The Pentagon is grappling with significant intelligence gaps as it bombs Iraq and Syria, and it is operating under less restrictive targeting rules than those President Barack Obama imposed on the CIA drone campaign in Pakistan and Yemen, according to current and former U.S. officials.
The U.S. military says its airstrikes have been discriminating and effective in disrupting an al Qaeda cell called the Khorasan Group and in halting the momentum of Islamic State militants. But independent analysts say the ISIS remains on the offensive in areas of Iraq and Syria, where it still controls large sections. And according to witnesses, U.S. airstrikes have at times hit empty buildings that were long ago vacated by Islamic State fighters.
Human rights groups also say coalition airstrikes in both countries have killed as many as two dozen civilians. U.S. officials say they can’t rule out civilian deaths but haven’t confirmed any.‘ We do take extreme caution and care in the conduct of these missions,’ Rear Admiral John Kirby, the Pentagon’s press secretary, said Tuesday. ‘But there’s risk in any military operation. There’s a special kind of risk when you do air operations.’
Military officials acknowledge that they are relying mainly on satellites, drones and surveillance flights to pinpoint targets, assess the damage afterward and determine whether civilians were killed.That stands in sharp contrast to the networks of bases, spies and ground-based technology the U.S. had in place during the height of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, officials say.As a result, ‘it’s much harder for us to be able to know for sure what it is we’re hitting, what it is we’re killing and what it is collateral damage,’ said Tom Lynch, a retired colonel and former adviser to the Joint Chiefs of Staff who is now a fellow at the National Defense University.
In Iraq, the U.S. is relying for ground reports on the Iraqi military and intelligence services, whose insights into Islamic State-controlled territory are limited.In Syria, the U.S. is not coordinating the strikes with the main moderate opposition group, the Free Syrian Army, even though it has backed that group with weapons and training, said Andrew Tabler, who follows the conflict for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.The CIA is generally unwilling to send American intelligence officers into Syria, and partner Arab intelligence services are often focused on their own agendas.
The intelligence gaps raise questions about the effectiveness of the strikes and about whether the current strategy will achieve the administration’s goal of defeating the Islamic State group. The group has begun adapting to U.S. airstrikes by seeking to conceal itself, move at night and blend in with civilians, Pentagon officials say.’They’re a smart adversary,’ said Air Force Maj. General Jeffrey L. Harrigian, briefing reporters at the Pentagon.In terms of tracking the movements of militants, U.S. intelligence coverage of Syria and Iraq is not as good as it was in Pakistan and Yemen at the height of covert CIA drone campaigns there, officials say.
The U.S. military says its airstrikes have been discriminating and effective in disrupting an al Qaeda cell called the Khorasan Group and in halting the momentum of Islamic State militants. But independent analysts say the ISIS remains on the offensive in areas of Iraq and Syria, where it still controls large sections. And according to witnesses, U.S. airstrikes have at times hit empty buildings that were long ago vacated by Islamic State fighters.
Human rights groups also say coalition airstrikes in both countries have killed as many as two dozen civilians. U.S. officials say they can’t rule out civilian deaths but haven’t confirmed any.‘ We do take extreme caution and care in the conduct of these missions,’ Rear Admiral John Kirby, the Pentagon’s press secretary, said Tuesday. ‘But there’s risk in any military operation. There’s a special kind of risk when you do air operations.’
Military officials acknowledge that they are relying mainly on satellites, drones and surveillance flights to pinpoint targets, assess the damage afterward and determine whether civilians were killed.That stands in sharp contrast to the networks of bases, spies and ground-based technology the U.S. had in place during the height of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, officials say.As a result, ‘it’s much harder for us to be able to know for sure what it is we’re hitting, what it is we’re killing and what it is collateral damage,’ said Tom Lynch, a retired colonel and former adviser to the Joint Chiefs of Staff who is now a fellow at the National Defense University.
In Iraq, the U.S. is relying for ground reports on the Iraqi military and intelligence services, whose insights into Islamic State-controlled territory are limited.In Syria, the U.S. is not coordinating the strikes with the main moderate opposition group, the Free Syrian Army, even though it has backed that group with weapons and training, said Andrew Tabler, who follows the conflict for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.The CIA is generally unwilling to send American intelligence officers into Syria, and partner Arab intelligence services are often focused on their own agendas.
The intelligence gaps raise questions about the effectiveness of the strikes and about whether the current strategy will achieve the administration’s goal of defeating the Islamic State group. The group has begun adapting to U.S. airstrikes by seeking to conceal itself, move at night and blend in with civilians, Pentagon officials say.’They’re a smart adversary,’ said Air Force Maj. General Jeffrey L. Harrigian, briefing reporters at the Pentagon.In terms of tracking the movements of militants, U.S. intelligence coverage of Syria and Iraq is not as good as it was in Pakistan and Yemen at the height of covert CIA drone campaigns there, officials say.