Syria

hmmm, how come nothing is being done to stop what is going on there...?

or should we continue letting free speech get shot down and murdered..?

Few theories off the cuff. Closer ties with Russia and China than the likes of Libya. Not a great deal of oil to exploit afterwards (0.5% of world supply, according to Wiki).

Also, the men and materiel may be earmarked for other stuff, like a possible invasion elsewhere in the region.

Few theories off the cuff. Closer ties with Russia and China than the likes of Libya. Not a great deal of oil to exploit afterwards (0.5% of GDP, according to Wiki).

 

Also, the men and materiel may be earmarked for other stuff, like a possible invasion elsewhere in the region.

do you think we should stop it....we have the means to?

hmmm, how come nothing is being done to stop what is going on there...?

or should we continue letting free speech get shot down and murdered..?

nope, we need to leave them to their own device, there's a lot of sh*t stirring going on in Syria. We need to pull out all Europeans and let them sort it out amongst themselves.

Mixed feelings. There is a strong moral case to get involved when you hear reports of pro-Assad forces firing indiscriminately into civilians/protesters.

As for means, we haven't had the financial means to wage any of these wars from the get-go, but we've been able to borrow the money to do it. I can't really speak to the military side of things, but most stories you hear about the MoD make reference to the black hole in the budget. You might also read something into the deals we've done with France to pool military resources.

Mixed feelings. There is a strong moral case to get involved when you hear reports of pro-Assad forces firing indiscriminately into civilians/protesters.

 

As for means, we haven't had the financial means to wage any of these wars from the get-go, but we've been able to borrow the money to do it. I can't really speak to the military side of things, but most stories you hear about the MoD make reference to the black hole in the budget. You might also read something into the deals we've done with France to pool military resources.

We hear what the islamists want us to hear.Leave them be.

We hear what the islamists want us to hear.Leave them be.

Who would they be exactly?

Who would they be exactly?

Those who want to install islamic rule instead of the laique regime in place.

Those who want to install islamic rule instead of the laique regime in place.

Where did you get that idea from?

Mixed feelings. There is a strong moral case to get involved when you hear reports of pro-Assad forces firing indiscriminately into civilians/protesters.

 

As for means, we haven't had the financial means to wage any of these wars from the get-go, but we've been able to borrow the money to do it. I can't really speak to the military side of things, but most stories you hear about the MoD make reference to the black hole in the budget. You might also read something into the deals we've done with France to pool military resources.

we have the means......dont worry about that

Where did you get that idea from?

a colleague of Syrian origin.

a colleague of Syrian origin.

So who are they? And what evidence is there that this is an Islamist uprising? I'm really curious to know.

There's no oil.

Ties with Russia are simply too strong and there's no oil.

I personally probably lean fairly right-wing and am quite neoconservative in my opinions and on a scale of things I'd say I'm more sympathetic to America than your average person.

But; I'd be the first to admit that they'll only intervene in nations if and when it suits them.

The Bahraini regime is just as bad; but its stable. And the America fifth fleet is based there. Same thing with Syria really.

I guess we used our 'intervention card' on Libya... I think if it goes on and on, there might end up being something more than sanctions, but while China and Russia are opposed it'll be hard to, because I don't think the US is going to bypass the UN like it did for Iraq over Syria(it might do on Iran though, but that's a different story).

Dave doesn't fancy it because they've got a strong military and are backed by Russia and China and the US isn't interested.

You don't think that Libya was anything to do with human rights do you?

So who are they? And what evidence is there that this is an Islamist uprising? I'm really curious to know.

Verbal a bit out of the loop on that one.

Alan Whitehead's response:

"I have thought long and hard on my decision regarding how to vote on airstrikes in Syria. Here is my full statement:

Last week the Prime Minister put the case for the extension of the existing agreement to UK airstrikes in Iraq to Syria. He clearly considered that the issue was clear cut – a view I do not share, just as I do not share the view of some that there is obviously no case to consider. In truth the question as to whether bombing by the UK in Syria would serve any clear purpose or add to a planned strategy on the future of Syria is a very complex, finely balanced matter. It is unfortunate that the question of bombing or not bombing Syria seems to have become embroiled with considerations of the internal dynamics of the Parliamentary Labour Party, and I need to measure a decision as to whether to support bombing or otherwise on a far higher bar than whether my vote makes me pro- or anti-Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of the Party.

What is clear is the ISIL have to be defeated: they are a murderous perversion of Islam: a death cult posing as a state; and represent a threat both to the civilian population of all religions in Syria and Iraq as well as an escalating threat to our safety and security in Europe – as the recent tragic events in Paris have underlined.

It is also clear I think that, with the passing of UN Security Council Resolution 2249, a ‘necessary measure’ to prevent and suppress terrorist acts by ISIL could be seen to be a process of bombing ISIL, and opposition to potential bombing because it has no legal or political grounds is not tenable.

I have listened very carefully to the debate, and have tried to find out for myself as much as possible about the complexities of this truly horrific war being fought in Syria, between multiple and shifting alliances both within Government and rebel forces. What is still lacking, I think, is a clear strategy for engineering the defeat of ISIL; it is by no means apparent that bombing by British forces will have the material impact on the situation that over 8000 airstrikes and 57,000 sorties by mostly US forces patently so far have not.

In one sense bombing in Iraq against ISIL is far simpler. This is being undertaken at the request of an established and legitimate government against a threat to its territory, and forces. The Iraqi Army, or the Kurdish Peshmerga have shown they can take and hold territory subsequently.

It is, however, very unclear as to whether the presumed main purpose of bombing, which would be to assist anti-ISIL forces take and hold previous ISIL territory, or rather the ‘right’ forces being able to take and hold such territory in Syria is a feasible proposition right now. Bombing ISILs lines to find that equally unsavoury forces, such as Al Qaeda affiliates of the Syrian government, filled the space would be counterproductive. I do not find the claims that there are ’70,000 moderate rebel forces’ ready to take and hold territory credible: many of this number (if such exist) are engaged in in-depth struggles to hold territory against the Syrian Government and parts of the country well away from ISIL’s lines and would not be available suddenly to fill a vacuum left by others. Furthermore the conflicting interests of major external forces – some backing the Syrian regime, some backing some rebels but not others, some backing ‘moderate’ rebels but not ‘extremist rebels’.

It seems to me that, unless some kind of strategic progress can be undertaken which places those forces into different configurations against ISIL, such as a successful conclusion of the tentative Vienna talks which could enable Syrian forces, shorn of Assad and joined by substantial elements of rebel forces, to make a real and sustainable impact against ISIL, we will not achieve the desired outcome. I think pursuance of such initiatives, together with sustained action to strangle all forms of financial and material support for ISIL, covertly or overtly, represents a better strategic way forward than adding a small further ingredient to an already confused and intractable situation. Britain can best make its contribution through such initiatives and through continuing to support the degradation of ISIL’s presence in Iraq.

For these reasons, I am not convinced by the Prime Minister’s propositions concerning bombing, and I will not be supporting his resolution when it is put forward later this week."

David Davies MP, ( Conservative ), in the Guardian :

"David Cameron made a characteristically fluent case on Thursday. But he did not actually answer the two critical questions that must precede any decision by Britain to initiate hostilities within Syria: namely, what is the political end game and what is the military plan to achieve it?

The first is incredibly difficult but not impossible. We need to drag all the interested parties around a table and hammer out a mutually acceptable solution.

If we are still a long way from a consensus, it is because most of the main players seem more intent on destabilising their enemies than stabilising their friends.

Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states have a history of enabling financial support for any jihadi group that attacked the Shia – including Isis. Turkey has facilitated the sale of up to a billion dollars of Isis oil, has held open the border for jihadi groups and their intelligence agency has supplied arms to jihadis in Syria.

We need to bang our supposed allies’ heads together and stop this nonsense. It can be done. The Arab nations are waking up to the dangers of their own activities, with the sacking of some of their pro-Isis ministers. Similarly, the Russians need to grip the Iranians.

And we have to stop obsessing about Assad. His regime is vicious, but so is nearly every active player in this conflict. The British government’s line smacks of a retrospective wish to justify its abortive 2013 attempt to bomb him. But the Syrian government still controls most of the cities and is the only plausible guarantor of the safety of all the non-Sunni communities threatened by a jihadi victory. The wisest course is to start negotiations on the future of Syria and Iraq without any preconditions.

The second unanswered question is even harder. What is the military plan? Since we cannot win with air alone, this reduces to “where will we find a pro-western army?”

David Cameron asserted that the “Free Syrian Army” commanded 70,000 troops. What this probably refers to is a disparate range of up to 1,500 different tribes and villages, in possibly 40 loose associations. Many of these operate under the control of Isis or the two essentially al-Qaida affiliates. Only the Kurds are in truth independent of the jihadis.

Advertisement

So this 70,000 is probably a phantom army. Which means that the military force will have to be a regional one, which in turn depends on the Vienna process reaching some form of mutually acceptable conclusion between all the regional powers. In this, Britain could have a very real role, which we should not miss in the heat of the moment. And it is at a time when the Russians are signalling in numerous ways that they are willing to play a real constructive role.

And that is part of the risk of the obsession with British bombing.

Despite the brave words of the prime minister, we will add very little to the military impact. Besides, military actions by themselves are not enough. The best lesson here is the spectacularly successful military action that we and the Americans carried out when we completely wiped out al-Qaida in Iraq. We simply created the vacuum that was then filled by Isis, because we did not fix the politics first.

Furthermore, despite the government’s assertions, our involvement will increase the short-term risk of terrorist attacks in Britain. As the attack on the Russian airliner showed, military actions can crystallise immediate terrorist responses. That is not a reason for inaction, but we should be honest with the British people about the consequences of what we do.

The reason for hesitation here is even more important. The Paris atrocity may just have created a strategic opportunity that will allow Isis to be completely eradicated. That will be in the first case a political initiative, the building of a grand alliance that creates both the plan and the military instrument to bring a stable future to this tortured part of the Middle East. Once that is done, then we should put our shoulder to the wheel, with every bit of military muscle we can muster.

But now? If we focus our efforts on providing a marginal military input in Syria, we will no doubt feel better about ourselves. Perhaps David Cameron will feel that he has put us back in the front rank of the alliance. It might provide some good short-term headlines. But we will have wasted what might be the best opportunity for 10 years to bring a real solution to the tragedy that is Syria and Iraq today."

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/29/should-parliament-endorse-uk-air-strikes-in-syria

lets be honest, our handful of planes will make little difference to the whole picture.

but our allies are wanting us onboard and we may want the favour in return one day.

David Davies MP, ( Conservative ), in the Guardian :

 

If we are still a long way from a consensus, it is because most of the main players seem more intent on destabilising their enemies than stabilising their friends.

Great line. So true

David Davies and Alan Whitehead make the points against very well. I am inclined to agree with them.

i think bombing Syria with a couple of museum pieces held together by superglue will achieve **** all

i think we should do more to help Iraq and only get involved in Syria with a military contribution when there is an end game. The question of bomb or not bomb is too simplistic in a complete cluster **** conflict

Yes, I also think thoughtful responses from Whithead and Davies. I do wish Cameron had allowed more time for the debate to at least convince on some of these outstanding questions.

I am struggling to understand what "Call me Dave" hopes to achieve with air strikes. It is all well and good to talk of "degrading" ISIL but what have the hundreds of missions that have already been completed achieved? It smacks of doing something for the sake of it rather than a well thought out policy to deal with the range of complex issues that we face in the Middle East.

I am struggling to understand what "Call me Dave" hopes to achieve with air strikes. It is all well and good to talk of "degrading" ISIL but what have the hundreds of missions that have already been completed achieved? It smacks of doing something for the sake of it rather than a well thought out policy to deal with the range of complex issues that we face in the Middle East.

It is obviously answering the call to our neighbour and buddy - France.

Even the Germans are sending planes, a ship and equipment

I get the desire to do something to show that we stand together, but Obama tells us that the French have been their buddies for far longer and he is holding back on doing any more at the moment. If they could prove that by bombing Syria they will make things safer for us in Europe I would have some sympathy, but the chances are that those who are going to commit the next atrocities are already in place and all the bombings will do is escalate the situation.

What will bombing Syria mean differently to bombing Iraq? To this lot, it is still part of the same "caliphate".. It is the wicked west who see the border between the two countries. They don't

What will bombing Syria mean differently to bombing Iraq? To this lot, it is still part of the same "caliphate".. It is the wicked west who see the border between the two countries. They don't

In Iraq there are organised and capable ground forces able to actually take and hold territory, up to 1 million army and paramilitary Police, plus the Kurds. In Syria there is very little to rely on if we rule out Assad's army; Cameron's mythical 70 thousand simply do not exist as a coherent and effective force, even if his arithmetic is accurate.

Nah it's just Dave trying to prove he's got a pair.

Here's some analysis on the 70,000 figure.

http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/yes-there-are-70000-moderate-opposition-fighters-in-syria-heres-what-we-know-about-them/

Thousands of young British men and women (that's British, born and raised in Britain) are making their way to IS HQ in Syria to have the process of radicalisation refined and polished, and to be well trained in the covert use of weapons and explosives. There are still a few innocent Syrians left for them to practice on. Then they make there way back to Eastleigh, or Swindon, or Nottingham, or Swansea, or Bradford, or Greenock, or..... to wait for the call to go out and slaughter innocent British women and children.

That's what parliament is beind asked to deal with now.

Only an idiot would think that Parliament can, or should, vote on how to end the war in Syria or solve the problems of the Middle East. They will come, whether parliament votes or not. This is about risk management and damage limitation.

In Iraq there are organised and capable ground forces able to actually take and hold territory, up to 1 million army and paramilitary Police, plus the Kurds. In Syria there is very little to rely on if we rule out Assad's army; Cameron's mythical 70 thousand simply do not exist as a coherent and effective force, even if his arithmetic is accurate.

how does bombing syria make us more of a target over bombing another part of their 'land'

What will bombing Syria mean differently to bombing Iraq? To this lot, it is still part of the same "caliphate".. It is the wicked west who see the border between the two countries. They don't

Thats just parroting the line ministers have agreed on. The difference is that Iraq has a legitimate government and ground army. They have active informants and spotters on the ground to target airstrikes. The airstrikes there are in support of Iraqi troops retaking Iraqi territory. When IS are forced out their place is retaken by elected Iraqi authorities.

Bomb in IS controlled areas of Syria, mostly blind without good target information, and all you will do is kill many civilians and perhaps allow the Assad regime back in - which was the cause of the bitterness and civil war long before IS became involved.

Thousands of young British men and women (that's British, born and raised in Britain) are making their way to IS HQ in Syria to have the process of radicalisation refined and polished, and to be well trained in the covert use of weapons and explosives. There are still a few innocent Syrians left for them to practice on. Then they make there way back to Eastleigh, or Swindon, or Nottingham, or Swansea, or Bradford, or Greenock, or..... to wait for the call to go out and slaughter innocent British women and children.

 

That's what parliament is beind asked to deal with now.

 

Only an idiot would think that Parliament can, or should, vote on how to end the war in Syria or solve the problems of the Middle East. They will come, whether parliament votes or not. This is about risk management and damage limitation.

Which is all very well but how do you target these individuals?

I see now that those who do not support the bombing will be deemed to support the terrorists!How do you figure that out Dave?

Turkey has 2.2 million Syrian refugees. The EU is trying to bribe them to clamp down on the people smugglers who ferry them into the EU via Greece. Turkey is just haggling over the price. £2bn is eff all for hosting 2.2 million people.

And many people want Turkey as part of the EU, you couldn't make it up.

Does it make much difference if we bomb Syria or not? It'll just move the problem on and it'll emerge again soon enough.

And many people want Turkey as part of the EU, you couldn't make it up.

the whole EU thing is utterly bizarre. Just as much as those who are so supportive of it

Thats just parroting the line ministers have agreed on. The difference is that Iraq has a legitimate government and ground army. They have active informants and spotters on the ground to target airstrikes. The airstrikes there are in support of Iraqi troops retaking Iraqi territory. When IS are forced out their place is retaken by elected Iraqi authorities.

 

Bomb in IS controlled areas of Syria, mostly blind without good target information, and all you will do is kill many civilians and perhaps allow the Assad regime back in - which was the cause of the bitterness and civil war long before IS became involved.

You can convince yourself that there are no ground-based spotters in Syria if you like - it doesn't alter the fact that what you're saying is plainly untrue. If you read the Raqqa Is Being Slaughtered Silently site closely enough you'll know, for example, that the drone strike on Mohammad Emwazi was as a result of local information fed out to military targeters. Numerous other European and American jihadists have been killed after clearly being targeted from very localised information. ISIS regularly rail in their videos against informers giving details about precise locations of various fighters who've been killed by drone strikes. So there is no reason to think Western air forces are "bombing blind".

And Iraq may have a legitimate government and a "ground army" (or at least the ineffectual appearance of one), but the bad news for Corbynists is that Iraq undoes their ignorant and inflexible argument that all Western bombing leads necessarily to bad things. Without the aerial bombardment by the Americans during ISIS's blitzkrieg race through Iraq in 2014, Baghdad would have been easily overrun, "ground army" or not. Even with aerial bombing, ISIS were just a few miles outside the gates of the city, murdering all and sundry and dumping their mutilated bodies in mass graves. The consequences had ISIS succeeded in taking Baghdad can only be imagined in anyone's worst nightmare.

This is not to condone bombing in general, or even to suggest it's a good idea. The argument against it, supported by the evidence of repeated appeals from civilian groups in Syria, is that civilians want a no-fly zone to keep Assad and his genocidal barrel bombs away from their families. As ugly as ISIS are, they are seen as the symptom of the civil war, while Assad is unmistakably the cause. The West has the hardware and military skill to impose a no-fly zone.

The problem is that Corbyn's knee-jerk selective pacifism (Western military = bad; Russian military = good) prevents his articulating the case for a form of Western military action that would actually work in protecting lives in Syria. The tragedy is that Syrians die while he fails miserably to hold the government to account for what happens next.

Just another day in the Western world for Islam.

Bombing Syria won't make much difference, when their supporters are living in our towns and cities.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/12028490/Luton-anti-terror-arrests-Four-men-held-over-alleged-plot.html

You can convince yourself that there are no ground-based spotters in Syria if you like - it doesn't alter the fact that what you're saying is plainly untrue. If you read the Raqqa Is Being Slaughtered Silently site closely enough you'll know, for example, that the drone strike on Mohammad Emwazi was as a result of local information fed out to military targeters. Numerous other European and American jihadists have been killed after clearly being targeted from very localised information. ISIS regularly rail in their videos against informers giving details about precise locations of various fighters who've been killed by drone strikes. So there is no reason to think Western air forces are "bombing blind".

 

And Iraq may have a legitimate government and a "ground army" (or at least the ineffectual appearance of one), but the bad news for Corbynists is that Iraq undoes their ignorant and inflexible argument that all Western bombing leads necessarily to bad things. Without the aerial bombardment by the Americans during ISIS's blitzkrieg race through Iraq in 2014, Baghdad would have been easily overrun, "ground army" or not. Even with aerial bombing, ISIS were just a few miles outside the gates of the city, murdering all and sundry and dumping their mutilated bodies in mass graves. The consequences had ISIS succeeded in taking Baghdad can only be imagined in anyone's worst nightmare.

 

This is not to condone bombing in general, or even to suggest it's a good idea. The argument against it, supported by the evidence of repeated appeals from civilian groups in Syria, is that civilians want a no-fly zone to keep Assad and his genocidal barrel bombs away from their families. As ugly as ISIS are, they are seen as the symptom of the civil war, while Assad is unmistakably the cause. The West has the hardware and military skill to impose a no-fly zone.

 

The problem is that Corbyn's knee-jerk selective pacifism (Western military = bad; Russian military = good) prevents his articulating the case for a form of Western military action that would actually work in protecting lives in Syria. The tragedy is that Syrians die while he fails miserably to hold the government to account for what happens next.

I didnt say there was no intelligence, I said there was a lack. There is. There are plenty of planes already, lots of strikes in Iraq, relatively few in Syria. Increasing the number of sorties has got nothing to do with getting more planes and everything to do with finding more targets. Then the coalition is left with a choice if it wants to ramp up activity - either continue to bomb empty buildings for domestic political consumption - or area bomb like the Russians and kill civilians.

"Rear Admiral John Kirby said: 'We do take extreme caution and care in the conduct of these missions. 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 US 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 US is relying for ground reports on the Iraqi military and intelligence services, whose insights into ISIS controlled territory are limited.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2776282/US-tell-effective-airstrikes-against-ISIS-huge-gaps-intelligence-officials-claim.html

http://www.stripes.com/news/middle-east/lack-of-targets-not-russians-seen-affecting-number-of-us-airstrikes-in-syria-1.371376

http://sputniknews.com/military/20151127/1030881026/coalition-us-strikes-deployment.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/16/middleeast/france-raqqa-airstrikes-on-isis/

Should we bomb ISIS in Syria or not then?

There are some pretty decent arguments on both sides and I for one don't think the question is at all clear-cut. We should also remember that the RAF contribution to current anti ISIS ops is so relatively small (at this time anyway) as to be virtually irreverent anyway. A case a 'much ado about nothing' perhaps.

However, what is perfectly clear is that the military situation on the ground is just about as big an intractable mess that you could possibly ever see. It may be that the only prospect of sorting this chaos out is for a substantial NATO army to intervene on the ground - but all the 'mood music' emerging from our political class is that this move (rightly or wrongly) will not happen. Methinks that those who doubt that yet more aerial bombardment on its own is going to resolve anything quickly are very probably right. Above all, decades of hard-earned experience shows us that the key question we should always ask before going to war is; what next?

So until some bugger shows me something that resembles a coherent plan here then the best course for this nation to steer may well be to stay well out of it. Sometimes doing nothing is the best thing to do.

Should we bomb ISIS in Syria or not then?

 

There are some pretty decent arguments on both sides and I for one don't think the question is at all clear-cut. We should also remember that the RAF contribution to current anti ISIS ops is so relatively small (at this time anyway) as to be virtually irreverent anyway. A case a 'much ado about nothing' perhaps.

 

However, what is perfectly clear is that the military situation on the ground is just about as big an intractable mess that you could possibly ever see. It may be that the only prospect of sorting this chaos out is for a substantial NATO army to intervene on the ground - but all the 'mood music' emerging from our political class is that this move (rightly or wrongly) will not happen. Methinks that those who doubt that yet more aerial bombardment on its own is going to resolve anything quickly are very probably right. Above all, decades of hard-earned experience shows us that the key question we should always ask before going to war is; what next?

 

So until some bugger shows me something that resembles a coherent plan here then the best course for this nation to steer may well be to stay well out of it. Sometimes doing nothing is the best thing to do.

but we are not out of it. we are far from out of it. we are bombing just across the border that ISIS do not recognise.

how does bombing Syria make much of a difference to you?

looks like it is going to happen

Powerful stuff from Benn Jnr. Pity Corbyn so utterly failed to articulate the case against.

At least with Syria, unlike Iraq and Libya, it's already a failed state without our help.

Its going to happen.

Cameron gets about 170-odd winning margin

Load of fuss about nothing, were already bombing in Iraq so I don't get the big deal about doing it the other side of a non existent border.