Ted Cruz went on “The O’Reilly Factor” Tuesday night and once again said we need to carpet bomb ISIS. The left has endlessly hounded Cruz on his use of that term.
When O’Reilly challenged him to explain it in light of the image of women and children perishing in a hail of bombs, he went with the same answer he’s been giving since December: an overwhelming application of force.
Andrea Tantaros, appearing with O’Reilly after Cruz, also criticized the use of the term “carpet bomb,” defining it as dropping dumb bombs from strategic bombers, which she said we haven’t done since Vietnam. She’s wrong–we dropped dumb bombs on the desert positions of Saddam Hussein’s Republican Guard during the first Gulf War in 1990, to pin those troops in place while Schwartzkopf pivoted into the desert.
But Tantaros is also right. “Carpet bombing” is a dated term that is practically meaningless in today’s asymmetrical warfare environment. There’s no place for echelons of B-52’s carrying racks of dumb iron bombs, dropping them on target by the hundreds in an orgy of indiscriminate destruction.
If Cruz means overwhelming application of air power and force, he should say so and find a better way to say it.
We’re not going to carpet bomb ISIS in the way B-52’s carpet bombed Haiphong Harbor and Hanoi in the Linebacker II raids. We’re not going to turn Mosul or Ramadi or Nesara into a sea of fire like Dresden in World War II. We have GPS-enabled JDAMs, essentially dumb bombs retrofitted with smart tailfins, which can place bombs very precisely. We have every kind of smart bomb, cruise missile, laser-designated, and hand-flown devices that can fly through a window.
We have J-STARS aircraft that offer realtime radar pictures and target tracking over ISIS-held territory. We have Global Hawk UAVs flying more-or-less 24/7 over ISIS. Long gone are the days of massed bomber formations taking off from remote airfields to drop massive waves of bombs.
Carpet bombing is dead.
Cruz should stop using the term.