海角大神

As the Islamic State continues its march across Iraq and Syria, so, too, has come the blame game. It runs along the lines that the US military should be doing more to help its Iraqi and Syrian allies in the region fight the Islamic State.

Specifically, the US has reportedly declined to bomb certain targets for fear of civilian casualties. This includes a refusal to 聽attack the Islamic State headquarters in Raqqa, Syria, where the terrorist group appears to keep civilian prisoners on the premises.

A US military pilot this week complained to The New York Times that it has become too difficult for him to get authorization to shoot at anything from his A-10 gunship. 鈥淲e have not taken the fight to these guys,鈥� he said. 鈥淚 cannot get authority to engage.鈥�

The hesitation on the part of the US, military experts say, stems from the disastrous consequences of civilian casualties during the Iraq War, which fueled anti-American feeling and led to support for what has become the Islamic State.聽 This also may contribute to a reluctance to commit US combat troops, as some have urged, since that might lead to situations in which the military would have to drop even more bombs in order to protect soldiers in harm鈥檚 way.

This attention to civilian casualties also dovetails nicely with another key US strategy, which is to hang back enough to convince Iraq that America won't win the war on its behalf 鈥� Iraq must show that it is willing to at least try to do that for itself.

In the process, has the US grown too cautious in its fight against the Islamic State, 鈥媋s some analysts charge, or is it simply being justifiably prudent?聽

鈥淚 think the current situation in part is an acknowledgement of the consequences of Bush鈥檚 Iraq War, and how that has affected the military鈥檚 thinking since then,鈥� says John Tirman, executive director of the MIT Center for International Studies in Boston.聽

During the early years of the Iraq War, there was little recognition 鈥� at least publicly 鈥� that US actions were producing a reaction among Iraqis that was doing great harm to US strategy.

As the anti-American insurgency began to coalesce, surveys of Iraqi prison populations showed that these insurgents believed they were fighting to defend their communities, which they said were under assault, notes Dr. Tirman.聽

鈥淎ll of this pointed to a quandary for the military, whose war-fighting doctrine has historically been very aggressive.鈥澛�

It was in 2006 that then-Gen. David Petraeus oversaw the rewriting of the Army Field Manual, in what amounted to a remarkable acknowledgement that US actions were producing indiscriminate killing.聽

鈥淭he phrasing was a pretty strong acknowledgement that we hadn鈥檛 been mindful of how US military operations were creating a reaction鈥� among Iraqis, as well as fueling a virulent insurgency.

Particularly in the Anbar Province of western Iraq, where there is a complex network of Sunni tribal groups and dense kinship and social networks, one family member death could lead to a series of reprisals from a series of sources.聽

There was "no one" to negotiate with, and no leaders to target, says Tirman. He notes that while Shiites tend to have a religious hierarchy, the Sunnis are far more decentralized.

This was frustrating for US soldiers on the ground. 鈥淭heir reaction was, 鈥榃ho are these guys 鈥� who are we fighting?鈥� 鈥澛�

They responded in their confusion with considerable firepower. 鈥淭hen things like Haditha happened, where they are supposed to be looking for the bad guys and all hell breaks loose,鈥� Tirman adds. 鈥淭he upshot is that this was a disaster for the US 鈥� so the current leadership has learned from that.鈥�

US Marines killed 24 unarmed civilians, including women and children, in Haditha in 2005.

Just how much they have learned is evident in the Pentagon鈥檚 announcement last week that its investigation into the deaths of two Syrian civilians determined that they were likely killed by a US airstrike last year.

Though it is the first time the US has acknowledged civilian casualties since the air campaign began, the announcement itself was remarkable, says Paul Scharre, who worked at the Pentagon from 2008 to 2013 on weapons system policy.

鈥淭he fact that we鈥檙e counting in such small units 鈥� that we鈥檙e talking about two civilians 鈥� is indicative of how careful we鈥檝e been,鈥� he says.聽

As the US military carries out roughly 15 air strikes per day, there is never a conscious choice to kill civilians, either for reasons of psychological warfare or an inability to avoid it, says Mr. Scharre, who is now a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security.

鈥淚t鈥檚 not as if we鈥檙e making a conscious choice now that we need to kill civilians in order to save our own people. We鈥檙e not saying, 鈥榃ell, we know this will kill however many people, but it鈥檚 worth it,鈥� he adds.

鈥淲hat we鈥檙e trying to do is institute greater and greater protections in order to ensure zero civilians are killed.鈥�

Still, some defense analysts, as well as lawmakers, are increasingly arguing that the US military may need US military boots on the ground. This might include Air Force Joint Air Tactical Controllers, who proponents say make air strikes more accurate, since they speak directly to the pilots to tell them precisely where to put the bombs.

Indeed, US troops on the ground 鈥渃ould help allow closer coordination,鈥� Scharre says.聽

The problem, however, is that in that case there will be more US troops in harm鈥檚 way and, as a result, 鈥渕ore situations where you want to drop bombs in order to protect those US forces on the ground,鈥� he adds.

Today, the US military is able to 鈥渉old back, because we don鈥檛 have US troops in contact鈥� 鈥� military parlance for troops who are in the middle of a firefight 鈥� "so we don鈥檛 have to drop bombs to protect them, which would greatly increase the risk of civilian casualties."

It is a point that the Army鈥檚 top officer, Gen. Raymond Odierno, made on Thursday, when asked whether the US military should send more ground troops into Iraq.

Embedded advisers 鈥渨ould probably make us more effective鈥� but 鈥渋t could also be an accelerant,鈥� he warned. 鈥淎n accelerant to sectarian issues, an accelerant to ISIL,鈥� he said, using an acronym for the Islamic State.

He added that he is 鈥渁damantly鈥� opposed to sending in any US ground combat troops.

The reason he gave is perhaps one big reason why the US military is not being more aggressive: The Iraqis, he said, first need to demonstrate that they have the will to fight for their own country.

鈥淯ntil the Iraqis and others in the area want to defeat this threat,鈥� he said, 鈥渋t won鈥檛 be defeated.鈥� 聽