What am I missing?

[Ramie]

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/01/19/b-2-bombers-kill-nearly-100-isis-terrorists-in-libya.html

What am I missing here 108 precision guided bombs to kill 85 terrorist plus Hellfire missiles from armed drones.  The math doesn't add up to me.

[Serk]

Expensive, but worth it...

Price of 1 Hellfire missile is listed as $110,000...

Being able to send 85 assholes to find their virgins without losing ANY American lives?

.....worth it.

[Moonshot_1]

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/01/19/b-2-bombers-kill-nearly-100-isis-terrorists-in-libya.html

What am I missing here 108 precision guided bombs to kill 85 terrorist plus Hellfire missiles from armed drones.  The math doesn't add up to me.

I agree.

1. Why was this even made public?
2. Why the use of strategic nuclear capable bombers for this mission?
3. Why the use of the same bombers from their MISSOURI base?
4. 108 bombs plus Hellfire missiles and an estimated 85 terrorist killed?

Are we that depleted that we have to attack terrorist training camps with strategic nuclear capable bombers? Why are we introducing such sophisticated weapons into such a theater?

Doesn't add up. 

[Serk]

1. Why was this even made public?
2. Why the use of strategic nuclear capable bombers for this mission?
3. Why the use of the same bombers from their MISSOURI base?
4. 108 bombs plus Hellfire missiles and an estimated 85 terrorist killed?

IMHO the point of all that was to give the Russians and Chinese a gentle reminder that we have a tremendous AT&T ability, (*Singing* Reach out, reach out and touch someone!), and that the ordnance being delivered doesn't have to be conventional.

Our guys can kiss their wives and kids good bye in Missouri, go to work, raise hell on the other side of the world, and land back on US soil, never setting foot on non-US soil.

[JimC]

Expensive, but worth it...

Price of 1 Hellfire missile is listed as $110,000...

Being able to send 85 assholes to find their virgins without losing ANY American lives?

.....worth it.

       

[Moonshot_1]

1. Why was this even made public?
2. Why the use of strategic nuclear capable bombers for this mission?
3. Why the use of the same bombers from their MISSOURI base?
4. 108 bombs plus Hellfire missiles and an estimated 85 terrorist killed?

IMHO the point of all that was to give the Russians and Chinese a gentle reminder that we have a tremendous AT&T ability, (*Singing* Reach out, reach out and touch someone!), and that the ordnance being delivered doesn't have to be conventional.

Our guys can kiss their wives and kids good bye in Missouri, go to work, raise hell on the other side of the world, and land back on US soil, never setting foot on non-US soil.

I am pretty confident the Russians and Chinese are fully aware of our capabilities. We just spent 10's of millions of dollars in a single military op to tell them what they already know? At least make them hack us for it.

[Chrisj CMA]

This was done now and made public because our outgoing POTUS is a political baby. Trump said when he got the controls he would do precisely what was just done. Had to steal Trumps thunder and make himself look stronger on his last day. Can't wait to see that limo leaving our White House!

[rocketray]

try"Professor Pape  Dying to win"  ?on line or youtube..a few hours of Dept Defense paid for analysis--it will bust a lot of bubbles

[Jess from VA]

This was done now and made public because our outgoing POTUS is a political baby. Trump said when he got the controls he would do precisely what was just done. Had to steal Trumps thunder and make himself look stronger on his last day. Can't wait to see that limo leaving our White House!

Nailed it. 

[art]

At first I thought,good but after looking at the amount of bombs and missiles, you got to be kidding me. More than one per person. That's not bragging that's stupid.

[Ramie]

I find it hard to believe we couldn't have put a few seal teams or special forces in the mix.  I know that's easy to say when I don't have to be one of them but if they opened up the rules of engagement I'm sure those guys could get the job done.

[DirtyDan]

I find it hard to believe we couldn't have put a few seal teams or special forces in the mix.  I know that's easy to say when I don't have to be one of them but if they opened up the rules of engagement I'm sure those guys could get the job done.

Seal teams OR special forces...... well said.

Dan

[The emperor has no clothes]

I find it hard to believe we couldn't have put a few seal teams or special forces in the mix.  I know that's easy to say when I don't have to be one of them but if they opened up the rules of engagement I'm sure those guys could get the job done.

As good as they are, I'm sure inserting them in the middle of ISIS territory probably comes with a lot of risk.

[Serk]

I find it hard to believe we couldn't have put a few seal teams or special forces in the mix.  I know that's easy to say when I don't have to be one of them but if they opened up the rules of engagement I'm sure those guys could get the job done.

Then  we risk videos of ISIS doing unspeakable things to the 2 special forces operators they captured.

I'd rather spend money to blow 'em up then risk unspeakable things happening to our very valuable special forces operators when it's not absolutely necessary.

(Having said that, when it IS absolutely necessary I totally agree, take the kid gloves off and let 'em do what they do best!!!)

[Moonshot_1]

In his final days as President, President Obama authorizes two airstrikes. One in Libya and one in Syria.
The Libya strike was with 2 B-2 bombers and the one in Syria was with at least one B-52.

Est. killed was 85 iSIS in Libya and over 100 Al-Qaeda.

My questions are as follows.

To my knowledge we currently have not had military operations ongoing in these areas.

With less than 4 days left in office we send 2 strategic nuclear capable bombers into Libya and another into Syria a day later to kill about 200 terrorist in a couple "training camps".

We have no ground operations so the estimates are based on ISIS and Al-Qaeda scorecards they email to us?

I actually question the whole story in regards to any accuracy.

Even releasing the story is suspect. No one needed to know this.

The risk of losing any of these aircraft or their support aircraft can not possibly be justified for such a mission.

The foreign policy implications could have been disastrous.

None of these issues would have been of such significant consequence if not being done just 3-4 days before leaving office. 

Either he should have done this weeks ago if possible or left it for Trump to consider and execute.

This just smells bad.

[The emperor has no clothes]

In his final days as President, President Obama authorizes two airstrikes. One in Libya and one in Syria.
The Libya strike was with 2 B-2 bombers and the one in Syria was with at least one B-52.

Est. killed was 85 iSIS in Libya and over 100 Al-Qaeda.

My questions are as follows.

To my knowledge we currently have not had military operations ongoing in these areas.

With less than 4 days left in office we send 2 strategic nuclear capable bombers into Libya and another into Syria a day later to kill about 200 terrorist in a couple "training camps".

We have no ground operations so the estimates are based on ISIS and Al-Qaeda scorecards they email to us?

I actually question the whole story in regards to any accuracy.

Even releasing the story is suspect. No one needed to know this.

The risk of losing any of these aircraft or their support aircraft can not possibly be justified for such a mission.

The foreign policy implications could have been disastrous.

None of these issues would have been of such significant consequence if not being done just 3-4 days before leaving office. 

Either he should have done this weeks ago if possible or left it for Trump to consider and execute.

This just smells bad.

The guy can't win. Either he is a Muslim sympathizer who goes easy on the enemy or he is a warmonger looking for glory. Sadly you won't have poor Barrak to kick around anymore.

[Serk]

Sadly you won't have poor Barrak to kick around anymore.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Sadly you won't have poor Barrak to kick around anymore.

I don't doubt you are. But I think many will be going thru withdrawals soon.

[Willow]

For those who have served you must realize there are opportunities to try military operations and hardware.  This was one. It was expensive.  I'd rather not see them practice with nuclear weaponry.

I don't believe the President single handedly plans any operations.  He gets recommendations from his high ranking military.  The risk of placing boots on the ground for those two locations on an insert and extract operation would have been significant.  I'm good with a practice involving targets of opportunity.

[Gavin_Sons]

In his final days as President, President Obama authorizes two airstrikes. One in Libya and one in Syria.
The Libya strike was with 2 B-2 bombers and the one in Syria was with at least one B-52.

Est. killed was 85 iSIS in Libya and over 100 Al-Qaeda.

My questions are as follows.

To my knowledge we currently have not had military operations ongoing in these areas.

With less than 4 days left in office we send 2 strategic nuclear capable bombers into Libya and another into Syria a day later to kill about 200 terrorist in a couple "training camps".

We have no ground operations so the estimates are based on ISIS and Al-Qaeda scorecards they email to us?

I actually question the whole story in regards to any accuracy.

Even releasing the story is suspect. No one needed to know this.

The risk of losing any of these aircraft or their support aircraft can not possibly be justified for such a mission.

The foreign policy implications could have been disastrous.

None of these issues would have been of such significant consequence if not being done just 3-4 days before leaving office. 

Either he should have done this weeks ago if possible or left it for Trump to consider and execute.

This just smells bad.

The guy can't win. Either he is a Muslim sympathizer who goes easy on the enemy or he is a warmonger looking for glory. Sadly you won't have poor Barrak to kick around anymore.

This is where you're mistaken Meathead. It is Obamas fault for 4 years to come.  probably 8 

[John Schmidt]

Sadly you won't have poor Barrak to kick around anymore.

I don't doubt you are. But I think many will be going thru withdrawals soon.

Hmmm....withdrawals from what? The increase in nat'l. debt, the major increase in those on food stamps(millions), the major decrease in home ownership(millions), the increase of those on Unemployment(millions), the increase in health care premium cost(thousands), the increase in the deductible(thousands), the decrease in our military to pre-war stats???  I've barely scratched the surface here, but I feel the only real withdrawals will be felt by those that blindly supported this "Fool On The Hill."

[scooperhsd]

For those who have served you must realize there are opportunities to try military operations and hardware.  This was one. It was expensive.  I'd rather not see them practice with nuclear weaponry.

I don't believe the President single handedly plans any operations.  He gets recommendations from his high ranking military.  The risk of placing boots on the ground for those two locations on an insert and extract operation would have been significant.  I'm good with a practice involving targets of opportunity.

Willow - you have it exactly correct.

The US has used Nukes twice in hostile operations. With any luck, we never will again. If we have to use them again - it's best to know how to use them properly. That includes delivery systems.

The US has always beleived in spending gold over blood whenever possible. And our recent POTUS' have generally heeded the advice given them from their senior military commanders (very much an improvement over Vietnam).

[phideux]

This was just a last little "look what I can do" and an "Ain't I a fighter in the war on terror" by our worthless POS outgoing president.
My question??? If we are in a war on terror, why haven't we been doing this every day for the past 8yrs????
I'll bet like the last time he got tough on terror, Obama probably sent a flock of helicopters in first to drop leaflets warning them we are coming.

[Rams]

In his final days as President, President Obama authorizes two airstrikes. One in Libya and one in Syria.
The Libya strike was with 2 B-2 bombers and the one in Syria was with at least one B-52.

Est. killed was 85 iSIS in Libya and over 100 Al-Qaeda.

My questions are as follows.

To my knowledge we currently have not had military operations ongoing in these areas.

With less than 4 days left in office we send 2 strategic nuclear capable bombers into Libya and another into Syria a day later to kill about 200 terrorist in a couple "training camps".

We have no ground operations so the estimates are based on ISIS and Al-Qaeda scorecards they email to us?

I actually question the whole story in regards to any accuracy.

Even releasing the story is suspect. No one needed to know this.

The risk of losing any of these aircraft or their support aircraft can not possibly be justified for such a mission.

The foreign policy implications could have been disastrous.

None of these issues would have been of such significant consequence if not being done just 3-4 days before leaving office. 

Either he should have done this weeks ago if possible or left it for Trump to consider and execute.

This just smells bad.

I can't answer your questions but, I can speculate on why.   Those aircraft and crews are mission capable and fly for a number of reasons.   The ordinance they deliver greatly depends on the target and the goal.    A few reasons a strike mission like this makes sense is, there is very little threat to the aircraft and crews during the execution of this mission.   They are built and equipped for long range missions.   This mission is an excellent training mission with a bonus of actually getting (potentially) good press and sending a few hundred terrorists on to meet their maker.    It's also a good way to test our mission capability and ensure systems, to include weaponry work as prescribed.    Those birds and crews are going to fly anyway, might as well put them into a usable scenario.

I have no doubt a ground mission could have resulted in similar results but, then you have to consider a whole lot more for logistics, support and potential losses.   If true, then this was an excellent use of resources with satisfactory results.   

For those who have served you must realize there are opportunities to try military operations and hardware.  This was one. It was expensive.  I'd rather not see them practice with nuclear weaponry.

I don't believe the President single handedly plans any operations.  He gets recommendations from his high ranking military.  The risk of placing boots on the ground for those two locations on an insert and extract operation would have been significant.  I'm good with a practice involving targets of opportunity.

Good intel and the resolve to act on that intel is what has been lacking for quite a while now.   When considering what this mission actually cost versus what some have suggested in the way of ground assault is small.   The time alone to plan and execute such a mission is not something to quibble over.   Support for a ground operation would have been very expensive and most likely resulted in some losses for our side.   Why fight a ground battle when you can knock out the target with a couple of birds?   Regardless of who made the decision to green light this mission, if it actually occurred, then I'm good with the call. 

[Jess from VA]

Excellent analysis Ron.  

Now what I would like to know is this:   How many times over the last years have the intel/surveillance and operational people got together and formed a (time sensitive air operation) conclusion that they could go get a pile of bad guys with a high probability of success and low probability of screwups, and kicked it up the chain, and got a no-go answer, or no answer at all?   (and that would be from POTUS and his SECDEF)  

And did enough of these get proposed that POTUS ordered them to stop even asking?

This will never likely be known..... at least for a long while.

And, lest there is any question, our nuclear capable aircraft are all multi munition capable (lest none would have been used in actual combat since 1945).   Much like the Valkyrie, B1s, B2s and Buffs need to be run to stay in optimal condition (and so do their crews).

Cost is a relative consideration.  To defeat this enemy we will have to kill him in numbers and often, and instill him with the same fear and hopelessness he would bring to us.  Killing him instantly in large numbers from the heavens with no advance warning and no chance to fight back is just the type of operation to give him back that fear and hopelessness.   I like napalm (low altitude), but J dams (high altitude) will do.

[phideux]

What kind of good intel do we need to find ISIS????? Teenage girls have left their countries to join up, they can find them no problem. Numerous reporters and photographers can find them to get pics and video. Why can't our "Intelligence Agencies" find them????


Just like the war on drugs. Reporters can find and interview all the dealers and major players, surveillance photos can find the Poppy fields in Afghanistan, they can find the Coca fields in South America. We know who the druglords are and where they live. So why is our main focus on the street level dealers and the users????


It's all about the Benjamins. The "war on Terror" and the "War on Drugs" both generate tons of money and industry. The politicians and their cronies care about the money. Do you think they really give a crap about the people???

[Robert]

What I am not seeing in all these posts is Russia's ties to Libya, Russia has repeatedly warned NATO and specifically the US not to interfere there. This strike was done so as to use terrorists as an excuse to strike Libya. We have known about terrorist camps in Libya for years yet did nothing.  We have many planes capable of doing the attack closer and the choice was for a US based nuclear capable bomber to fly 30 hours to do the strike. This coupled with US troops on Russian boarders and a US-initiated missile shield in Europe deployed to counter possible nuclear missile threat allegedly posed by Iran. The missile shield [in Europe] keeps growing, the United States recently signed relevant agreements with Turkey, Romania, Poland and Spain. This makes for a tense situation and Russia being squeezed into a very uncomfortable situation. We in the US would not like it and from everything I read Putins feeling it.

This is also the reason Obama did it just before he left. Because Putin is fighting this globalization or (one world system) that Obama and others endorse and being a bad boy and the signals against him are getting loud and clear. I doubt if Trump would have ordered the strike so that is why one last jab to send a message before he leaves.

Obama is and always was a globalist, that is my problem with him. His agenda was to get the US ready for globalization and every move he has made if you think about it makes sense if you frame it for moving the US towards globalization.

[The emperor has no clothes]

What I am not seeing in all these posts is Russia's ties to Libya, Russia has repeatedly warned NATO and specifically the US not to interfere there. This strike was done so as to use terrorists as an excuse to strike Libya. We have many planes capable of doing the attack closer and the choice was for a US based nuclear capable bomber to fly 30 hours to do the strike. This coupled with US troops on Russian boarders and a US-initiated missile shield in Europe deployed to counter possible nuclear missile threat allegedly posed by Iran. The missile shield [in Europe] keeps growing, the United States recently signed relevant agreements with Turkey, Romania, Poland and Spain. This makes for a tense situation and Russia being squeezed into a very uncomfortable situation. We in the US would not like it and from everything I read Putins feeling it.

This is also the reason Obama did it just before he left. Because Putin is fighting this one world system that Obama and others endorse and being a bad boy and the signals are getting loud and clear. I doubt if Trump would have ordered the strike so that is why one last jab to send a message before he leaves.

You are probably right, I doubt Trump would have done the strikes. He is much too busy sending his people out to lie about crowd sizes, and speaking to CIA employees of how the media is unfair to him. 

[Gavin_Sons]

What I am not seeing in all these posts is Russia's ties to Libya, Russia has repeatedly warned NATO and specifically the US not to interfere there. This strike was done so as to use terrorists as an excuse to strike Libya. We have many planes capable of doing the attack closer and the choice was for a US based nuclear capable bomber to fly 30 hours to do the strike. This coupled with US troops on Russian boarders and a US-initiated missile shield in Europe deployed to counter possible nuclear missile threat allegedly posed by Iran. The missile shield [in Europe] keeps growing, the United States recently signed relevant agreements with Turkey, Romania, Poland and Spain. This makes for a tense situation and Russia being squeezed into a very uncomfortable situation. We in the US would not like it and from everything I read Putins feeling it.

This is also the reason Obama did it just before he left. Because Putin is fighting this one world system that Obama and others endorse and being a bad boy and the signals are getting loud and clear. I doubt if Trump would have ordered the strike so that is why one last jab to send a message before he leaves.

You are probably right, I doubt Trump would have done the strikes. He is much too busy sending his people out to lie about crowd sizes, and speaking to CIA employees of how the media is unfair to him. 

 

[baldo]

You are probably right, I doubt Trump would have done the strikes. He is much too busy sending his people out to lie about crowd sizes, and speaking to CIA employees of how the media is unfair to him. 

I see what you did there......

[Robert]

Trump being elected to office was a huge blow to globalists, among others here in the US that could not see they were being used. He is much straighter in his intentions and that is why the US concerns him more than what is happening abroad.

Obama sent the resources of the US to other countries, Trump is trying to straighten out what we have here and keeping it here.

  You do remember Hillary Clinton’s State Department approved the transfer of 20 percent of America’s uranium holdings to Russia, while nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation — $145 million dollars."

OR

Obama Cedes Arctic Leadership to Russia

Last Friday, President Obama’s Interior Department announced it was canceling plans for offshore oil and natural-gas lease sales in the Arctic it had scheduled to hold in 2016 and 2017, and denied requests from two oil companies (Royal Dutch Shell and Statoil) to retain their drilling rights there, which begin to expire in 2017. In making its decision, the Interior Department cited low oil prices and a lack of company interest, despite the phenomenal amount ($2.1 billion) that Shell paid for its lease in 2008 and the $7-plus billion it has invested in the area.


So I prefer Trumps arguing with an organization that has no direct governmental control and has led some deposing of governments and coos on almost every continent in the world. As of course compared to giving away US rights, information, money, land, to the government and other countries. Its actually refreshing to see emphasis put where it was always supposed to be, IN THE USA, drain the swamp, we just dont know really how far that swap really goes do we?

[Rams]

What I am not seeing in all these posts is Russia's ties to Libya, Russia has repeatedly warned NATO and specifically the US not to interfere there. This strike was done so as to use terrorists as an excuse to strike Libya. We have known about terrorist camps in Libya for years yet did nothing.  We have many planes capable of doing the attack closer and the choice was for a US based nuclear capable bomber to fly 30 hours to do the strike. This coupled with US troops on Russian boarders and a US-initiated missile shield in Europe deployed to counter possible nuclear missile threat allegedly posed by Iran. The missile shield [in Europe] keeps growing, the United States recently signed relevant agreements with Turkey, Romania, Poland and Spain. This makes for a tense situation and Russia being squeezed into a very uncomfortable situation. We in the US would not like it and from everything I read Putins feeling it.

This is also the reason Obama did it just before he left. Because Putin is fighting this globalization or (one world system) that Obama and others endorse and being a bad boy and the signals against him are getting loud and clear. I doubt if Trump would have ordered the strike so that is why one last jab to send a message before he leaves.

Obama is and always was a globalist, that is my problem with him. His agenda was to get the US ready for globalization and every move he has made if you think about it makes sense if you frame it for moving the US towards globalization.

Robert,
You bring up some very good points in reference to Putin/Russia and the political aspects of what's been happening.   This mission may have had additional bonus points associated with it but, I have my doubts.   As to why and the timing, I have no idea.   In references to good intel and why we haven't attacked previously, again I'm not privy to that information.    All I'm defending is, the use if the B2 assets versus sending in a SEAL team or another ground force to take out this or these targets.   Those birds/crews and their units are in a constant state of readiness, this mission was an excellent use of the assets.   Whether the public knows it or not, training missions like this occur often.    That's what they are intended to be able to do.    As to whether or not President Trump would or would not have ordered such a strike, only he can answer that question.

I suspect that the "supposed" message sent to Putin is a BS statement.   Putin is very aware of our capability.   

[Serk]

What kind of good intel do we need to find ISIS????? Teenage girls have left their countries to join up, they can find them no problem. Numerous reporters and photographers can find them to get pics and video. Why can't our "Intelligence Agencies" find them????

Knowing where they are is easy.

Knowing where and WHEN they are grouped together WITHOUT tons of kids, women and non-combatants around them is another issue entirely.

Every time we kill an innocent 5 year old kid, we create a LOT more sympathizers for the bad guys and against us. So having the intel to be able to whack a company sized group of 'em all at once, with minimal if any collateral damage? That takes some serious intel.

[Ramie]

I can understand the need for the mission, it could be the shelf life on the munitions was coming due and they needed to use them, I just don't think it shows any real strength.  It just seems sloppy to me like we had poor planning or poor intelligence.

[Robert]

Robert,
You bring up some very good points in reference to Putin/Russia and the political aspects of what's been happening.   This mission may have had additional bonus points associated with it but, I have my doubts.   As to why and the timing, I have no idea.   In references to good intel and why we haven't attacked previously, again I'm not privy to that information.    All I'm defending is, the use if the B2 assets versus sending in a SEAL team or another ground force to take out this or these targets.   Those birds/crews and their units are in a constant state of readiness, this mission was an excellent use of the assets.   Whether the public knows it or not, training missions like this occur often.    That's what they are intended to be able to do.    As to whether or not President Trump would or would not have ordered such a strike, only he can answer that question.

I suspect that the "supposed" message sent to Putin is a BS statement.   Putin is very aware of our capability.   

I totally agree with the points you brought up. Thinking someone has the ability to do something and knowing it is two different things. I doubt at this point Russia has the same ability. When Russia wanted to show strength with their war ships it was really pretty sad with all the smoke belching out of the stacks as they went along it kind of shows where they are at.

Sometimes you cannot listen to what is said but need to piece together the actions, they speak louder than words. We had assets close enough to do the job.

[Robert]

I can understand the need for the mission, it could be the shelf life on the munitions was coming due and they needed to use them, I just don't think it shows any real strength.  It just seems sloppy to me like we had poor planning or poor intelligence.

We have already disposed of munitions without a show of force and what seems like poor planning is really a choice. Why, if we have assets much closer did we choose to fly from the US? It was a deliberate choice not poor planning, in fact it took much more planning with refueling and flight paths to do this mission than to do it from closer places. Also let me point out they had unmanned drones doing the clean up, what kind of range do you suppose these have? How complicated do you suppose the mission was if they can have these drones do the clean up when they could have actually done the whole mission. It would make you also think how close do these have to be and could they be ordered into Russia as opposed to Libya?

[Rams]

I can understand the need for the mission, it could be the shelf life on the munitions was coming due and they needed to use them, I just don't think it shows any real strength.  It just seems sloppy to me like we had poor planning or poor intelligence.

We have already disposed of munitions without a show of force and what seems like poor planning is really a choice. Why, if we have assets much closer did we choose to fly from the US? It was a deliberate choice not poor planning, in fact it took much more planning with refueling and flight paths to do this mission than to do it from closer places. Also let me point out they had unmanned drones doing the clean up, what kind of range do you suppose these have? How complicated do you suppose the mission was if they can have these drones do the clean up when they could have actually done the whole mission. It would make you also think how close do these have to be and could they be ordered into Russia as opposed to Libya?

Robert,
I understand your points but, what I'm trying to convey is, these birds and crews fly this kind of mission frequently (if for nothing else, readiness training).    I have a friend who is a B52 pilot, he is constantly in far away places that we don't know about.   Similar to the old SAC, these units/crews/aircraft are built for this kind of mission, they are out flying all over the globe anyway.    Their risk was minimal and their capability unquestioned.   

Sure, closer assets could have accomplished similar results but, if you have a tool in your arsenal, why not used it.    I honestly don't know why this mission was undertaken by the B2s but, I do understand the threat analysis, cost, associated problems with using ground assets and why it made sense.   What I don't know is, what other assets were available.

[Robert]

I remember stories of the sr71 and know you are correct, but I think its not that easy. 

[phideux]

What kind of good intel do we need to find ISIS????? Teenage girls have left their countries to join up, they can find them no problem. Numerous reporters and photographers can find them to get pics and video. Why can't our "Intelligence Agencies" find them????

Knowing where they are is easy.

Knowing where and WHEN they are grouped together WITHOUT tons of kids, women and non-combatants around them is another issue entirely.

Every time we kill an innocent 5 year old kid, we create a LOT more sympathizers for the bad guys and against us. So having the intel to be able to whack a company sized group of 'em all at once, with minimal if any collateral damage? That takes some serious intel.

These are the 5 year olds over there, might be better if we do take a few out.

[The emperor has no clothes]

What kind of good intel do we need to find ISIS????? Teenage girls have left their countries to join up, they can find them no problem. Numerous reporters and photographers can find them to get pics and video. Why can't our "Intelligence Agencies" find them????

Knowing where they are is easy.

Knowing where and WHEN they are grouped together WITHOUT tons of kids, women and non-combatants around them is another issue entirely.

Every time we kill an innocent 5 year old kid, we create a LOT more sympathizers for the bad guys and against us. So having the intel to be able to whack a company sized group of 'em all at once, with minimal if any collateral damage? That takes some serious intel.

These are the 5 year olds over there, might be better if we do take a few out.

Mr. Phideux, are you really advocating the killing of children by us ?