Arguments for and against the UK joining the strikes on ISIS in Syria

[Hope]

Following the very public split amongst the Labour leadership on this (and the rather quieter disagreements in just about every other party), I thought it would be worth our investigating the pros and cons of the issues.  For instance, the argument goes that since ISIS do not recognise the border between Syria and Iraq, we shouldn't feel the need to recognise it either when it comes to bombing ISIS.

I'm not suggesting that we should come to a conclusion, but I'd be interested to see what the members of this place believe are the underlying issues, as opposed to some of the more publically announced ones. 

What place does the diplomatic have in the issue and what place the military?

[Outrider]

I'm not usually a fan of Giles Fraser in the Guardian, but his article today makes what for me is one of the best arguments against air strikes in Syria:

We wouldn't bomb Brussells to get the terrorist cells that are hiding there, so why are we thinking of bombing Raqqa on the same grounds?

If we were going to actually try to achieve anything militarily in Syria we'd send  in ground troops, and we've already seen in Afghanistan and Iraq what that does for a region.

There is a place for military action in Syria, but it's not bombing major cities where thousands of innocent lives will be the inevitable price to pay for giving ISIS the PR coup of rising to their level of violence. The place for the military is to create and secure safe-havens in the area for people who aren't involved with ISIS, and to intercept and destroy military vehicles and movements. Enforce the peace, and nothing more - we won't change minds or hearts with bombs, that's going to require talking to people and actually listening to them.

O.

[Udayana]

Agree with O. Joining in the bombing would lead to making the situation worse - just like every British decision on the ME from the Sykes-Picot agreement onwards.

[Hope]

Enforce the peace, and nothing more - ...

So are you suggesting that we don't get involved until there is peace - or at least a peace process in play?

[BeRational]

I'm not usually a fan of Giles Fraser in the Guardian, but his article today makes what for me is one of the best arguments against air strikes in Syria:

We wouldn't bomb Brussells to get the terrorist cells that are hiding there, so why are we thinking of bombing Raqqa on the same grounds?

If we were going to actually try to achieve anything militarily in Syria we'd send  in ground troops, and we've already seen in Afghanistan and Iraq what that does for a region.

There is a place for military action in Syria, but it's not bombing major cities where thousands of innocent lives will be the inevitable price to pay for giving ISIS the PR coup of rising to their level of violence. The place for the military is to create and secure safe-havens in the area for people who aren't involved with ISIS, and to intercept and destroy military vehicles and movements. Enforce the peace, and nothing more - we won't change minds or hearts with bombs, that's going to require talking to people and actually listening to them.

O.

I see the point, but if the terrorist cells where in Brussells, I would have confidence that the authorities there could handle and take care of the situation.
I have no such confidence about Raqqa, where the terrorists will just go about their business unhindered.

[jakswan]

This will be used as a recruiting tool for IS can't believe we are thinking of doing this again.

[Outrider]

So are you suggesting that we don't get involved until there is peace - or at least a peace process in play?

Militarily, yes. Diplomatically, no.

I'm suggesting that if no imminent cease-fire is in the offing, which it seems as if it isn't, then we should be only sending troops with two main tactical objectives:

a) Creating safe-haven areas which are free of violence
b) Intercepting military forces in transit and eliminating them in unpopulated areas.

There are difficulties in those, certainly they are more difficult and risky missions than arial bombardment of heavily occupied cities, but that's why we have some of the best trained armed forces in the world.

Strategically we can't be expecting military action to be the answer.

At the same time as that military action, we should be making it clear that seats are available at a negotiating table for those that are ready to come and talk - military force will never create a lasting peace, it can only enforce one with its continued presence, and we don't want to be committing to a permanent military presence which will only feed the fundamentalist PR machine.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

This will be used as a recruiting tool for IS can't believe we are thinking of doing this again.

Dit-Fucking-to

[wigginhall]

Like jakswan, I can't believe we're doing this again. 

Well, Cameron has his own sexed up dossier - 70, 000 friendly fighters are just waiting the signal to start fighting IS.  I just don't believe this - the US has spent a fortune training friendly rebels, who promptly decamp to IS, or just quit.

The peace plan looks very ropey.  Russia is bombing rebel groups, and Hezbollah are mopping up afterwards, to help secure Assad.  Is this what we're joining?

The Sunni tribes will go to IS, if they suspect that Iranian backed militias are advancing on them, as they did in Iraq.  How is bombing going to stop that? 

Meanwhile, the Saudis are bombing Yemen, and Turkey is bombing the Kurds - what a mad situation.  Ah, but Dave 'call me Churchill' Cameron is on the way!

[Nearly Sane]

Like jakswan, I can't believe we're doing this again. 

Well, Cameron has his own sexed up dossier - 70, 000 friendly fighters are just waiting the signal to start fighting IS.  I just don't believe this - the US has spent a fortune training friendly rebels, who promptly decamp to IS, or just quit.

The peace plan looks very ropey.  Russia is bombing rebel groups, and Hezbollah are mopping up afterwards, to help secure Assad.  Is this what we're joining?

The Sunni tribes will go to IS, if they suspect that Iranian backed militias are advancing on them, as they did in Iraq.  How is bombing going to stop that? 

Meanwhile, the Saudis are bombing Yemen, and Turkey is bombing the Kurds - what a mad situation.  Ah, but Dave 'call me Churchill' Cameron is on the way!

It reeks of 'We must do something, this is something, let's do this'

[wigginhall]

We must do something - oh, here's a sexed up dossier that has something in it.

Peace deal - Russia to bomb the Sunni villages which have been harbouring IS; then the Syrian army and Hezbollah move north, destroying everything in their path.  Job done!  Dave's a hero. 

[Gonnagle]

Dear Hope,

What place does the diplomatic have in the issue and what place the military?

Troops first diplomacy after, not bombs.

No matter where I look, papers, internet, telly, I keep hearing one thing, we can't talk to these terrorists.

I also think that revenge is there, as a Christian I should be saying, turn the other cheek, but right now I can't.

If we do send in troops, it must be with one message, terrorism does not work, terrorism is a thing of the past.

And has been stated in the media, we need to learn from past mistakes, massive investment from every country which send in troops, no whinging from any country that they are fed up watching as there taxes are sent to foreign shores, no walking away and thinking that charities will pick up the pieces.

Gonnagle.

[wigginhall]

I agree, Gonners, that revenge is a valid motive.  However, it should not blind us to political realities on the ground. 

Where are the ground troops?  I don't think the West will send their own, unless there are further (and worse) atrocities.   

One thing we have surely learned from previous campaigns - it's easy to make things worse.   

[Gonnagle]

Dear Wigs,

Where are the ground troops?  I don't think the West will send their own, unless there are further (and worse) atrocities.   

Pro active instead of re active, listening to Ken Livingstone on radio 2, a broad coalition of troops on the ground, although I get a queasy feeling when he talks about us being bombed in WW 2.

Gonnagle.

[BashfulAnthony]

And so Corbyn continues on his mission to destroy the Labour Party, when he was supposed to be re-buiding it.

[Nearly Sane]

And so Corbyn continues on his mission to destroy the Labour Party, when he was supposed to be re-buiding it.

By wanting a real justification for killing people? As opposed to Blair, killing people on a lie, and see what good that has done.

[BashfulAnthony]

By wanting a real justification for killing people? As opposed to Blair, killing people on a lie, and see what good that has done.

I was rather suggesting that his methods in dealing with a Labour dilemma are ham-fisted and divisive, whatever you think of his beliefs.

[Outrider]

And so Corbyn continues on his mission to destroy the Labour Party, when he was supposed to be re-buiding it.

The figures I've seen suggest that his take is more in line with the majority of the Labour party membership, it just seems to be at odds with the Labour MPs... I suppose it's a matter of opinion which of those constitutes the 'real' Labour party.

O.

[BashfulAnthony]

The figures I've seen suggest that his take is more in line with the majority of the Labour party membership, it just seems to be at odds with the Labour MPs... I suppose it's a matter of opinion which of those constitutes the 'real' Labour party.

O.

I don't think the views of the mass of Labour adherents are clear at this stage.

[Nearly Sane]

I was rather suggesting that his methods in dealing with a Labour dilemma are ham-fisted and divisive, whatever you think of his beliefs.

As opposed to the active briefing against him by half his shadow cabinet who want to bomb the brown people? Too many of the Shadow cabinet are using hamfists to metaphorically masturbate Cameron (who is fond of ham coitus to start with)

[wigginhall]

Thank God that Corbyn is putting forward the voice of sanity on war.  I feel ashamed of the right-wingers in Labour who are backing Cameron - I guess they supported Blair, so are carrying on in the same vein.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Bashers,

I don't think the views of the mass of Labour adherents are clear at this stage.

From what I am hearing, the mass are with Corbyn, as in ordinary Labour voters, it is the minority of Labour back bencher's who are against him.

Gonnagle.

[BashfulAnthony]

As opposed to the active briefing against him by half his shadow cabinet who want to bomb the brown people? Too many of the Shadow cabinet are using hamfists to metaphorically masturbate Cameron (who is fond of ham coitus to start with)

They are briefing against him because of his ham-fisted e-mail and letter of yesterday; at least in part.  The man has no idea how to manage a Party, which inevitably constitutes a variety of opinions.

[Nearly Sane]

They are briefing against him because of his ham-fisted e-mail and letter of yesterday; at least in part.  The man has no idea how to manage a Party, which inevitably constitutes a variety of opinions.

Maybe in this case the party is unmanageable?

[BashfulAnthony]

Maybe in this case the party is unmanageable?

Unmanageable?  Maybe.  But he is not the man for the job, whatever the state of the Party.  His election was a potential disaster;  and each week that goes by, he is proving that it is.