UKC

With Parliament about to vote on bombing ISIS I've been unsure what I think. I'd happily support bombing them if I thought it would actually do any good.

Anyhow, Maajid Nawaz is pretty astute, and he's just declared in favour of bombing. Worth a read:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/12/01/how-isis-suckered-the-west...

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Interesting, thanks.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

It's an interesting article, thanks.

He makes a compelling argument as to why it would make sense for us to bomb in support of a Kurdish state, alongside a push against ISIS fronted by Sunni Arab ground troops, while supporting a Syrian state which has rid itself of Assad.

I can see three significant problems with that.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Ah, the good old Beast of Bolsover! Dennis Skinner says: "Based on the length of time it's taking Chilcot to report, shouldn't we be appointing a chairman now to investigate Syrian disaster?"

In reply to Coel Hellier:

interesting. But it does seem more of a "we should bomb......once we have a proper plan in place that faces some hard truths, effects our relationship with various current allies, and we create a nation for the Kurds" rather than "we should bomb". There's a big difference, and that difference is having a plan to actually improve the situation rather than bomb out of retribution which is what's actually on the table.

In reply to Scarab9:

>There's a big difference, and that difference is having a plan to actually improve the situation rather than bomb out of retribution which is what's actually on the table.
>
Really? Isn't it holding operation until a plan and alliance is put together?

In reply to Postmanpat:



That's assuming that bombing won't make things worse, which is actually one of the reasons that people oppose a bombing campaign for.
If you try and imagine yourself in their position, it's not so hard to see why a bombing campaign might exacerbate the problem:

Britain is a small country, with some material wealth that is concentrated in the hands of a few. However the standard of living is pretty good, and average Joe has an okay life, even though it's not perfect. Various rich nations such as China and Russia and the US meddle in our politics by initiating military coups and funding anti-government rebel groups. A few people are highly upset when Chinese military bases are built manned with thousands of people because they claim that our government is planning to be malevolent. Reports of British citizens being interred in torture camps for the rest of their lives against our law continue to filter out - while we might not agree these people are innocent, we agree they deserve at least protection under the Geneva convention. Then some people (not people I know) are so irate that they form militia to protect our home from Chinese invaders who are stomping all over our land. Not everyone likes these militias, but then soon it becomes clear that they are not harming us - while China begins to bomb our infrastructure and cities to find a few people! It's madness, my whole neighborhood has been destroyed to find a few guilty people - what have I done to deserve this? My whole life is turned upside down, and things will never return back to normal. I'm bloody fuming that they've come into Britian and just bombed everyday people who did nothing wrong! Those f(^^%*ing b(*&^^Ss!!

Maybe I rambled a bit, but hopefully you can kind of understand the mentality of people who are collateral damage while going about their daily lives in the country they call home. They see only the destruction brought by faceless killers who can't even be bothered to look you in the eye while they destroy everything you hold dear while they claim to bring peace and freedom. When you compare that to the barbaric people who are actually defending your homeland (albeit in a horrible indefensible way) - it's not clear who is right and who is wrong, although it might be clearer who is the underdog.

P.s. sorry China for using you as an example.

In reply to skog:

We should stay out of until the sides are more clearly defined. Maybe let IS / FSA/ Assad thrash it out between themselves, until there is one enemy left, then start a war we *might* be able to win (so that won't be a war on terror).

Our problem is we don't have a clear outcome in mind. Assad may be bad, but IS and the other fruit loops are worse, so what do want Syria to look like in 5 / 10 / 20 years time?

In reply to Andy Hardy:

its going to be difficult to see how the sides are going to be clearly defined with the likes of Yusi Oulen Shahak involved.
First appeared: http://journal-neo.org/2015/11/25/israeli-colonel-caught-with-is-pants-down...

In reply to SenzuBean:

Seems to me that the option to use the kind of bombing that might be effective (close air support) is precluded by an unwillingness to commit troops. Since the situation is fluid on the ground (the various forces only ever really hold the ground their boots are on at any point in time), the only way to bomb it better is to actually kill the bad guys. What the west wants to do is "use surgical strikes to cut key infrastructure and destroy assets"... except there aren't any, and if there were you would kill bystanders.

The article seems correct in its assumption that the Yanks need to really lean on Turkey to stop them supporting ISIS, they are clearly up to their necks in it.

In reply to petellis:



I think that's an important point to make - that the West _claims_ it can do surgical strikes, but evidence shows that we cannot and do have a very high rate of killing innocent people.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Equally I am not sure that surgical strikes are going to achieve anything in the long run.

I agree with Skogs comment very early on re, 3 problems. All 3 points have big problems, and 2 are pure wishful thinking. A Sunni militia? Where from? ISIS gained an initial foothold as a Sunni reaction and better option to Shiite government.

I thought the Beast of Bolsover made some points in the commons debate last week. althogh that was generally a rather god and informed discussion. In an actual vote it will be interesting to see who votes for what as their is significant, and justified concern across the house.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/01/vote-syria-airstrikes-...

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Nah, the article is bollocks. Despite the author having a good line in engaging ranty rhetoric, he really hasn't bothered putting his ideas through a drafting process.

Bin Laden loved it when we f*cked up Iraq as we were playing into his hands? Yet we should definitely proceed with f*cking up Syria because that's not playing into the hands of the extremists? Erm.

Bin Laden wanted to attack us because we meddle in Middle Eastern politics? So the answer is to draw up a firm strategy about how we will continue to meddle in Middle Eastern politics? Erm.

He goes on to suggest that the great powers of the world do not have whole committees of tacticians dedicated to forming policy on the region. Erm.

As I said, engagingly written but nevertheless, probably spunked out in an afternoon to keep his editor happy.

Meh 2/10

In reply to SenzuBean:


Last week the MoD claimed RAF Reaper drones have killed 305 Jihadis in Iraq for zero civilian casualties over the last year. Even HRW had to say that would be impressive if confirmed.