US-led air strikes target IS oil refineries in Syria

Have to wonder why an oil refinery is targeted?

Must be extreme jealousy because the ISIS is selling oil cheaper than "market" price.

No wonder the Saudis like this.

Probably pushes the prices higher.

The US-led air war against Islamic State extremists targeted oil refineries in eastern Syria on Wednesday, in a bid to undercut the group's oil smuggling profits, the Pentagon said.

Warplanes from the United States, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates bombed the oil installations in the latest round of air raids in Syria, the Pentagon said.

US-led air strikes target IS oil refineries in Syria

Hmmm.

And why else would Sunni nations condone the bombing of a Sunni outfit like ISIS ?

Planned and calculated failure perhaps?

competition is sin

a reply to: xuenchen

Better fill those gas tanks...

All this is getting jolly transparent and frankly, bloody boring. Enough of these blood thirsty, parasitic wankers!!

a reply to: xuenchen

Probably because IS has been destroying mosques and other ancient artifacts. They don't seem to care about who they kill or what they destroy. And they have made statements to destroy Mecca and the Kazba, along with others. Some of the most holy sites in Islam is on their target list. I don't see why the other Arab/Muslim countries would support them, even Iran at this point.

ETA: Not to mention threats to Jordan and Saudi Arabia. And probably many more I am not privy to.

a reply to: xuenchen

From your posted article...

"These small-scale refineries provided fuel to run ISIL operations, money to finance their continued attacks throughout Iraq and Syria, and an economic asset to support their future operations," Central Command said in a statement.

The oil installations produce between 300 to 500 barrels of "refined petroleum per day," and the destruction of the refineries further limits the IS group's "ability to lead, control, project power and conduct operations."

Sounds like an actual strategy to me. Cutting off enemy supply lines and resources is kind of an old and frequently effective strategy.

This all relates to toppling Assad, once again the US goes in to a war under false pretenses.

I guess a good question would be who owned the place before IS took it over? Whose actually is it? Once IS is gone (in theory) who goes back to reclaim it? Or cannot reclaim we should say...

It may or may not have helped fuel IS with, er...fuel. I'm guessing the link was tenuous at best. Blow up villages? No worries. Kill women and children? Yawn. Start messing with the oil? Oh hell no! These barbarians must be stopped!

originally posted by: xuenchen
Have to wonder why an oil refinery is targeted?

Must be extreme jealousy because the ISIS is selling oil cheaper than "market" price.

No wonder the Saudis like this.

Probably pushes the prices higher.

really? Small time oil fields do nothing to the price of oil. But when it's not in an official market how does it change prices at all? And it's really no wonder.. It's just a strategic target. Air defense, communications, Leadership, Financing.

As far as the Saudis liking it I think this puts us one more step on the way to Iran which is what they really want.

The primary target of Allied operations was Ploiești, the major site of Romania's oil industry. The largest refinery there—Astra Română—processed 2,000,000 short tons (1,800,000 t) of petroleum a year, providing much of the fuel for the German military.

Source

Nobody ever targeted oil refineries as part of a military strategy......
Posting nonsense in the hopes that other people are clueless, another day of historically inaccurate ATS.

Well an obvious answer is to hit ISIS where it counts most, the treasury. Even the best military forces would cease to function at a fraction of their current strength if their funding were suddenly eliminated. Thus it makes sense to take a multi-faceted approach to fighting any enemy. This approach includes military and economic aims. That makes the most sense. It does one little good, when fighting an attrition strategy, to let the enemy's source of supply continue unimpeded, as this will serve only to prolong the conflict. And I very much think that attrition is a big part of the US strategy when dealing with insurgencies. I think this is evidenced by the many strikes designed simply to kill the enemy, rather than a strict focus on strategic, non-human targets, or high-value enemy targets. These latter two target types have been hit but they have never seemed to be the focus from what I have seen.

The US strategy, on paper, doesn't look so bad, but in practice the US has never had luck with insurgent warfare. Even in Vietnam, when platoons would go on "search and destroy" missions, the truth is that they never found the enemy and destroyed them. Rather the enemy chose the time and place of the engagement, almost every single time. On the ground in the Middle East this has been the case as well. The US has not directly engaged ISIS at this point on the ground, so they are simply controlling the skies, bombing targets at will. But this is not enough to win a conflict like this, or even most conflicts. It takes a combined-arms effort. So the US will not eliminate ISIS with the current air strikes. They need to coordinate with Syrian troops on the ground, or send in troops that they can control. They have much more freedom of movement in Iraq, coalition forces I mean, and their main efforts need to be focused there at the moment, to at least drive ISIS in a westerly direction, thus reducing their control and keeping them from being so spread out. The more safe-havens they have the harder it will be to destroy them.

There are a few main reasons the US has had so much trouble in Afghanistan, including the tribal relationships, but more importantly the fact that fighters could find a safe-haven over the border, where they are untouchable by US forces. This means that you cannot destroy the fighters, even though that is not a good strategy. The only way to beat an insurgency is to unify the civilian population by first protecting them, thereby gaining their trust, at which point they will begin truly cooperating, and real progress can be made. If they do not know you're in it for the duration, they will not feel safe and will not help. They will not attempt to drive out the insurgent forces not because they are joined with them, but because they know what will happen when the US can no longer protect them. I have strayed way off topic, and I apologize. But truth be told all of these factors relate to the discussion at hand, because all of these things must be understood and taken into consideration.

I wonder how the US would feel if Assad and friends were flying around America, doing whatever they want, blowing up oil wells and other things where "terrorists who threaten the sovereign nation of Syria" are hiding??

One way to keep the oil price artificcialy high enough to justify jour fracking operations. Ormaybe they didn't play fair and wanted to give the oil for free to america aftet theyreceived free training and weapons for their little sadistic road trip.

The US Anti-war Movement’s Statement on the U.S. Bombing of Syria

This new aggression is loaded with irony. The Pentagon spokesperson says that the bombing is directed against the self-named Islamic State (ISIS) forces that have gained control over large swaths of Syria and Iraq. But it was precisely the arms transfers and funding of ISIS by the U.S. government’s principal allies in the region, especially Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar, that have allowed the Islamic state to grow strong in its struggle to topple the secular Syrian government led by Bashar Al-Assad

We, in the U.S. anti-war movement, are exposing the fundamental truth that the Obama administration conceals from the people: The so-called Islamic State or ISIS wouldn’t exist today as a major force either in Syria or Iraq if it wasn’t for the U.S. military aggression that smashed the secular, nationalist governments in Iraq in 2003 and Libya in 2011, followed by the U.S. government’s catastrophic support for the armed opposition against the similarly organized government in Syria.

The U.S. bombing of Syrian territory is taking place without the consent of the Syrian government. It is one more U.S. violation of international law and Syrian sovereignty. The Syrian government had offered to cooperate with the United States in a joint military struggle against the reactionary forces of ISIS. That offer has, however, been immediately and categorically rejected by all in the U.S. ruling class political circles who have already announced that the Syrian government must be destroyed. Obama and the Pentagon and the CIA and, last and least, the bribed and corrupted talking heads in Congress are determined to use the attack against the Islamic State as a pretext to carry out regime change in Syria by military means even though the Syrian government has been the most effective military force in struggling against the so-called Islamic State.

The refineries fund/fuel IS, seems pretty easy to figure out..there could be other reasons but the $2,000,000 a day thats generated by the refineries is going into IS hands.