concerns Over Civilian Casualties In Strikes Against ISIS As “Niceties.” On the November 17 edition of Happening Now, Fox News military analyst Chuck Nash criticized “restrictive” rules of engagement that have “sworn off” targets that might result in civilian casualties. He added that “the French and certainly the Russians ... are not worried about those niceties right now”:

JON SCOTT (HOST): What do you make of the Russians' immediate start of a bombing campaign over Raqqa? Are they more serious than the United States is about going after ISIS?

CHUCK NASH: Well, I can tell you, Jon, they're not worried about collateral damage, because the weapons they're using and the type of aircraft they're using to deliver them are nowhere near the precision stuff that we use. The other side of it is this is a clear message to the leadership of ISIS, and that is you just screwed with the wrong person.

[...]

NASH: Until we start dealing with things like the French -- where did they get those targets that they just started pounding all of a sudden? They got them from U.S. intelligence. Well, why haven't we been pounding them? It's because our rules of engagement probably are so restrictive that, because there might be a collateral damage, civilian casualty, we've sworn off those targets. Well, the French, and certainly the Russians, given their experience in Afghanistan and Chechnya, are not worried about those kind of niceties right now. [Fox News, Happening Now, 11/17/15]

IJ Review's Kurt Schlichter Writes Fantasy Story: “You Will Kill All ISIS Fighters Who Do Not Surrender ... The Safety Of Civilians Is Secondary.” Townhall.com and IJ Review columnist Kurt Schlichter wrote a fantasy story detailing “what defeating ISIS would look like.” Schlichter fantasized that a retired Marine called “The Wildman” would lead the fight and prioritize “the destruction of ISIS forces. The safety of civilians is secondary.” His story continued that “Americans leveled the towns, often using the napalm that had just been reintroduced into the American arsenal” and that “the jihadis tried to hide behind the few remaining civilians but the Americans never hesitated.” Schlichter finally envisions that the “daily body counts” “horrified liberals, but delighted the American people,” the end result being a high popularity for the future president:

The Wildman's Commander's Intent statement said nothing about winning hearts and minds: “You will attack aggressively in order to destroy all ISIS forces in Iraq and Syria. You will kill all ISIS fighters who do not surrender. Your priority is the destruction of ISIS forces. The safety of civilians is secondary.”

The U.S. forces, backed only by a small Iraqi force to deal with prisoners and refugees, did not pause in their staging areas. Instead, they attacked in force hard and fast, armor leading, west and north up the line of towns and villages lining the fertile river courses of Iraq and Syria, supported by Kurdish forces attacking from the northeast. The American operations plan ignored the Syrian border; American units would attack and destroy ISIS forces wherever they were.

The jihadis initially attempted to dig in, believing the Americans would pause to root them out of the urban areas. Instead, the Americans leveled the towns, often using the napalm that had just been reintroduced into the American arsenal, and followed up with infantry. At first, the jihadis tried to hide behind the few remaining civilians but the Americans never hesitated, and ISIS quickly learned that to try to hold ground meant a swift death. That is why the planned assault on Mosul did not happen - the jihadis ran. But they could not retreat directly; the 82nd Airborne Division dropped across their path at the Iraqi border, cutting off their supply and retreat routes. Throughout the battlefield, small bands broke off and fled into the desert where they were mercilessly hunted down and killed by helicopter gunships and cavalry squadrons.

The Americans published daily body counts. This horrified liberals, but delighted the American people, who for too long had had no good news nor any way to measure success. And the Americans took few prisoners. Most of those they captured they handed off to the Iraqis; the lucky ones were shot quickly. The President had accepted the finding of the Department of Justice that all ISIS fighters were unlawful combatants not subject to Geneva Convention protections. They were like pirates of old, and piracy was stamped out only when governments began hanging them. So when American forces caught a band of ISIS fighters who had beheaded two captured American pilots, they were tried by a Marine court martial - the videotape they had unwisely made documenting their atrocity being the main evidence - and were shot by firing squad the next morning. The media was horrified when the President told a press conference, “If you murder Americans, you will die. Period.” His popularity rose to 70%. [IJ Review, 11/17/15]

Fox's Neil Cavuto Suggests The U.S. May Need To Say "'The Hell With It'" And Accept Risk Of Civilian Casualties In Strikes Against ISIS. On the November 18 edition of Your World, host Neil Cavuto questioned his guest whether the president should say “to hell with it” and take “the risk of collateral damage in killing civilians ... since ISIS kills a lot of civilians”:

NEIL CAVUTO: If you were president -- he's had to go slow on some of those airstrikes against ISIS because of the risk of collateral damage in killing civilians. Should we be saying now, going forward, since ISIS kills a lot of civilians, “To hell with it. If that's the risk, we get them where they are?” [Fox News, Your World, 11/18/15]