Corbyn and the military.

[BashfulAnthony]

It should be bleeding obvious to you that Hitler and ISIS represent very different challenges.
Actually, we have been doing violence against them for years now. It's pretty obviously not working.

There is one, patently obvious similarity in the challenges:  they both want/wanted to kill us.

[Outrider]

So you agree with me on another post we have engaged on?!!

Miracles happen!

These people have a different mindset. NI came to ahead because both sides saw neither could win. ISIS etc. blow themselves up for their cause. I can't see them coming to the point where they acknowledge their endeavours are futile any decade soon. And the longer the West mess things up with their arrogance the more this will fuel things and with guns and what not freely available throughout the MENA there is not a lot that is going to stop them.

We aren't going to convince the current leadership or incumbents to change; if they are capable of these atrocities they aren't amenable to discourse. What we can do is ensure that the people they are trying to recruit are making an informed choice, that they are aware of what the alternatives are. Even that's not going to stop their recruitment entirely, we see that by the fact some particularly dejected, devout or demented idiots travel from modern western countries to join, but it will limit the numbers.

Frustrate their funding? How? There are some very rich and powerful people behind that funding. And Assad has Russia behind him and/or this Syrian regime. Not easy to stop that.

Not easy, no, but we don't know if it's possible because if anyone's trying it they're not doing it overtly.

Not too sure how that addresses my point or what you are actually saying. It vaguely seems to be agreeing with me?

Basically it's saying that whilst there's tactical uses for the application of force in localised instances to repel assaults, disrupt activities and the like, as a strategy military intervention is not going to be successful.

O.
[/quote]

[jeremyp]

There is one, patently obvious similarity in the challenges:  they both want/wanted to kill us.

Well that is where you are wrong (unless you are Jewish). Hitler did not want to kill the majority of people, he wanted to rule them.

Hitler was the leader of an aggressive expansionist nation state. ISIS is a terrorist organisation. You can't deal with them in the same way and it should be obvious to you that trying to do so is causing a huge mess.

[Jack Knave]

We aren't going to convince the current leadership or incumbents to change; if they are capable of these atrocities they aren't amenable to discourse. What we can do is ensure that the people they are trying to recruit are making an informed choice, that they are aware of what the alternatives are. Even that's not going to stop their recruitment entirely, we see that by the fact some particularly dejected, devout or demented idiots travel from modern western countries to join, but it will limit the numbers.

There are always things that can be tried but whether they are sufficient to even start to make a difference is another thing. I have no faith in our leaders to even do this as they never both to truly understand what is actually going on with the people concerned - inside their heads. And what is the point of alternatives if they are out of reach for them and are just nice words. They are out of reach for many of us in the western world.

Basically it's saying that whilst there's tactical uses for the application of force in localised instances to repel assaults, disrupt activities and the like, as a strategy military intervention is not going to be successful.

Well, no, military action on its own won't do it, and as we can't or shouldn't put boots on the ground it has no hope in hell; and it is hell.

[wigginhall]

I am curious to see what arguments Cameron makes for bombing Syria - as many military experts argue that without ground troops it is useless.  So does he have a ground war at the back of his mind?   Or maybe bombing is a kind of symbolic act, which you have to be seen to be doing.

[BashfulAnthony]

Well that is where you are wrong (unless you are Jewish). Hitler did not want to kill the majority of people, he wanted to rule them.

Hitler was the leader of an aggressive expansionist nation state. ISIS is a terrorist organisation. You can't deal with them in the same way and it should be obvious to you that trying to do so is causing a huge mess.

Hitler killed not only Jews, but gypsies, the sick, mentally and physically disabled, his political enemies; and Bolsheviks, by the million:  read some history.  He killed because he viewed Germans as the Master Race, and all others as inferior, and was quite prepared to annihilate them; and he did not merely wish to rule others, he specifically sought lebensraum for Germany.  Interested to hear your response to that.

The current move is towards taking on Daesh militarily, not merely by bombing, but with an increasing leaning towards boots on the ground.  Only this morning General Dannatt specifically advocated this, and he is better qualified to assess the situation than you, despite your huge knowledge in all subjects!!   I'm not saying I think this anything but a frightening prospect:  but it is the reality of the situation. 

[wigginhall]

I don't think a ground war in Syria is 'the reality of the situation' at all.  It would be a huge gamble, which could have terrible consequences, for example, large numbers of civilian deaths, the radicalization of people across the Middle East, the growth of extremist groups.  It would be a gift for the recruiters of IS and Al Quaeda - the crusaders are here.

It also requires a plan, the thing that was lacking in Iraq.   OK, Western troops could take IS-controlled towns easily, but what then?   The jihadists would presumably melt away in classic guerrilla fashion.  What do Western troops do then, pursue every rebel group in Syria?   What would the cost be - in trillions?

[BashfulAnthony]

I don't think a ground war in Syria is 'the reality of the situation' at all.  It would be a huge gamble, which could have terrible consequences, for example, large numbers of civilian deaths, the radicalization of people across the Middle East, the growth of extremist groups.  It would be a gift for the recruiters of IS and Al Quaeda - the crusaders are here.

It also requires a plan, the thing that was lacking in Iraq.   OK, Western troops could take IS-controlled towns easily, but what then?   The jihadists would presumably melt away in classic guerrilla fashion.  What do Western troops do then, pursue every rebel group in Syria?   What would the cost be - in trillions?

The reality is that bombing is not going to work;  so whatever plan they eventually come up with, including what to do after defeating them, then it will almost certainly involve boots on the ground.  What other way will they be defeated?

[wigginhall]

The reality is that bombing is not going to work;  so whatever plan they eventually come up with, including what to do after defeating them, then it will almost certainly involve boots on the ground.  What other way will they be defeated?

The same argument was used in Iraq - all we have to do is remove Saddam, sack some Ba'athists, and Iraq will settle down.  Well, yes.

[BashfulAnthony]

The same argument was used in Iraq - all we have to do is remove Saddam, sack some Ba'athists, and Iraq will settle down.  Well, yes.

But then we had no plan for Iraq without Saddam;  and even Blair admitted that!  This time one would hope those in charge would have learned from that.

[jakswan]

I agree with Corbyn on this (there is a sentence I never thought I'd say), bombing Syria will be used as a recruiting tool.

Where needed tighten up security. If any UK citizen wants to join Islamic State then I think we should exchange their passport for a plane ticket.

[BashfulAnthony]

I agree with Corbyn on this (there is a sentence I never thought I'd say), bombing Syria will be used as a recruiting tool.

Where needed tighten up security. If any UK citizen wants to join Islamic State then I think we should exchange their passport for a plane ticket.

It's already too late for that.  Hundreds have been there and are now back, and free to roam as they will:  ticking time-bombs!

[wigginhall]

But then we had no plan for Iraq without Saddam;  and even Blair admitted that!  This time one would hope those in charge would have learned from that.

There are lots of possible plans.  For example, you could link up with Russia, who favour an Assad-Iranian-Hezbollah axis, but then many anti-Assad rebel groups who are not IS, would have to be destroyed.   The cost in lives would be massive, and really, you are now taking part in a civil war, which aims to control the Sunni tribes.

Another idea is for safe zones in parts of Syria, where Sunni tribes (as an example) would be free from IS infiltration.  Again, it sounds a security nightmare, and the cost astronomic. 

[BashfulAnthony]

There are lots of possible plans.  For example, you could link up with Russia, who favour an Assad-Iranian-Hezbollah axis, but then many anti-Assad rebel groups who are not IS, would have to be destroyed.   The cost in lives would be massive, and really, you are now taking part in a civil war, which aims to control the Sunni tribes.

Another idea is for safe zones in parts of Syria, where Sunni tribes (as an example) would be free from IS infiltration.  Again, it sounds a security nightmare, and the cost astronomic.

I agree with what you say;  but none of these can work without destroying the military capabilities of Daesh.  They are never going to agree to any plan proposed without being forced.

[wigginhall]

I agree with what you say;  but none of these can work without destroying the military capabilities of Daesh.  They are never going to agree to any plan proposed without being forced.

One big problem in Iraq is that IS are embedded within some Sunni tribes, who see them as protection against Shia militias and the Iraqui govt.  In Syria it's more confused, but I think there is a partial link-up between Sunni areas and IS recruitment, partly as protection against Assad and Hezbollah (and Iran).   

Of course, western intelligence know all this, and probably the politicians, but they are not going to broadcast it, as it makes any military intervention very risky.  You risk being dragged into a civil war, against the Sunni tribes, and on the side of Hezbollah and Iran, not really an ideal solution.  And of course, the Sunni are aligned with the Saudis, Qatar, and Turkey, so you are heading for a regional conflagration.

[BashfulAnthony]

One big problem in Iraq is that IS are embedded within some Sunni tribes, who see them as protection against Shia militias and the Iraqui govt.  In Syria it's more confused, but I think there is a partial link-up between Sunni areas and IS recruitment, partly as protection against Assad and Hezbollah (and Iran).   

Of course, western intelligence know all this, and probably the politicians, but they are not going to broadcast it, as it makes any military intervention very risky.  You risk being dragged into a civil war, against the Sunni tribes, and on the side of Hezbollah and Iran, not really an ideal solution.  And of course, the Sunni are aligned with the Saudis, Qatar, and Turkey, so you are heading for a regional conflagration.

And yet, even as we speak, the horror beings of Daesh are beheading, crucifying, cutting off limbs, raping, planning more outrages, etc.  Something has to be done to stop them.

[wigginhall]

Yet in the wars in Congo, 4 million have been killed, with rapes, atrocities, mutilations, famine.  Why didn't we intervene there?

[BashfulAnthony]

Yet in the wars in Congo, 4 million have been killed, with rapes, atrocities, mutilations, famine.  Why didn't we intervene...

I have no idea, though it would certainly be a logistical nightmare.  But in all honesty, they are not a threat to us: Daesh is.  After all, we, the UK at any rate, cannot solve all the world's conflicts.

[Shaker]

I have no idea, though it would certainly be a logistical nightmare.  But in all honesty, they are not a threat to us: Daesh is.  After all, we, the UK at any rate, cannot solve all the world's conflicts.

No, that's America's job.

[BashfulAnthony]

No, that's America's job.

They're not dong a whole lot about Daesh, with all their power, are they?

[Shaker]

They're not dong much about Daesh, are they?

No. They're probably aware of how difficult such action would be and how many ways there are to make the awful even worse.

[BashfulAnthony]

No. They're probably aware of how difficult such action would be and how many ways there are to make the awful even worse.

It remains to be seen, however, as Obama has said today that they intend to destroy Daesh.

[Shaker]

Promising start 

[wigginhall]

The key to defeating IS lies with the Sunni tribes who give them support, in both Iraq and Syria.   Neutralizing this support is not impossible actually, as they fought against Al Qaeda previously.

But this means giving these tribes assurances that they will not be over-run by Shia militias (Iraq), or the Syrian army and Hezbollah (Syria).  If you can do that, you can get a peace deal.   Not easy, of course.  But I'm sure that it is being worked on by various people. 

[Jack Knave]

I am curious to see what arguments Cameron makes for bombing Syria - as many military experts argue that without ground troops it is useless.  So does he have a ground war at the back of his mind?   Or maybe bombing is a kind of symbolic act, which you have to be seen to be doing.

He has the UN Resolution. Not sure what it actually stipulates but it is not a Chapter 7 which gives permission for full scale attack. The only troops on the ground are the Syrian, Iranian and Hezbollah lot....? Not too sure about the moderate rebels either...?

The other thing with all this is that these lot would need to be armed to the teeth to do the job and we all know what happens when you flood an unstable country with weapons.....Iraq, Libya etc.....