The War in Syria - ISIS et al

[Chinahand]

I hope that someone is asking questions about forward air controllers, where they will be and who they will be operating with; also what will be the mix of strategic verses tactical bombing. I suspect there are very few strategic targets left and tactical targets without forward air control is basically pointless.

[P.K.]

The thing about ISIS is that their greatest strength is also their greatest weakness.

 

In order to maintain security their cannon-fodder has no idea what they have to do next. So it gets deployed seemingly on a whim which makes it extremely difficult to counter. However to advance it has to concentrate and that's when it's most vulnerable to airstrikes. Of course designating targets makes the strikes more accurate but tanks, artillery and so forth are easily identified.

 

But, as the MSF hospital has shown, even designating targets can be a clusterf~ck. The fog of war and all that.

[Tweek]

The problem with ideas and ideologies is that they are generally bulletproof. This 'war' is like trying to fight the rain.

[pongo]

I find myself in the uncomfortable position of thinking that Corbyn is right on this narrow point. It will achieve absolutely nothing. Not because I believe that it will make us more of a target. We cannot adopt such a craven attitude and we need to realise that we are a target in any case

I agree. Corbyn is wrong about the way he has expressed some of his opinions. But on the fundamental issue of the Parliamentary vote he seems right to me. And he is saying the same as Conservatives including the excellent David Davis.

 

I like Cameron and I like Osborne. But I do not believe that there is a strategy to defeat IS. I hope that Parliamentary vote will therefore be about having an agreement in place as part of the process of building international agreement about how to deal with Iraq/Syria/Turkey. Knee-jerk retaliation for Paris would be retarded.

[Mr. Sausages]

 

I like Cameron

 

 

He thinks you're a terrorist sympathiser.

[pongo]

He thinks you're a terrorist sympathiser.

Saying that about Corbyn in the context of that meeting has made him seem stupid and clumsy.

[Mr. Sausages]

"Corbyn and other opponents of action" according to the BBC.

[rmanx]

Maybe we start with sanctions on Saudi Arabia.

 

Then agree that Saudi Arabia must stop arming IS.

 

Then negotiations between the Syrian Government, Russia and the "Allies" to try and resolve the internal Syrian issue which will rob IS of their fertile recruiting and operating space.

 

Then work with the Syrian Government to remove IS from Syria (rather than trying to do it all ourselves).

 

...or we could engage in war efforts in yet another Middle Eastern country (what is that military truism about not fighting on multiple fronts?) and waste billions of tax payer money creating a stronger enemy out of IS

[rmanx]

 

Remind me again how dropping billions of pounds in munitions on Syria is going make the UK safer?

 

Seems to me we are only inviting more attacks on UK soil and Brits abroad.

 

Exactly how is all that spending in the best interest of the British people?

 

Game of Thrones has nothing on the body count "we" are racking up

 

 

So instead of continually stating the obvious and pointing the finger, have you got any ideas of possible alternatives? Would you rather ''we'' stood-down and shunned those nations who are taking up the cause?

 

What else would you have Britain do? Lobby the UN and any coalition to give in to 'Islamic State' and give them the caliphate they seek?

 

Or put a stop to the prolonged suffering and violence as humanely as possible, accepting collateral damage, in a shorter time as possible ..?

 

 

The problem with your "its bombs or give in mentality" is it plays exactly into the narrative being pushed.

 

When did violence become the first option in a civilised society?

[pongo]

"Corbyn and other opponents of action" according to the BBC.

I am not an opponent of action per se. But I do not believe that there is a strategy for defeating IS. I suspect that after the past few days the lack of a strategy is becoming increasingly obvious to many other people who are following this. My opinion has gradually shifted. I believe that the debate over military action has helped to focus on that lack of strategy and international agreement.

 

Also - whether or not the UK is specifically allowed by the UK Parliament to bomb Syria is of relatively minor international significance - given that the UK is already bombing in Iraq*. As other people are increasingly saying, the politics of the whole region is the issue. The people who keep talking about Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey etc have been making good points.

 

Part of me thinks that a thread like this is self indulgent and silly. But what people have typed here and the links have helped me form an opinion. Not that my opinion actually matters.

 

*ETA: In the debate Cameron makes the point that it has practically prevented the RAF crossing into Syria in pursuit. I guess that is relevant.

[notwell]

 

 

Remind me again how dropping billions of pounds in munitions on Syria is going make the UK safer?

 

Seems to me we are only inviting more attacks on UK soil and Brits abroad.

 

Exactly how is all that spending in the best interest of the British people?

 

Game of Thrones has nothing on the body count "we" are racking up

 

 

So instead of continually stating the obvious and pointing the finger, have you got any ideas of possible alternatives? Would you rather ''we'' stood-down and shunned those nations who are taking up the cause?

 

What else would you have Britain do? Lobby the UN and any coalition to give in to 'Islamic State' and give them the caliphate they seek?

 

Or put a stop to the prolonged suffering and violence as humanely as possible, accepting collateral damage, in a shorter time as possible ..?

 

 

The problem with your "its bombs or give in mentality" is it plays exactly into the narrative being pushed.

 

When did violence become the first option in a civilised society?

 

But the Middle East isn't civilised is it?

[rmanx]

 

 

 

Remind me again how dropping billions of pounds in munitions on Syria is going make the UK safer?

 

Seems to me we are only inviting more attacks on UK soil and Brits abroad.

 

Exactly how is all that spending in the best interest of the British people?

 

Game of Thrones has nothing on the body count "we" are racking up

 

 

So instead of continually stating the obvious and pointing the finger, have you got any ideas of possible alternatives? Would you rather ''we'' stood-down and shunned those nations who are taking up the cause?

 

What else would you have Britain do? Lobby the UN and any coalition to give in to 'Islamic State' and give them the caliphate they seek?

 

Or put a stop to the prolonged suffering and violence as humanely as possible, accepting collateral damage, in a shorter time as possible ..?

 

 

The problem with your "its bombs or give in mentality" is it plays exactly into the narrative being pushed.

 

When did violence become the first option in a civilised society?

 

But the Middle East isn't civilised is it?

 

 

Not after we turned it in a nightmare...I was referring to us, the so called civilised "First World".

[notwell]

Rubbish. It wasn't civilised at any point. Nothing to do with us.

 

Unfortunately there isn't any other way to deal with it. And that isn't about any narrative being pushed. It's the simple truth.

So the choice appears pretty simple really. Get in there, flatten the place, accept a bit of collateral damage (which is a fraction of the collateral damage they cause in the bigger picture).

[paswt]

"collateral damage ", that would be the killing and maiming of civilians including women and children....... nice "civilised" response , may your god go with you.

[the stinking enigma]

 

He thinks you're a terrorist sympathiser.

Saying that about Corbyn in the context of that meeting has made him seem stupid and clumsy.

It at least proves he listened in his history classes:

"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY." --Goering at the Nuremberg Trials( or facebook present day)