Should the UK bomb Syria?

[walibe]

The RAF campaign is highly accurate and is believed to have resulted in zero civilian casualties in the battle. Traditionally you would weigh up the civilian death toll with the strategic importance of eliminating the target. The RAF has taken a stance that if civilians are seen in the area the mission is aborted.

Our Tornado aircraft that both Germany and ourselves operate are relatively unique as an highly accurate and agile bombing platform and our brimstone missiles are second to none. They are incredibly accurate but expensive and there were reports we almost ran out recently.

Russia is being deliberately less accurate with its bombing but has turned its attention on the oil supplies which seems to be our mission at the moment. The U.S is bombing on such a larger scale that civilian casualties may be harder to prevent.

Do realise this though. The accounts of thousands of woman and children dying as a result of the air campaign being posted on Facebook are not true, not even close to it. Most of the air campaign is being carried out in areas where the civilian population has long since left or was never present (oil fields etc). Where they can be affected (such as civilian drivers of oil tucks), leaflets are dropped warning of the impending bombing giving them a choice. All of the above occurs with 'eyes on' the target throughout from drones etc.

[The Hand]

One thing is for sure, we'll all be talking about this Wahhabi/Middle East nightmare for many years and decades to come.

If there is a genuine attempt to solve the Middle East's entrenched problems (not just Syria's) then military action certainly does have a logical use as well as an emotional one. This approach is highly unlikely to happen however, simply because the political will in the West is virtually non-existent as well as western "allies" such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey will refuse to agree to any changes that may threaten their power base.

Saudi Arabia, is one to keep a close eye on by the way, as they're now struggling with the oil price crash which could fall even more with Iran coming into the oil market with sanctions being lifted next year.

Saudi Arabia managed to successfully sidestep the Arab Spring revolutions by increasing welfare/benefits to their poorest (of which there are plenty) paid for by their oil wealth as well as suppressing uprisings in neighbouring Gulf Arab states. The primary driver behind the "Arab Spring" was food prices rising to un-affordable levels.. the desire for democracy was a distant second at best.

If Iran turns the screws on Saudi Arabia by increasing their proposed supply of oil next year, it will push Saudi Arabia closer to the edge and possibly over the edge with civil unrest a serious possibilty in the longer run.

We all want to believe that this bombing and future diplomatic and humanitarian efforts will work . I like the idea of Islamic State being wiped off the face of the Earth, but what we are witnessing now is certainly not the beginning of the end, in this bloody middle eastern story.

[Top_gun]

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

Oh dear, I've provided a link to introduce you to a concept that meddling in foreign affairs usually results in unintended consequences and often disastrous. This concept has been around since the 1960's. Fifty years later, more and more people are recognising this philosophy after disastrous foreign policy in countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq and Vietnam.

Interesting enough, it's amazing how many Start Trek concepts, for example wireless communication devices, have now become part of our everyday life!

If you want to use your poor Winston Churchil's Dresden bombing analogy then I can only think you've not understood the main issues or fully understood history. Even Churchill had tried to distance himself shortly after the controversial Dresden bombing campaign. Perhaps you've no interest in making Syria a stable country given your love of weapons and low consideration for human life.

Now we're hearing reports that the Syrian army was wrongly targeted and resulted in casualties by the coalition bombing according to this report http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-35024408 .

The problem as I see it, is the case for bombing in Syria has been exaggerated with a low margin of error for a successful outcome.

[peterb]

Not sure you read the report to the end, as it is suggested that it may have been Russian aircraft that attacked the base.

Of course difficult for the press to verify, but if true, it raises the question of whether it was a genuine error in the confusion of war, or a deliberate attempt by Putin to destabilise diplomatic relations between Assad and the coalition.

I'd like to think it was a genuine error, but Putin doesn't have a particularly good track record.

[walibe]

Not sure you read the report to the end, as it is suggested that it may have been Russian aircraft that attacked the base.

Of course difficult for the press to verify, but if true, it raises the question of whether it was a genuine error in the confusion of war, or a deliberate attempt by Putin to destabilise diplomatic relations between Assad and the coalition.

I'd like to think it was a genuine error, but Putin doesn't have a particularly good track record.

The Russians are also fighting with relatively old technology due to their financial situation. We've come along way since the first gulf war with accuracy, intelligence gathering and the use of drones.

They will make far more mistakes but being Russian are unlikely to admit it.

[Quinnbeast]

The RAF campaign is highly accurate and is believed to have resulted in zero civilian casualties in the battle.

Gotta love that line every time someone rolls it out - "oh yes, we've fairly confident that we didn't kill anyone that didn't deserve it". I'm almost jealous that there are people out there was such a gloriously simplistic world view. Bombing campaigns with no civilian casualties; does such a thing genuinely exist? And let's not forget, the single biggest beneficiary of this campaign is of course, MBDA (and in turn BAE & Airbus), who are I'm sure enjoying the big chunk of forward orders rolling in. Wooo.

[peterb]

^ you did take walibe's quote out of context, where he went on to say that UK will not attack,if there are civilians in the area.

There are two caveats, one is that it depends on the depth of knowledge, and I'd be surprised if there were not SF on the ground gathering intelligence.

The other is that combatants may not be in a formal army, so the definition (and therefore identification) of 'civilians' becomes blurred.

From a propaganda perspective it is good for Daesh to claim civilians killed, especially when those claims cannot be verified, or the actual combatant status of those killed is uncertain.

[opel80uk]

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

But worried about it in what sense? Do you mean from a UK security perspective? Or do you mean that you are worried that a state in the Middle East being formed based on the values of ISIS? Because if it's that, I'm sure there are one or two similar to that in existence already that the UK already does plenty of business with. And if it's the former, I'm not sure how bombing Syria will stop 2 or 3 nutjobs getting hold of explosives and blowing up some parts of London. The fact is, most of us are far, far more likely to be killed crossing the road, and that's not likely in itself.

But furthermore, we've done all of this already. We turned Iraq into a basket case, and went one better in Libya, which is effectively now a failed state. So we move on to Syria, which has all the right ingredients for being an even bigger disaster than the two I mentioned. And yet people still support getting involved. Beggers belief.

Someone else on here mentioned that UK citizens 'should be able to wander the globe safe'. It's that kind of naivety, betraying a complete disconnect with how millions of people across the world have to live, that makes me think us in the West are not the best placed people to be meddling in middle eastern affairs.

[Saracen]

But worried about it in what sense? Do you mean from a UK security perspective? Or do you mean that you are worried that a state in the Middle East being formed based on the values of ISIS? ....

I mean in the sense that anyone that doesn't believe as they do is on their target list as "deserving" to die. It's conform or die. The only thing that prevennts them being a threat to us directly is limited ability to reach us. Yet. But they are a direct threat to anybody and everybody else in the area, and most of those are Muslims.

They are a threat because of their extreme ideology, conform or die. Reasonable people can disagree and still co-exist. Daesh don't seem to see it that way.

[MrComputerSaint]

More revenge killing can only lead to more revenge killing.

I'm against bombing anyone.

[TooNice]

We have a moral duty to avoid injuring or killing civilians, but even if we were successful in hitting the terrorists without a single civilian casualty, I will bet that propaganda on the other side will paint a picture of hundreds of dead civilians.

That said I wonder if dropping leaflet is really effective. What stops the terrorists from telling the populace that attempt to run escape will result in getting shot?

One thing I haven't spent much time thinking is.. what would be the cost of inaction. That is to say, US, Russia and any country not bordering with the region withdraw.

Without having to worry about bombs falling on their heads, wouldn't the leadership be able operate more freely, and create more elaborate plots? I have seen people on FB suggest that ISIS would just crumble if the bombs were to stop, but I have not seen a credible argument for that.

Bombing won't stop lone wolf attacks. I wouldn't be surprised if it increases even unless you can take out those that inspires quickly. But it may have an impact on their ability to make bigger, potentially more catastrophic plans that requires a fair amount of time and resources.

[Macman]

If anyone actually thinks ISIS or Daesh will be diplomatic or 'come to the table'. They won't.

If the general population said no to bombing and the government abided by it, what other options would the government have?

[OilSheikh]

Politics discussion on Hexus .. what a joke ... lol

[Saracen]

Politics discussion on Hexus .. what a joke ... lol

Well, the nature of politics is that different people have different views. After all, if everyone thought exactly the same, it'd be a very short discussion, consisting of an OP posting a view, and everyone else agreeing. That'd be a riveting read.

Opel and I, for example, disagree somewhat, and on a subject where nobody can prove their view is right. So discussion is about justifying your view, challenging different views, and just maybe, someone adapting a position. That adapting might be changing your view in response to points or arguments you hadn't heard of, or seen before, or (more likely, I suspect) the effort of justifying your view to someone else leads you to think through your own view and probably end up even more convinced.

That's what debate is for, isn't it?

After all, opel and I see this differently, but it's a mature, proper discussion not a name-slinging flamefest.

Ultimately, most political debates are probably futile in that rarely will people change their views. Sadly, even years later, we can't be sure what was right, because we can't know what would have happened had things been done differently.

For instance, claims that Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya ended badly. Well, true, to a point. What we don't and can't know is how they'd have gone without intervention. The Libya intervention was supposed to be about preventing Ghaddafi slaughtering an entire rebel city (Benghazi IIRC). So, bad though it is, the slaughter may have been worse without intervention. In Afghanistan, the Taliban had every opportunity to deal with Al Queda prior to invasion but refused, preferring, on ideological grounds it seems, to harbour those that carried out 9/11. So what would AQ have done next, had they not been driven into hiding?

And Iraq .... Saddam had WMD programs. Again, he defied the UN over and over for years. So yeah, the "after" phase was messed up, and badly, but who knows where it would have led had he remained in power? The US couldn't maintain invasion-strength forces indefinitely, and Saddam played his bluffing game out right to the end. So, if the US hadn't gone in, maybe he'd have rebuilt his WMD capability, and having done so, reverted to threatening neighbours. Maybe, if the US had backed off, if'd have been impossible to rebuild the forces later and a resurgent Saddam would have succeeded in his nuclear ambitions. Then, how bad could things have become?

The simple truth is we never know if things turning out bad after action is better or worse than they would have been, which makes any political argument on any forum futile because it won't change decisions by governments and nobody can know for sure if action was a choice between bad and better outcomes, or bad and much worse outcomes.

[walibe]

I joined the RAF because of the humitarian roles it plays throughout the world. It strives to be a force for good throughout the world (part of its mission statement). Whilst our hands are often tied on where we carry out operations, the manor in which we conduct them across all three services is largely our own. The professionalism, bravery and excellence of these services is second to none.

Whilst it's true that members of the armed services are not treated with much respect in comparison to other countries (although the respect is not demanded or asked for) neither are our police men and woman, firefighters and paramedics. Yet the quiet (and otherwise) work of all of these services (and more) allows us to have the right to conduct conversations like this in the first place, to debate and to take sides and form opinions. Try doing that in the Middle East.

Will the air strikes change anything? That is open to great debate. We have not had much luck over the last 100 or more years in the Middle East. However could we site idly by whilst people who arnt the right race, religion or sexuality are wiped from the face of the planet? You may remember that in the 1930s we did just that, and still to this day live with the heavy conscious that we didn't do more sooner.

[TheAnimus]

Excellent point walibe, but there is the issue of repercussions. I think it's fair to say that Vietnam was the first mass media covered war, with video action beamed into the homes of people barely hours after it happened. Whilst not trying to downplay the atrocities of the USA/ARVN public opinion was greatly swayed by single images, whilst they might have represented a salient point such as the iconic photo Phan Thi Kim Phuc aka Napalm Girl, public opinion in many circles bore little relationship to reality.

Some people believed that only one side was evil, as such every mistake became fuel for their fire. Many reports were contradictory at best downright lies at worst.

In the circumstances of aerial bombing in Syria, we will see similar such things, videos of atrocities will be broadcast live, relayed on the internet ad infinitum. Some will be true, many will be false.

It doesn't matter how many checks, failsafes and good judgement the RAF employ, some people will simply make up the narrative that suits them best. Sadly, these are real repercussions.

As much as someone like Trump believes that there are "no go" areas for the police in London due to muslim gangs, some people will believe the facebook posts, they will be given credibility by the fact we are "active" in that region. Hatred can and will be generated even when it has no bearing on reality at worst and is taken out of context at best. We must be aware of that.

Politics on the world stage, even when meddling in other people's blood feuds isn't based on rational thought. I mean the load of nonsense these people have as their beliefs should demonstrate a complete lack of rational thought. We are simply damned if we do and damned if we don't. It's sad, and I definitely don't envy people like you who have no choice in your part in it. It further saddens me because I see no end game, rather nothing short of genocide. You can't make people who have deeply held incongruent views stop fighting each other by blowing both sides up.