Corbyn and the military.

[Sassy]

Jeremy Corbyn has accused the chief of the defence staff of political bias when he stated that the stated policy of Mr Corbyn, that he would refuse to authorise the use of nuclear weapons if he were Prime Minister, would seriously undermine Britain's defenses by removing the nuclear deterrant.

What experience of military matters does Mr Corbyn have that he can criticise a comment made by someone who has spent thier entire working life in the military on a military view of a statement by a politician who has never been employed in anything but political groups of one sort or another?

As Chief of the Defence Staff General Houghton was, in making his comment, doing the job he is paid to do.

Surely Mr Corbyn's complaints and demands for disciplinary action against the general, are political interference in military matters which he cearly has no understanding of beyond political philosophy.

 

Does Jeremy Corbyn believe that our allies and our defence  system is capable sustaining a strong defence against our enemies without the use of nuclear weapons?  We both know that the Queen has the last say when going to war and has to sign the papers.

There is no one more eager to do a job than those trained to do it. But the knowing when is the all important question.

What is our current position defence wise. Anyone know....

[jakswan]

Sorry, how is this relevant to Owlswing'sclaim that there are posters on here trumpeting that there was a shoot to kill policy in NI that was about shooting believed terrorists even if they were not thought to be a danger?

Its relevant to Corbyn being asked about a 'shoot to kill policy'.

[jakswan]

We both know that the Queen has the last say when going to war and has to sign the papers.

The Queen does what she is told.

[Owlswing]

Its relevant to Corbyn being asked about a 'shoot to kill policy'.

NS and Jaks

My original answer to NS post did not post - don't know exactly why but would suggect terminal techological incompetance in the poster!

My comment about "posters" trumpeting the innocence of those killed on Bloody Sunday due to the "shoot-to-kill" policy was made referringto poster who ius no longerposting, who was vehemently anti-British (on the subject of NI and the IRA) and refused to believe that any shots were fired at the British soldiers involved - this provacation has since been confirmed as the reason the British opened fire by a member of the IRA.

As the poster is no longer here to answer the comment I withdraw it unconditionally.

[Jack Knave]

The problem as always with any policy is that often what isn't in it is as important as what is. Arguably knowing, or sincerely believing anyone to be a terrorist means that if they do anything at that is not immediately giving themselves up and even then if they make any such moves they might be suspected of be being a danger to others.

The tragic case of de Menezes illustrates that if you think someone is a terrorist then any action you don't think is giving themselves up can lead to killing. The case was an utter tragedy for his family and indeed the officers involved. There is no easy line but we have to be careful that we do not make such mistakes too easy by simply saying 'these things happen'

The Gibraltar shootings are messier in terms of the claims about the events. Again though part of the question was whether official policy was somehow subverted. I have no sympathy for those shot that day, but I am sure it was still tragic for many members of their family. That I have no sympathy for them dies not effect my belief that we need to follow due process in.all such things.

You try following due process when under extreme pressure. One of the problems here is the quality of the intelligence for the man/women on the frontline, and that depends on resources besides other things.

The other thing here is if someone is trained to use a gun they tend to follow that mandate like an unthinking well trained dog. Their judgement is in a particular mode and that is hard for someone to override and not automatically carry out. It becomes their normal.

[Jack Knave]

The Sunni and Shia are so far apart they make the Catholics and Protestants in NI look like best buddies.  Horrid prospect as it is, the Daesh  (I use that because, apparently, they hate it. ) must be destroyed.  The longer they exist, the more powerful they become, and then they are less and less likely to talk; rather they will feel they can use force to gain their objectives,  In the mean-time, they are continuing to behead, crucify, steal, kill and rape.  We ought to learn the lesson of history:  we thought we could talk to Hitler, and he just took it as weakness.  Had we been prepared and acted earlier, unknown numbers of lives cuild have been saved.

Getting rid of ISIS won't change anything. It is the narrative and the feeling that people have been treated terribly by the West, in supporting dictators etc. in the ME, that allows these groups to grow up and flourish. ISIS came from al Qaeda and if ISIS dies then another group will spring up, especially if they are getting support from rich people in the Gulf States and the like.

[Jack Knave]

Jeremy Corbyn comments - yes, all too 'off the trolley'


'Tonight, I will be going to the England vs France match at Wembley stadium. It is important we show solidarity with all those affected by the tragic events that took place in Paris on Friday.
It is right that we are reflecting on the appalling attacks in Paris and how we agree an effective international response. That needs to focus on negotiating a comprehensive settlement of the Syrian civil war through the United Nations, which is the only way to end the threat from ISIS.
That is the serious challenge facing us all. I am therefore disappointed that comments I made yesterday in regard to a "shoot to kill" policy have been taken out of context and have distracted from this discussion.
Nonetheless, I would like to clarify my position. As we have seen in the recent past, there are clear dangers to us all in any kind of shoot to kill policy. And we must ensure that terrorist attacks are not used to undermine the very freedoms and legal protections we are determined to defend.
But of course I support the use of whatever proportionate and strictly necessary force is required to save life in response to attacks of the kind we saw in Paris.'

And what does that mean in practical terms? Words are cheap!!!

[Shaker]

What else is he supposed to do?

[Jack Knave]

NI was political and religious, the ME is the same.

Not by the same degree. NI was more political than religious because of the history behind it. ME is more religious than political because of the history and roots of it.

[Jack Knave]

What else is he supposed to do?

These vague and meaningless words and rhetoric provide nothing. He could firstly state that these issues are near impossible to deal with and are fraught with endless grey areas.

And, how negotiations through the UN is going to change anything beats me. The people that need to be 'dealt with' won't give a toss about these proceedings, just as the Taliban won't give a toss about the democratic process in Afghanistan. They will play ball whilst they are in a weak position and need it but once up to strength will bring back what was there before. Just as Corbyn is playing ball with the parliamentary Labour party until he can get his guys into positions of power.

[Shaker]

These vague and meaningless words and rhetoric provide nothing. He could firstly state that these issues are near impossible to deal with

Perhaps he doesn't believe that.

and are fraught with endless grey areas.

Pretty sure he knows that already. Corbyn seems to be a man who can deal with subtlety and nuance; pity that the media can't.

And, how negotiations through the UN is going to change anything beats me. The people that need to be 'dealt with' won't give a toss about these proceedings, just as the Taliban won't give a toss about the democratic process in Afghanistan. They will play ball whilst they are in a weak position and need it but once up to strength will bring back what was there before. Just as Corbyn is playing ball with the parliamentary Labour party until he can get his guys into positions of power.

Good

[wigginhall]

Another point about intervention in Syria, is that many of the terrorists are homegrown.  I would guess that they have fused Islamist apocalyptic, a N. African hatred of the French state, and the general anger bred in the banlieues, out of poverty and racism.   I would think that invading Syria might make this worse, but then nobody knows, do they?

[Jack Knave]

Perhaps he doesn't believe that. Pretty sure he knows that already. Corbyn seems to be a man who can deal with subtlety and nuance; pity that the media can't.

The system has messed up, my parts are in your post but not here?


If he doesn't believe that then he isn't as clever and precise as some here think he is, as in being able to deal with the subtleties and nuances.

[Shaker]

Throwing up your hands in the air and simply saying that these issues are "nearly impossible" to deal with sounds like sheer defeatism of the kind usually found amongst those who prefer to do other things with their hands, such as sit on them.

[Udayana]

Another point about intervention in Syria, is that many of the terrorists are homegrown.  I would guess that they have fused Islamist apocalyptic, a N. African hatred of the French state, and the general anger bred in the banlieues, out of poverty and racism.   I would think that invading Syria might make this worse, but then nobody knows, do they?

I think we all already know that whatever we do to ISIL in Syria/Iraq will not solve anything. The ideology will just spring up everywhere else. Anyone who has looked at it has already stated that the battle is only around 25% military and 75% propaganda. It is the propaganda war that we are losing badly. Though now, following the  terror attacks in Paris, looks like we are going to fall into our usual crap response:

Silences, marches, loads of fine words and brave speeches
Reassure everyone they will be safe as long as they give up more of their rights
Treat the conflict as if it were WWII and bomb the place to bits
Declare that we have won and come home leaving Noddy in charge
Watch multiple offshoot groups spring up and cause more chaos
... repeat

[Nearly Sane]

The system has messed up, my parts are in your post but not here?

Nope, new system which only has what you are replying to in order to avoid the long mosaics

[Outrider]

I think we all already know that whatever we do to ISIL in Syria/Iraq will not solve anything. The ideology will just spring up everywhere else. Anyone who has looked at it has already stated that the battle is only around 25% military and 75% propaganda. It is the propaganda war that we are losing badly. Though now, following the  terror attacks in Paris, looks like we are going to fall into our usual crap response:

Silences, marches, loads of fine words and brave speeches
Reassure everyone they will be safe as long as they give up more of their rights
Treat the conflict as if it were WWII and bomb the place to bits
Declare that we have won and come home leaving Noddy in charge
Watch multiple offshoot groups spring up and cause more chaos
... repeat

This is a war, but it's not a war for territory or access to resources, it's a war for adherents to ideologies. Shooting or bombing people doesn't change their ideology to ours, it makes no gains, it at best is just wasteful of lives and at worst it actively encourages people to adopt the opposition's mentality.

We need to be convincing, not shooting: no-one accepts a message that's delivered at gun-point, they might or might follow orders and instructions.

We need to be educating, nurturing, building and developing. We have a culture that's worthy, that they oppose from a combination of ignorance and fear, and those are both combatted by exposure.

We need to export our culture, export better ways of life than primitive tribalism and a 'might-makes-right' barbarism so that there is no suppressed, depressed, repressed pool of recruits waiting for something to enthuse them that glorious combat will bring rewards in the next life at the expense of our freedoms and wellbeing in this one.

O.

[wigginhall]

I think we all already know that whatever we do to ISIL in Syria/Iraq will not solve anything. The ideology will just spring up everywhere else. Anyone who has looked at it has already stated that the battle is only around 25% military and 75% propaganda. It is the propaganda war that we are losing badly. Though now, following the  terror attacks in Paris, looks like we are going to fall into our usual crap response:

Silences, marches, loads of fine words and brave speeches
Reassure everyone they will be safe as long as they give up more of their rights
Treat the conflict as if it were WWII and bomb the place to bits
Declare that we have won and come home leaving Noddy in charge
Watch multiple offshoot groups spring up and cause more chaos
... repeat

Sounds accurate.   One of the aims of war is the peace settlement which follows, but with Iraq, the West seemed to stumble along, kind of hoping that everything would work out.   

But I assume that Obama has wised up, and knows that invading Syria would work militarily, but then what?  What would be the political settlement?   I don't know if anybody knows, except hoping that militants and insurgencies would somehow melt away - rather unlikely.   I suppose that you could kill and imprison a lot of them - results in more insurgency. 

Of course, you can talk to the Sunni tribes, find out about their dissatisfaction, and try to find a middle ground.  It can be done, and was done in Iraq to an extent, when some tribes fought against Al Quaeda. 

The homegrown nature of the terrorists presents other problems - the French state can't really bomb a suburb of Paris. 

[Udayana]

...
We need to be educating, nurturing, building and developing. We have a culture that's worthy, that they oppose from a combination of ignorance and fear, and those are both combatted by exposure.

We need to export our culture, export better ways of life than primitive tribalism and a 'might-makes-right' barbarism so that there is no suppressed, depressed, repressed pool of recruits waiting for something to enthuse them that glorious combat will bring rewards in the next life at the expense of our freedoms and wellbeing in this one.

O.

We must recognize that many of those supporting ISIS/ISIL and/or planning terror in their home countries have actually been born and brought up in "our"culture. Many of the Jihadists in Pakistan, Iran, Yemen and so on are actually fighting against our culture, which they see as an imposition, even though they often take advantage of it.

They understand what a secular liberal culture is but see it as degenerate.

[Udayana]

Sounds accurate.   One of the aims of war is the peace settlement which follows, but with Iraq, the West seemed to stumble along, kind of hoping that everything would work out.   

But I assume that Obama has wised up, and knows that invading Syria would work militarily, but then what?  What would be the political settlement?   I don't know if anybody knows, except hoping that militants and insurgencies would somehow melt away - rather unlikely.   I suppose that you could kill and imprison a lot of them - results in more insurgency. 
...

Yes, no one has a vision of what a settlement would look like. Can't imagine that an allied France and Russia would achieve anything stable either.

[wigginhall]

Yes, no one has a vision of what a settlement would look like. Can't imagine that an allied France and Russia would achieve anything stable either.

There is another big problem.  IS want an invasion of Syria (and Iraq), and they probably know how to get one.

[wigginhall]

We must recognize that many of those supporting ISIS/ISIL and/or planning terror in their home countries have actually been born and brought up in "our"culture. Many of the Jihadists in Pakistan, Iran, Yemen and so on are actually fighting against our culture, which they see as an imposition, even though they often take advantage of it.

They understand what a secular liberal culture is but see it as degenerate.

I was reading interviews with some youth in Saint Denis (rather run down area of Paris),  and they seemed indifferent to the Paris atrocity, and said, 'that happens every day in Syria, and nobody cares'.   I suppose this shows a strong disengagment from the French state, I don't know how the hell you remedy that.   

[BashfulAnthony]

Getting rid of ISIS won't change anything. It is the narrative and the feeling that people have been treated terribly by the West, in supporting dictators etc. in the ME, that allows these groups to grow up and flourish. ISIS came from al Qaeda and if ISIS dies then another group will spring up, especially if they are getting support from rich people in the Gulf States and the like.

[/b]

Yes, it's about time we addressed the perfidious role the Gulf States play in all this.

[Nearly Sane]

[/b]

Yes, it's about time we addressed the perfidious role the Gulf States play in all this.

That would be one's we sell arms to and support their getting to chair Human Rights Committees at the UN, I take it?

I am not a fan of it's all the West's fault, but we have been complicit and supportive in a lot of this.

[BashfulAnthony]

That would be one's we sell arms to and support their getting to chair Human Rights Committees at the UN, I take it?

I am not a fan of it's all the West's fault, but we have been complicit and supportive in a lot of this.

Exactly;  this has been ignored for long enough.