Should the UK bomb Syria?

[Zak33]

All this talk of Brimstone bombs by the establishment hitting targets moving at 70mph and they then bomb a static old field?

Hmm. Is the "truth" already being twisted to suit particular goals as suggested?

Paveways used for that. (Yes another country could have done that.)

But while the RAF are out there they need familiarisation flights and you have no idea what intel they gained while on that run out. We don't know if they needed to use or test systems in that area, nor whether they found anything interesting or learned stuff. We don't know what they're doing for a reason. So that they dont get shot down easily.

[directhex]

People who think airstrikes are a bad idea: People who have studied ISIS' methods. Civilians in ISIS-occupied cities. Families of those killed in Paris.

People who think airstrikes are a fab idea: Our "leaders". Chickenhawks. ISIS themselves.

It's not even a mystery. They publish a *glossy magazine* about their damn gang. They're up front and open about what they want and how they want to achieve it - and western bombs in Syria is one of their biggest long-term goals. It's one of the three biggest ways to help drive recruitment.

The other two being "reject Syrian refugees", which we've been doing, and "drive a rift between Muslims and the west to help end integration", which we've been doing.

Want to talk "terrorist sympathisers"? There's your terrorist sympathisers. The ones helping ISIS with 100% of their goals.

And me, bombing Syria? A 3-way cluster with *every* side being awful, and each of those sides (including ISIS) being bankrolled by British allies? How does just bombing civilian cities like Raqqa help with that?

[Saracen]

But why was the RAF the only one that could help in that time? Air support is (in my completely non-expert opinion) better able to be provided by the US and French from their carriers, or the Russians from their base *in Syria*. If it's a question of cost, we don't we just help out financially and make more efficient use of that money? Or if we have an airbase in a good location, why not allow these other nations to make use of it?

Why? I don't know.

The statement made was that the RAF were in the area, presumably flying missions in Iraq from their Akrotiri base. But others, be it US, French or whatever, were far enough away, or busy in other missions, that it took 40 minutes to get them there.

The point, though, was the highly artificial nature of a rather notional border. Daesh don't respect the border, the Iraqi government certainly can't and Assad's "government" seem to be hunched down in the western parts of the country with no say over let alone control of the border with Iraq. Or, for that matter, most of the border with Turkey which seens to either be under Kurdish control, or open to a free for all.

There seems to be something distinctly ludicrous about a situation where Daesh fighters can be attacking, say, Iraqi positions just inside Iraq, but if help shows up, they run a few hundred yards, cross an unenforced line in the sand, stick a rude gesture up at RAF pilots and the RAF aren't allowed to engage them, when a minute and 100 yards earlier, they could have.

If this border was a real border, in the modern sense, then Iraq would be expected to patrol and enforce one side of it, and the Syrian government, and military, to enforce the other side of it. But for years, that whole area has effectively been ungoverned, stateless if you like, and the border existing only as a notional line on a map, not in reality on the ground.

I just can't see any rational argument for why a bunch of murdering thugs like Daesh can be a legitimate target one side of that non-existent border, and not a few yards the other side of it.

[HalloweenJack]

The USA military want brimstone - whilst it outwardly looks like a Hellfire , the dual mode seeker and other improvements make it way ahead of anything the USA currently has - and both the USAF and USN want it (especially on the drones). Its down to the government to make that choice though.


As long as all the RAF do is air support for in theatre ground troops (eg the kurds) , and bombing IS abaility to make money (oil for example) and high level targets of opportunity - then its a positive step.


ofc pattern bombing of Raqqa would have a similar effect....

[Saracen]

All this talk of Brimstone bombs by the establishment hitting targets moving at 70mph and they then bomb a static old field?

Hmm. Is the "truth" already being twisted to suit particular goals as suggested?

Nobody said Brimstone was the only use to which RAF planes would be put. But lots of people have asked what significant difference we would add, given that we had 8 (soon to be 16) aircraft in the region. Brimstone is one answer.

But it's like a plumber having a blowtorch in his toolbag - that doesn't mean you expect him to use it on every job, such as changing a washer in a bath tap. Nor do you only call him for jobs needing a blowtorch. But when you do need a plumber with a blowtorch, not much else will do instead.

When you call out a plumber, you do expect him to have all the tools needed to do the bulk of commonplace jobs in his van.

[HalloweenJack]

The UK also are the only western country to use Paveway 4 - the USA went over to JDAM , we wanted paveway as it suited our needs better

[TooNice]

Lots of airplanes in the skies already, but do we have the intelligence on the ground to provide us high value targets?

What is the end goal? I am under the impression that airstrikes is basically wack-a-mole in perpetuity. We can't stabilise the region without a stable government with the approval of the people capable and willing of mintaining security of the country. With the coalition and Russia at odds over Syria I am not sure how that can be achieved except perhaps dividing the country (by no mean a good solution but a less bad solution). North and South Korea is constantly at odds and sometime on the edge, but they managed to avoid all out war in many decades now.

[kalniel]

I just can't see any rational argument for why a bunch of murdering thugs like Daesh can be a legitimate target one side of that non-existent border, and not a few yards the other side of it.

So by extension, should we cease bombing in Iraq also?

The rational argument is one of respecting another nation's sovereignty. Iraq's govt. asked us to, Syria's are not only not asking, they're forbidding. I know, Daesh aren't respecting either govt. but that's surely something we want to show a mark of distinction with them over, not agreement.

[The Hand]

Nobody said Brimstone was the only use to which RAF planes would be put. But lots of people have asked what significant difference we would add, given that we had 8 (soon to be 16) aircraft in the region. Brimstone is one answer.

But it's like a plumber having a blowtorch in his toolbag - that doesn't mean you expect him to use it on every job, such as changing a washer in a bath tap. Nor do you only call him for jobs needing a blowtorch. But when you do need a plumber with a blowtorch, not much else will do instead.

When you call out a plumber, you do expect him to have all the tools needed to do the bulk of commonplace jobs in his van.

I should have fleshed out my post a bit more.

I was inferring that infrastructure that may benefit the Assad regime gets targeted and destroyed by Paveway 4, if Islamic State is close to being driven out of that area. However say there is infrastructure in an IS area that is on the verge of falling into the hands of the FSA or Kurds, the coalition will only target IS accurately militarily say using the Brimstone bombs to destroy individual vehicles and small groups and leave the infrastructure intact. (This may imply that civilians in IS/Assad regime contested areas are more likely to be killed than civilians in IS/FSA+Kurd contested areas simply by the tactics/ordinance used.)

In time, the Syrian regime possibly may weaken for whatever reason and the dominoes are more aligned for collective collapse with fewer resources gained on the ground because of the scorched earth bombing tactics of the coalition. Assad in desperation may dare to use chemical weapons again (or some other wild card event) and there maybe a different president in the White House at that point willing to attack the regime even with the Russians involved to "finish" the civil war.

It not's that this approach would be a big secret for the coalition including the Brits.. It's just they maybe a bit more coy about it I'm willing to bet, given the refusal of the British to go war in 2013 even after the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian/Assad regime.

[Zak33]

What is the end goal? I am under the impression that airstrikes is basically wack-a-mole in perpetuity.

you see.. THAT is a good point. A great point.

Not "why does the RAF hit hardest, why dont the French do it with their tech?"

the questions is "whats the end game?"

Cant answer that..... I just like weapons!

[directhex]

Sadly the forums were reinstalled mid 2003, so we don't have the records of those who supported the Iraq war on the basis of "it'll totally be fine and quick"

[pp05]

So by extension, should we cease bombing in Iraq also?

The rational argument is one of respecting another nation's sovereignty. Iraq's govt. asked us to, Syria's are not only not asking, they're forbidding. I know, Daesh aren't respecting either govt. but that's surely something we want to show a mark of distinction with them over, not agreement.

I suspect to get around the fact that Syria didn't ask for it the PM invoked the phantom 70,000 rebels who would form a democratic government afterwards. So it's regime change - difference between now and the first vote is that Russia has exerted its influence on the area.

[Saracen]

So by extension, should we cease bombing in Iraq also?

The rational argument is one of respecting another nation's sovereignty. Iraq's govt. asked us to, Syria's are not only not asking, they're forbidding. I know, Daesh aren't respecting either govt. but that's surely something we want to show a mark of distinction with them over, not agreement.

Well, if there's a logical inconsistency in striking Daesh them in Iraq but not in Syria, then yes, it follows that resolving that inconsistency requires striking them in both or striking them in neither. It would resolve that inconsistency if we stopped striking them in Iraq.

Of course, Corbyn was repeatedly challenged on exactly that question in his reply to Cameron, and repeatedly refused to endorse that.

As for respecting borders, generally that's not only a very good idea but international law. There are exceptions, however. A moral case can be made for ignoring that border regardless of Assad's wishes because he's not actually in charge in that part of the country. He's pretty much locked up in the western coastal strip around Damascus. If he was indeed in control, then he could put a stop to Daesh's cross-border operations from his country, couldn't he? But he isn't.

Then, there's that unanimous UN Security Council resolution. Unanimous. Of the entire security council, not just the permanent five. I'm astonished they actually managed to get not only the obvious countries (Russia and China) to vote with the US on an issue like that, but I rather expected Venezuela to vote the opposite way to the US on principle.

So I'd say justification, legal and moral, for ignoring the border comes from two grounds, one being the Resolution for "all necessary measures" to deal with Daesh, and the other being in support of the request from Iraq to deal with an organisation basing itself in Syria but invading, attacking and occupying chunks of Iraq. That is, after all, why we're flying air mussions over Iraq against them.

Which brings us back to logical inconsistencies. Why do we strike Daesh in Iraq because they invade from Syria, but don't pursue them in Syria? If Assad was or was even capable of dealing with them in Syria, it'd perhaps be different. But he isn't. And from what I can tell, he isn't even trying to.

[Saracen]

Lots of airplanes in the skies already, but do we have the intelligence on the ground to provide us high value targets?

What is the end goal? I am under the impression that airstrikes is basically wack-a-mole in perpetuity. We can't stabilise the region without a stable government with the approval of the people capable and willing of mintaining security of the country. With the coalition and Russia at odds over Syria I am not sure how that can be achieved except perhaps dividing the country (by no mean a good solution but a less bad solution). North and South Korea is constantly at odds and sometime on the edge, but they managed to avoid all out war in many decades now.

The end point is stopping the Syrian civil war, destroying Daesh, getting internationally monitored free and fair elections in Syria to produce a government representing ALL population groups fairly, and rebuilding Syria into a sufficiently stable and prosperous country that millions of displaced Syrians, and millions more that fled into foreign refugee, both feel safe to go home and want to.

Of course, I feel that if we can do all that, can we also have an end to world poverty, a cure for cancer and the moon on a stick, please?

But sarcasm aside, the objective is to resolve the Syrian mess. This is, self-evidently, going to be hugely difficult especially given that Russia and Assad have a very different idea of what that looks like to the US and most other neighbours.

So the rationale is to do everything possible to contain, and degrade Daesh, while working on the wider political and diplomatic solution, such as via the Vienna process. If the rest of Syria can be persuaded to stop fighting each other, then and only then is there any coherent chance of getting sufficient ground forces together to deal with Daesh on the ground, short of sending in large numbers of western (mainly US) troops. And that is very unlikely to happen for two reasons: lack of any inclination to get involved on the ground by either the US administration or the US public; the fact that it'd probably be hugely counter-productive to undermining Daesh's recruiting sirens if western troops went into yet another Muslim country.

And yeah, nobody said it was going to be easy. Or fast.

[Phage]

The situation will never be solved without boots on the ground. Not ours, locals.
Breakup the region into autonomous regions per the Ottoman model. Notice how those regions roughly align with the areas now held by each combatant ? Each one would be settled by a series of Burhs to hold the region.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burh

[Domestic_Ginger]

We can provide a Daesh state! A Pandoras box if you like. They get what they want and then everyone can be friends.