Corbyn and the military.

[wigginhall]

Well, over the week-end, the drive for war intensified.  Some of the arguments being used seem weird to me.  Osborne stated on TV that Britain should not stand aside - well, that's what Blair said, isn't it?   Cameron was doing his Churchillian stuff, which makes him look daft, I think. 

But it's probably unstoppable now, as the media are gung-ho, mainly.  The problem is, after bombing Syria, what next?  The drive for a ground war may become also unstoppable.

[Spud]

We could sit and do nothing, which would probably make the UK less of a target for terrorists. But supposing the US had done that. What about the Yazidis, some of whom they helped escape from IS? What about Baghdad? How many other defenseless people would be slaughtered by them?

[Outrider]

Sure, we could sit and do nothing, which would probably make the UK less of a target for terrorists. But lets say the US had done that. What about the Yazidis whom they helped escape from IS? How many other defenseless people would be slaughtered by them?

Creating safe-zones by deploying military assets is strategically and tactically a massively different thing to commencing a military offensive - how will a military assault create a change of mindset in the fundamentalist population? How is that comparable to securing readily identifiable areas in order to keep people safe from attack?

One is a not a military task, the other is - trying to win an ideological war with bombs is worse than useless, it feeds into the recruitment rhetoric if the opposition.

O.

[wigginhall]

We could sit and do nothing, which would probably make the UK less of a target for terrorists. But supposing the US had done that. What about the Yazidis, some of whom they helped escape from IS? What about Baghdad? How many other defenseless people would be slaughtered by them?

Well, presumably you have some plan in mind about attacking IS in Syria, and presumably, Cameron does also.  Do you think we should go into Syria and link up with Assad (and Hezbollah)?   Or what about the other rebel groups - kill them, or help them?  What about the Sunni tribes, who have been partly supporting IS - how do we relate to them?   The political problems in Syria are massive, so I'm interested in the solutions you have in mind. 

[Jack Knave]

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?

As it has already been said this is mostly about ideas and ideology not how powerful one is militarily - which would ,as you say, just create more jihadist and so propagate the conflict even more. My personal take on the ideas thing is that it will take ages to deal with and the human crisis in all this can't wait that long, and will ultimately result in absolute chaos.

[Jack Knave]

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.

This is different to Iraq, it is a lot more complicated because there are other players in the mix who want certain things like Russia, and Iran and the Saudis have a finger in the pie as well. And who's side is Turkey really on?

[BashfulAnthony]

This is different to Iraq, it is a lot more complicated because there are other players in the mix who want certain things like Russia, and Iran and the Saudis have a finger in the pie as well. And who's side is Turkey really on?

I quite agree.. But with half the world putting their minds to it, maybe, just maybe, they will come up with something.

As for Turkey:  they hanker after joining the EU  (silly people!); so they won't want to antagonise the West too much.  Plus their need to keep on the right side of the US as well.

[Jack Knave]

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!

Yeah, I've heard about 450 have returned...

[BashfulAnthony]

Yeah, I've heard about 450 have returned...

It's  a frightening prospect, if any of them get themselves organised.  It only takes two or three to cause mayhem.

[Jack Knave]

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 there's the nub of the problem : the ideas in this mess are essentially religious and not political for the region* and that mix is extremely volatile, as we have seen in Europe in the past.

* This is not so much so for those going to ISIS from the west who have their own grievances.

[Jack Knave]

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

No oil!!! No rich 'friends'.

[Jack Knave]

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.

Why is ISIS a threat to us? - I've never understood this.

[BashfulAnthony]

Why is ISIS a threat to us? - I've never understood this.

I think they are a threat to any Western country, in terms of being able to produce a horror, like Paris, anywhere.  Apparently, our excellent Security Service, has thwarted some seven plots so far this year.

[Jack Knave]

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

Reminds me of the stupidity of Bush and Blair.

[BashfulAnthony]

Reminds me of the stupidity of Bush and Blair.

They made our bed for us, and now we have to lie on it.

[Jack Knave]

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.

But they have had that very same deal once before and it didn't work out - once bitten twice shy. What about splitting Iraq up and giving them a portion of it?

[Spud]

Well, presumably you have some plan in mind about attacking IS in Syria, and presumably, Cameron does also.  Do you think we should go into Syria and link up with Assad (and Hezbollah)?   Or what about the other rebel groups - kill them, or help them?  What about the Sunni tribes, who have been partly supporting IS - how do we relate to them?   The political problems in Syria are massive, so I'm interested in the solutions you have in mind.

So far my thinking is that what we do about the Assad/Rebel problem rather depends on Russia. We should focus for now on Isis and decide whether we want the presence of a caliphate. If we don't mind one, we should create safe havens for the potential victims, and contain it (the caliphate). However, it seems there will never be agreement between sunnis and shias on how the caliph (leader) should be elected. So it would probably be better for them to have their own territories, eg Sunnis in Saudi Arabia, Shia in Iran, both living together where possible, and no caliphate. That means getting involved militarily to re-establish the recognized borders and territories of Iraq and Syria.

[Jack Knave]

We could sit and do nothing, which would probably make the UK less of a target for terrorists. But supposing the US had done that. What about the Yazidis, some of whom they helped escape from IS? What about Baghdad? How many other defenseless people would be slaughtered by them?

Well then it is long over due to put Bush and Blair, and their cronies, on trial for causing this mess in the first place.

[wigginhall]

Well then it is long over due to put Bush and Blair, and their cronies, on trial for causing this mess in the first place.

Well, similar arguments are being used now as were used by Blair, that's what I find amazing.   We have used violence in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, with pretty awful results.   So this time it will be different?

[Jack Knave]

I quite agree.. But with half the world putting their minds to it, maybe, just maybe, they will come up with something.

As for Turkey:  they hanker after joining the EU  (silly people!); so they won't want to antagonise the West too much.  Plus their need to keep on the right side of the US as well.

Turkey have the migrants as a bargaining chip, which they have used so far to get €billions from the EU.

[BashfulAnthony]

Turkey have the migrants as a bargaining chip, which they have used so far to get €billions from the EU.

Right; and they must be happy to go on doing so.  They won't want to get on the wrong end of the US or EU.

[Jack Knave]

It's  a frightening prospect, if any of them get themselves organised.  It only takes two or three to cause mayhem.

If they are battle hardened then getting themselves organised isn't going to be too hard.

[Jack Knave]

I think they are a threat to any Western country, in terms of being able to produce a horror, like Paris, anywhere.  Apparently, our excellent Security Service, has thwarted some seven plots so far this year.

But that doesn't answer why they do it, and the historical background to all this.

[Jack Knave]

They made our bed for is, and now we have to lie on it.

No, the rule of law should be applied to them. The problem with these people is that they have given themselves the divine right of 'kings' and set themselves above the law.

[Jack Knave]

So far my thinking is that what we do about the Assad/Rebel problem rather depends on Russia. We should focus for now on Isis and decide whether we want the presence of a caliphate. If we don't mind one, we should create safe havens for the potential victims, and contain it (the caliphate). However, it seems there will never be agreement between sunnis and shias on how the caliph (leader) should be elected. So it would probably be better for them to have their own territories, eg Sunnis in Saudi Arabia, Shia in Iran, both living together where possible, and no caliphate. That means getting involved militarily to re-establish the recognized borders and territories of Iraq and Syria.

Where does Lebanon fit in into all this, if it needs to?