Should the UK bomb Syria?

[opel80uk]

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?

Because Iraq has has (some sort of Western backed) functioning Government that can fill the void left if/when ISIS are removed. Who are we helping in Syria, and who fills the void if/when they are removed? Who really are all the different groups of rebels fighting against ISIS in Syria, and what do they stand for? Or perhaps it's because Iraq have asked that we bomb ISIS targets, in coordination with Iraqi troops on ground battling ISIS, whereas there is no such collaboration in Syria.

In fact, other than just bombing and hoping for the best, what IS the plan?

[Phage]

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

Errrr no. Take and hold by the people who live there. We help the ones we want to build forts and hospitals. Over time we take territory.

[Saracen]

Because Iraq has has (some sort of Western backed) functioning Government that can fill the void left if/when ISIS are removed. Who are we helping in Syria, and who fills the void if/when they are removed? Who really are all the different groups of rebels fighting against ISIS in Syria, and what do they stand for? Or perhaps it's because Iraq have asked that we bomb ISIS targets, in coordination with Iraqi troops on ground battling ISIS, whereas there is no such collaboration in Syria.

In fact, other than just bombing and hoping for the best, what IS the plan?

I thought I'd just dealt with all that.

The Vienna process, with Russia, Iran, Saudi, Jordan, Turkey, US, Frsnce, UK etc all around the table is supposed to come up with a route forward to a transitional government within 6 months, leading to internationally supervised elections within 18 months. That's their timetable, not mine.

The point is that even if Daesh didn't and never had existed, the warring parties in Syria have to somehow be brought to a compromise that all can put up with or we have permanent civil war.

Whether it can be done or not, and on that timescale or not, I don't know, but that's the process already underway. It's simply not the case that these strikes are happening in a political vacuum.

What can be done is being done, regardless of Daesh.

So on top of that, should everyone just stand back and let let Daesh do whatever they want from Syria, causing whatever death and destruction they can in Iraq and elsewhere, just because the Syrian regime can't or won't police their own country?

Suppose a terrorist group based itself in Canada, and the Canadian government either couldn't or wouldn't close them down. That group then organised, seized a chunk of Canada, and invaded the US seizing a couple of states, which they then declared to be a self-sustaining state. Would the US let it stand?

Any country capable of it wouldn't put up with invasion and attacks coming from a terrorist group basing itself in a neighbour, and if the neighbour couldn't or wouldn't deal with them, the attacked neighbour would.

So, does everyone sit back and let Daesh do it's thing without interruption because the wheels of diplomacy grind slowly, meanwhile shrugging our shoulders at Daesh's barbarity and murderous activities?

For that matter, is it possible to get stability within Syria if Daesh are left unchecked? Cameron's comment was that dealing with Daesh if necessary, but not sufficient. It's a step to sorting Syria, but by no means the whole path. Hence Vienna.

[opel80uk]

I thought I'd just dealt with all tbat.

The Vienna process, with Russia, Iran, Saudi, Jordan, Turkey, US, Frsnce, UK etc all around the table is supposed to come up with a route forward to a transitional government within 6 months, leading to internationally supervised elections within 18 months. That's their timetable, not mine.

The point is that even if Daesh didn't and never had existed, the warring parties in Syria have to somehow be brought to a compromise that all can put up with or we have permanent civil war.

Whether it can be done or not, and on that timescale or not, I don't know, but that's the process already underway. It's simply not the case that these strikes are happening in a political vacuum.

What can be done is being done, regardless of Daesh.

So on top of that, should everyone just stand back and let let Daesh do whatever they want from Syria, causing whatever death and destruction they can in Iraq and elsewhere, just because the Syrian regime can't or won't police their own country?

Suppose a terrorist group based itself in Canada, and the Canadian government either couldn't or wouldn't close them down. That group then organised, seized a chunk of Canada, and invaded the US seizing a couple of states, which they then declared to be a self-sustaining state. Would the US let it stand?

Any country capable of it wouldn't put up with invasion and attacks coming from a terrorist group basing itself in a neighbour, and if the neighbour couldn't or wouldn't deal with them, the attacked neighbour would.

So, does everyone sit back and let Daesh do it's thing without interruption because the wheels of diplomacy grind slowly, meanwhile shrugging our shoulders at Daesh's barbarity and murderous activities?

For that matter, is it possible to get stability within Syria if Daesh are left unchecked? Cameron's comment was that dealing with Daesh if necessary, but not sufficient. It's a step to sorting Syria, but by no means the whole path. Hence Vienna.

So, and correct me if I've read this wrong, the plan is to bomb, whilst having no overall military strategic plan, whilst hoping The Vienna process comes up with a plan?

What could possibly go wrong.

[scaryjim]

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 ...

... If the rest of Syria can be persuaded to stop fighting each other ...

I think this is the key problem - if you have several groups in Syria who are so at odds with each other they've decided to take up arms, the chances of getting a single government to represent all of those groups is infinitesimal. Add to that the complication that outside influences are actively trying to eliminate one of those groups (however legitimate that decision may be), and ... well, I don't have words for that.

One thing that does seem clear to me is that the concept of a large, coordinated ground force of Syrian moderates who will work together to eliminate Daesh is pie-in-the-sky thinking. I can see the attraction of bending the intel' that way; it's exactly what is required to realistically remove Daesh from the equation. But I don't see how you'll get that coordination without external influence, and AFAICT all the outside powers operating in the region have ruled out boots on the ground, which means you won't have the experienced and coordinated leadership those kinds of operations would need.

Given the negative emotive response the authorisation of airstrikes has had at home, I can only imagine the wave of emotions towards the UK that's currently sweeping through those Syrian "moderates" who are actually on the ground in the country. How many of them do we think will actually be pleased that the UK is bombing Daesh targets? How many of them will just see a foreign power bombing their country?

[Saracen]

So, and correct me if I've read this wrong, the plan is to bomb, whilst having no overall military strategic plan, whilst hoping The Vienna process comes up with a plan?

What could possibly go wrong.

No, that's not the plan.

The plan is "contain", and degrade. That's the point of air strikes. In Iraq, other ground forces can then start in on the ground, be it Baghdad-controlled Iraqis or Kurdish Peshmurga. That's been relatively effective, but far from job-done. But Daesh expansion has been stopped, and rolled back a bit, with a few major gains in towns retaken.

In Syria, right now, major ground force activity isn't on the cards because those that might do it are busy, mainly fighting each other. So, air strikes (by us at least) are supposed to be precise, targeted, and aimed at degrading Daesh, be that by destroying command centres (including mobile), specific 'high value' targets when they can be identified and hit within a restricted RoE, of their financial infrastructure.

Presumably, sooner or later, some solution has to be found to the Syrian civil war. Bu it's not in the UKs power to wave a magic wand and come up with a peace accord everyone will follow, any more than the US, Russia, Iran, the UN or the tooth fairy can. All anyone can do is trh to get everyone talking, then narrowing down, compromising, etc. Well, they're at least talking and sat at the table, even if that largely means Iran and Saudi sat at the table hurling insults at each other. They are at least at the table. It's not a huge step, but all solutions start with the first step.

Remember that news footage of Martin McGuiness and Iain Paisley sat at the same table, apparently quite comfortable doing it? I was astonished they weren't trying to strangle each other but for all the imperfections, tensions, disagreements and periodic (sometimes serious) spats, they (as in both sides) are still working together. Who'da thunk it?

Besides, however slow and tentative the procsss is, got a better idea? If so, I'm sure we, and the entire international community, would love to hear it?

About the only other way to stop the war would be for the one superpower capable of going in militarily and putting the war to an end won't do so, partly because they aren't willing to, partly because almost nobody wants them to, and partly because it's be akin to putting out an out of control barbeque with 1000 gallons of kerosene a bit at a time. Odds are, half the Islamic world would also go up in flames, and so would Russia and Iran.

So 'we', as in the outside world, can't wade in, knock heads together and tell them to behave. About the only way forward from where we are, which isn't where we wish we were, is to get all parties to talk.

Right now, we've got all parties outside Syria at the table. It's a small start, but a start. And it might be the easy bit compared to getting the non-Daesh combatants inside Syria sat around a table. And that's the next bit.

But does anyone think anything, anything at all, short of the rest of us conforming to their perverted world view, will get ideologically and religiously Daesh fanatical Daesh to talk?

So yes, there's a plan. It involves lots of parties with conflicting vested interests all trying to reach a compromise. And they're talking. Personally, I suspect that if some compromise can be reached whereby parties like Iran and Russia are convinced their interests are preserved, or at least better served by a negotiated settlement than an ongoing civil war feeding a cancer like Daesh, then they can get the Assad regime to the table.

After all, that airliner bomb got Russia's attention, and Iran is slowly and cautiously reaching a guarded rapprochement with the US and the West. They do have interests to protect but they also have reason to want a stable Syria and rid of Daesh.

International diplomacy is the art of the possible. It requires all parties to first recognise that they're better served by agreement than the status quo on ongoing civil war. We may be at that point now. Then it requires agreement on detail, and getting there is going to be slow and tortuous, and each party will be fighting tooth and claw to get the best they can. What does Russia want, and more importantly, what will it accept and not accept? Preservation of in-country bases? Trade? More? And similarly for others, like Iran for whom Syria is clise to a cluent state. Or was, anyway, before it imploded.

Nobody said it would be easy, or fast. But the plan is there, albeit pretty loose. But as tying it down tighter requires negotiation and agreement, it's the best that's possible right now.

But there is a plan, and early but tentative progress.

Air strikes (by us at least, though Russia might be different) is intended to do what we can to contain and degrade Daesh, for as long as it takes for that diplomatic route go grind slowly on.

That diplomatic plan is there, and grinding, but we can't control how long it takes or even guarantee success? But, got a better idea?

Meanwhile, some opposition seems to be based on a spurious notion that because we, the UK, can't solve the diplomatic problem and do everything, we shouldn't do anything.

The rest of the opposition to strikes seems to be that joining air strikes will do more harm than good. Well, in terms of inflaming "Muslims", it seems to me that most utterly disown Daesh, and absolutely don't want ths perception that Daesh somehow represent them. I'm not sure how they're supposed to get inflamed by this. Some, no doubt, have some sympathy for Daesh's objectives even if not their brutality, but again, how will strikes in Syria inflame them more than strikes in Iraq already do?

Some say we (the UK) will be a bigger target. I don't buy that, either. My bet is we're already very high up the target list and a hit is 'highly likely" in the UK. We've already been targeted abroad. I would not be at all surprised if sooner or later, we get hit, and I can't see strikes in Syria making an iota of difference. If they can they will, whether we strike Daesh in Syria and Iraq, just in Iraq, or whether we pack up, run back home and hide under the duvet.

Taking on Daesh is a bad option, with thexsingle saving grace, IMHO, that it's better than not. Because we always have to remember, inaction is a choice with consequences too. Doing nothing while we wait for diplomacy is a rusk, just as is doing something.

Here's a prediction.

If we now get attacked, the anti-strike camp will say it's because of air strikes in Syria. It wouldn't surprise me if Daesh said that, too. It's good poop-stirring. This ignores the intelligence assessment that it's been "highly likely" for ages, which is one step short of specific intelligence of a specific imminent attack. It also ignores seven foiled attempts this year alone.

What makes you think not extending strikes to Syria is better, safer, or more effective in destroying Daesh?

[TooNice]

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"

Well, I was against it albeit perhaps not for the same reason as many who were against it. I didn't consider how long / expensive the war would become or what would have happener after Saddam Hussein was gone. I wanted more concrete evidence they had WMD since that was the pretext of the war.

Basically, I thought there was a case, at least for the US, to go after Bin Ladden, and as ally we were bound to help, but the war in Iraq, no.

Syria, it is a tough one. Just like Saddam Hussein, I am not sure if it is our business to deal with Assad, at least directly (the UN should be the one dealing with those kind of things IMO). But ISIS has made it our problem by having killed British and our allies. Not only that, I can't help but we (the coalition) didn't have a hand in creating ISIS by disposing of Saddam Hussein and not finishing the job properly afterwards. So I do think that there is a stronger case for action, both to finish what we started but also because they -are- taking the war to us. The problem is that I am not sure if more planes and more bomb is going to achieve our strategic goal. The coalition didn't defeat the Taliban just by dropping bombs alone. I do not doubt that hits on high value targets is effective, but won't win the war.

Sadly though, I am not convinced that doing nothing is going to make ISIS go away either (as I have seen people on FB comment).

I've been following the news pretty closely but completely missed Vienna process. So there is grand plan, but with Russia at odds with many nations involved I wonder if we can even take a first step forward.

Every party is trigger happy, no parties at odd with each other have tried to burry the hatchet against a common enemy. ISIS decided to down an airliner full Russian victims, when Russia had been accused by the coalition of hitting more against non-ISIS groups. Instead of uniting together as victims of ISIS (France was hit not long after), Turkey downs a Russian jet. One step forward, two step back. Our bombs may be smart enough to win battles, but we really need smarter leaders / diplomate to win the war.

[opel80uk]

What makes you think not extending strikes to Syria is better, safer, or more effective in destroying Daesh?

This is the issue - why is the UK overly concerning itself with destroying Daesh? If Daesh are destroyed in Syria and Iraq, does anyone think that it will suddenly reduce the threat level in the UK from attacks carried out by Islamists? Is the UK under any serious threat from Daesh? And when I say 'under threat', I don't mean in the way we've come to understand it in the mollycoddled West, where any loss of life suddenly means we have to take on the role of the worlds policeman, but threatened in the way that Fascism threatened us, our way of life, our liberty and our nationhood, during the Nazi's rise to power, as so disingenuously compared to the threat by Hilary Benn. The UK, as a country, is clearly not in any danger.

So that brings us on to the moral obligation of destroying ISIS for the good of……. Who exactly? Yes they are barbaric, but so are lots of people, Governments and states. We sell arms to a whole host of regimes who behave in barbaric ways - where is the outcry on here when our politicians whore themselves out to Saudi Arabia for their oil money, whilst they behead people for apostasy? It's the West's role in the Middle East that has directly led to the rise of ISIS, and yet we're doing exactly the same thing as before, using physical force with no clear military or political plan in place at the moment, either currently or post conflict. What was that definition of madness again?
The UK should stay out of it, and get the hell out of Iraq too. Let Saudi Arabia sort it out – we've sold them enough bloody equipment.

[Zak33]

The UK should stay out of it, and get the hell out of Iraq too. Let Saudi Arabia sort it out – we've sold them enough bloody equipment.

walk away and hope someone else sorts it ... and if they don't... worry about it later?

[Top_gun]

walk away and hope someone else sorts it ... and if they don't... worry about it later?

Prime Directive

[Zak33]

dont be offended Top Gun but I don't tend to use Star trek as full advice

I tend to resort to historical facts and preferably ones we can learn from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winsto...gs_controversy

Churchill bombed dresden. It was destroyed. Nearly utterly. It has been considered a War Crime by many. By many others it has been considered one of the final moves to crush Hitler.

Yes we were at war with Hitler. No it wasn't a "shall we join in moment".

But did it NEED doing?? ...... Dresden...was STUFFED FULL of injured people and civilians. Stuffed full. Maybe 200k people died who were not directly fighting back.

In life, our leaders must make hard ass decisions.. ones which would leave the likes of you and I shuddering in our sweat-drenched beds every night for eternity.

They don't use Star Trek as advice... though perhaps they ARE following The Princess Bride, "never fight a land war in East Asia" by bombing.......

[opel80uk]

walk away and hope someone else sorts it ... and if they don't... worry about it later?

No one, anywhere, is remotely suggesting that the UK is under threat of invasion, or of an attack in the UK that would warrant a large scale bombing mission. So no, not worry about it later, but worry about it when it's something to actually worry about. And we're not 'walking away' as that would imply we were already in Syria.

Russia and the West can't even agree on who we shoukd be bombing, we don't know who the rebels are, and we're relying on them to do the fighting on the ground. And there is, so far, no concensus on what happens post ISIS defeat. In short, we haven't really got a clue. But yeah, let's do it anyway, it's worked really well in Libya and Iraq after all.

[Zak33]

No one, anywhere, is remotely suggesting that the UK is under threat ........

not invasion no. I agree.

Though the world changes fast when you let go of power....

but is the UK under threat at all? Yup. Every day. SO is Russia. And America. And France. And Belgium. And Germany, And Spain.,,... the list is endless.

Why have people been shot at holiday resorts or been beheaded online?

UK citizens should be able to wander the globe safe. As we allow others who wander our green and pleasant land on short trips. (Unless they bring risk with them).

Do I feel the need to attack in order to defend? Personally I am a negotiator first and a puncher waaay after. But what when there is no negotiation? What happens when no negotiation potential exists?

How do you negotiate with a hidden power?

Small seeds can grow fast opel80uk. They can often die.. but sometimes they grow fast. Somedays you have to dominate the seed.. kill the weed.

[HalloweenJack]

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, 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 pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

[Saracen]

This is the issue - why is the UK overly concerning itself with destroying Daesh? If Daesh are destroyed in Syria and Iraq, does anyone think that it will suddenly reduce the threat level in the UK from attacks carried out by Islamists? Is the UK under any serious threat from Daesh? And when I say 'under threat', I don't mean in the way we've come to understand it in the mollycoddled West, where any loss of life suddenly means we have to take on the role of the worlds policeman, but threatened in the way that Fascism threatened us, our way of life, our liberty and our nationhood, during the Nazi's rise to power, as so disingenuously compared to the threat by Hilary Benn. The UK, as a country, is clearly not in any danger.

So that brings us on to the moral obligation of destroying ISIS for the good of……. Who exactly? Yes they are barbaric, but so are lots of people, Governments and states. We sell arms to a whole host of regimes who behave in barbaric ways - where is the outcry on here when our politicians whore themselves out to Saudi Arabia for their oil money, whilst they behead people for apostasy? It's the West's role in the Middle East that has directly led to the rise of ISIS, and yet we're doing exactly the same thing as before, using physical force with no clear military or political plan in place at the moment, either currently or post conflict. What was that definition of madness again?
The UK should stay out of it, and get the hell out of Iraq too. Let Saudi Arabia sort it out – we've sold them enough bloody equipment.

And that's why this is so difficult an issue to decide on over what to do, or not do.

Perhaps a legal analogy summarises where I am on the case for strikes.

If it were a criminal case, the test of guilt would be "beyond reasonable doubt".

But this is more like a civil case where the issue is whether it's better, on balance of probabity, to join the coalition with strikes in Syria or not and, on balance, it is in my opinion. But it certainly isn't beyond reasonable doubt.

I've done quite a lot of reading, quite a lot of TV watching and tried to inform myself as well as any interested private individual can. I've then tried to inagine what I'd do if I was one of those MPs that actually had to make a decision that mattered. The only thing I'm certain about is that I'm glad I'm not one, and am not in the position where on a given day and date I have to decide to vote yea, nay or to abstain. The latter, frankly, is a cop-out for an MP that is paid to make these decisions.

Given that deciding and voting no is every bit as much a decision with potentially very real consequences as voting yes, I concluded I'd vote yes, but with some very real reservations.

[Saracen]

No one, anywhere, is remotely suggesting that the UK is under threat of invasion, or of an attack in the UK that would warrant a large scale bombing mission. So no, not worry about it later, but worry about it when it's something to actually worry about. And we're not 'walking away' as that would imply we were already in Syria.

...,

Like chemotherapy, the idea is to poison the cancer before the cancer kills the patient and, also like chemo, if you're going to do it, the sooner the better. The chances of success are better and you won't need as big a dose.

Where we differ is that I think it already is something to worry about.