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

[Hope]

And to your second section, asking regional countries to supply the "boots on the ground" troops would be like asking a paedophile to take care of a group of children for a month. They are not impartial in this matter and would take sides once ISIS has been made ineffectual. This would lead to just more conflict and the extension of the religious animosity in the region for decades to come.

Not sure where you get this from, JK.  And certainly find your analogy highly offensive.  ISIS wants to destroy not only the West but also that part of the Muslim world that doesn't adhere to their own warped and non-Quranic version of Islam.  Since that would include just about every Islamic nation in the Middle East, they owe it to themselves to be involved in any offensive agin ISIS.

[Jack Knave]

The problem with eradicating Assad is it has been his regime that has protected many of the minorities in Syria.  It is one reason, I understand, that ISIS so keen to overthrow him.

And yet Assad has been buying oil off ISIS helping their cause and has, like Russia, been hitting the 'moderate' rebels more than ISIS. ISIS hasn't really challenged Assad's heartland.

[Jack Knave]

If you want to learn from our past mistakes, why do you want hundreds more Corbyns, Gonners?  I'm not suggesting we need Cameron instead, but as far as I can understand, the two are as deeply entrenched in their own - in my view, erroneous - opinions as each other.  Yes, the UN's stance needs to be far more focussed - and here I would agree with Corbyn, but if that was to go down the diplomacy route, I think we'd reach a Chamberlain-esque situation where we find someone waving a bit of paper around and claiming 'Peace in our time' followed pretty quickly by a massive attack by ISIS in direct contradiction of that bit of paper.

As has been the case with other events in the Mid-East, what we really need is other Muslim states - both Sunni and Shia - to band together and defeat ISIS for themselves, let alone anyone else.

You're joking!?!?!?

Well, once ISIS is got rid of they will obliterate each, because they are such good friends....

[Jack Knave]

Dear Hope,

Oh! don't get me wrong Hope, I do think there is room for diplomacy but not with daesh, one day I may have to stand in front of God and answer, but right now I want daesh dead, eradicated from this earth, but I want it done right, something good to come out of this horror, there is no place in this world for terrorism.

Maybe that is another little victory for daesh, chipping away at my faith, bastards that they are.

Gonnagle.

Gonny, you wont be standing you'll be on your knees looking at the floor!!!

[Jack Knave]

I agree with Corbyn on this issue but he couldn't lead a dance let alone a major political party. Labour might even lose Oldham West! We desperately need a good opposition in the country we don't have one at the moment.

He has two Left feet!!!!!!     

And he could lose Oldham West to UKIP!!!!      

[Jack Knave]

Perhaps you could expand on this, JK.

Sorry Hope?

What do you think we, the Allies, have been doing this last year?

[Jack Knave]

Not sure where you get this from, JK.  And certainly find your analogy highly offensive.  ISIS wants to destroy not only the West but also that part of the Muslim world that doesn't adhere to their own warped and non-Quranic version of Islam.  Since that would include just about every Islamic nation in the Middle East, they owe it to themselves to be involved in any offensive agin ISIS.

And what do you think will happen once ISIS is out of the picture? Peace amongst all......

I think Libya is a good example of naïve expectations...

[Spud]

Of course we would have "legitimate reason", but the question is whether or not that would help solve the problem or just make it worse.

Depends how good the RAF is. Most of the bombing footage I've seen shows targets being hit that are isolated and in unpopulated areas.. So assuming they are capable of hitting legitimate targets and not firing on anything they aren't sure about, they won't make it worse. Rather it will make isis incapable of using anything other than smaller weapons and suicide bombs.
Which they will attempt to do, so we need the additional capability of foiling terrorist plots. We may not foil every plot, but is that worse than an isis which is using tanks, armoured vehicles and potentially WMD?
If the only way they can attack their targets is by using methods that result in their own deaths, then they will never have more than a handful of fighters.
No it won't solve the problem completely, that would take ground forces to retake the towns and cities in Syria from isis' control. Until that happens, Isis will be like North Korea, cut off from the rest of the world.

[Spud]

We also need to remember that if we use airstrikes they will most probably kidnap and kill British individuals in retaliation. I think we need to avoid this, and so the best way forward is to stop supplying arms to anyone in the region, don't get involved militarily, focus on helping refugees and work to reduce Islamic State's ability to acquire arms.

[Aruntraveller]

This is an interesting read.

http://new.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/jeremy-corbyn-is-more-sensible-about-syria-than-david-cameron/

As they observe what an odd people we are.

[Udayana]

Spud,

Depends how good the RAF is. Most of the bombing footage I've seen shows targets being hit that are isolated and in unpopulated areas.. So assuming they are capable of hitting legitimate targets and not firing on anything they aren't sure about, they won't make it worse. Rather it will make isis incapable of using anything other than smaller weapons and suicide bombs.
Which they will attempt to do, so we need the additional capability of foiling terrorist plots. We may not foil every plot, but is that worse than an isis which is using tanks, armoured vehicles and potentially WMD?
If the only way they can attack their targets is by using methods that result in their own deaths, then they will never have more than a handful of fighters.
No it won't solve the problem completely, that would take ground forces to retake the towns and cities in Syria from isis' control. Until that happens, Isis will be like North Korea, cut off from the rest of the world.

and

We also need to remember that if we use airstrikes they will most probably kidnap and kill British individuals in retaliation. I think we need to avoid this, and so the best way forward is to stop supplying arms to anyone in the region, don't get involved militarily, focus on helping refugees and work to reduce Islamic State's ability to acquire arms.

There are a lot of assumptions and ifs and buts there ... if we had a track record of success in combating insurgents by bombing, without ground troops, then it could be considered a possibility but, in practice, the more we (including France and the US - even without the UK) bomb in Syria the faster the terrorists will spread worldwide.

[Spud]

Udayana,
I'm very torn between the two options. If we bomb their tanks, for example, they will capture aid workers and kill them. If we do nothing I can't see the islamic state just stopping where it is. It will expand more and more until it takes over countries like Israel and acquires long range missiles that could reach Europe. From the barbaric way in which it has taken territory so far I think it is quite obvious that it will attempt to do this. I think we have a duty to do something to contain, if not eradicate it. But it will mean each individual has to watch his back wherever he/she is in the world. If would make travel to the Middle East very risky.

[Nearly Sane]

There is not a chance in hell of ISIS taking over Israel. They have nothing like that capability, and there is a strong tendency to overhype them.

[Shaker]

There is not a chance in hell of ISIS taking over Israel. They have nothing like that capability ...

That, but you forgot the more salient reason; the Israeli army (deservedly, for good reason) are what are miltarily called a bunch of right hard bastards.

[Udayana]

Udayana,
I'm very torn between the two options. If we bomb their tanks, for example, they will capture aid workers and kill them. If we do nothing I can't see the islamic state just stopping where it is. It will expand more and more until it takes over countries like Israel and acquires long range missiles that could reach Europe. From the barbaric way in which it has taken territory so far I think it is quite obvious that it will attempt to do this. I think we have a duty to do something to contain, if not eradicate it. But it will mean each individual has to watch his back wherever he/she is in the world. If would make travel to the Middle East very risky.

Even if we don't bomb them, they still need to be eliminated - I don't think anyone has suggested doing nothing. And they are far more likely to attack the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia than Israel. 

We should deal with those in Syria by isolating them from the rest of the world, stopping their oil shipments, arms and equipment supplies. Disrupt their communications, how is it they can use phones, e-mail, internet to recruit and spread their propaganda? You need to stop them being able to enter or leave the country at will.

UN safe zones, defended by air and ground troops could be set up to separate the civilian populations from ISIL to some extent.
 

[Nearly Sane]

Another clear sighted article


http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/11/isis-war-syria-iraq/417552/

[wigginhall]

Even if we don't bomb them, they still need to be eliminated - I don't think anyone has suggested doing nothing. And they are far more likely to attack the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia than Israel. 

We should deal with those in Syria by isolating them from the rest of the world, stopping their oil shipments, arms and equipment supplies. Disrupt their communications, how is it they can use phones, e-mail, internet to recruit and spread their propaganda? You need to stop them being able to enter or leave the country at will.

UN safe zones, defended by air and ground troops could be set up to separate the civilian populations from ISIL to some extent.

That sounds fine on paper, but with Syria you are entering into a very chaotic scene.  For example, the 70, 000 rebels groups cited by Cameron as possible ground troops, are being bombed by Russia, and are probably in no mood to fight IS. 

I think the idea of choking off the supplies and arms of IS is a good idea - but who is going to persuade the Saudis and Turkey?  They are now hostile to Russia, since they see them encouraging Hezbollah (Iranian backed).  In other words, we are in a proxy war. 

You also have the Sunni rebel groups, hostile to Assad, probably terrified of Hezbollah, unsure of how much they can trust the West.   Some of them may well continue to defect to IS.

[jeremyp]

their own warped and non-Quranic version of Islam. 

ISIS are the ones with the Quranic version of Islam.

[Udayana]

That sounds fine on paper, but with Syria you are entering into a very chaotic scene.  For example, the 70, 000 rebels groups cited by Cameron as possible ground troops, are being bombed by Russia, and are probably in no mood to fight IS. 

I think the idea of choking off the supplies and arms of IS is a good idea - but who is going to persuade the Saudis and Turkey?  They are now hostile to Russia, since they see them encouraging Hezbollah (Iranian backed).  In other words, we are in a proxy war. 

You also have the Sunni rebel groups, hostile to Assad, probably terrified of Hezbollah, unsure of how much they can trust the West.   Some of them may well continue to defect to IS.

Yes. But to stop ISIL, with or without bombing, we need to deal with all of that also. That has to be politically/diplomatically.  If you bomb without having a plan for Syria itself that the Sunis can agree to, ISIL will build up more support among them - as you suggested earlier.

[wigginhall]

Yes, I agree.  Political reconstruction is the key, and was lacking in Iraq.   You have to somehow reconcile the majority Sunni, who are enraged with Assad, but also Assad's own people, then the Iranians (and their proxy, Hezbollah), the Russians, the Kurds, and so on.  Very difficult.  The obvious solution is partition of a kind, but would it hold?

[jakswan]

I wonder if Corbyn will go for a whipped vote?

If he opts not to then he 'de facto' allows the bombing to go ahead, if he does go for a whipped vote then much of the Labour Shadow Cabinet has to resign.

Blow up Syria or blow up Labour.

[Hope]

ISIS are the ones with the Quranic version of Islam.

Only if you take the Quran and turn it pside down, jeremy; or are you suggesting that every other form of Islam, from Sunni and Shai to Wahhabi, are non-Quranic?

[Outrider]

With reference to your first section ISIS managed to get to Ar Ramadi over open ground without being hit by the allies because of the lack of intelligence. To do a proper job with the bombing, to avoid unnecessary collateral damage, we would need to put many skilled special opts troops on the ground to guide the bombers in.

As I said, we need assets on the ground to achieve anything defensible - simply sending bombers in on patchy information is lining civilians up to suffer for our empty gesture of vengeance.

And to your second section, asking regional countries to supply the "boots on the ground" troops would be like asking a paedophile to take care of a group of children for a month. They are not impartial in this matter and would take sides once ISIS has been made ineffectual. This would lead to just more conflict and the extension of the religious animosity in the region for decades to come.

That rather depends on which countries you get - certainly the likes of the UAE, Jordan, Egypt etc. are too invested in the outcome. Somewhat further afield though, if we could get the likes of Bangladesh, Pakistan or Malaysia to contribute, it might be helpful - non-Western, Islamic and not directly vested interests. Unfortunately, of course everyone is concerned to a degree, everyone has some interests in the region, and no-one's willing to actually cede troops to a proper, unaffiliated, UN controlled peacekeeping force.

O.

[BashfulAnthony]

I wonder if Corbyn will go for a whipped vote?

If he opts not to then he 'de facto' allows the bombing to go ahead, if he does go for a whipped vote then much of the Labour Shadow Cabinet has to resign.

Blow up Syria or blow up Labour.

Both, would be the ideal answer!

[jakswan]

Both, would be the ideal answer!

Sounds like he is given the green light for a free vote, so looks like he will 'de facto' be supporting the air strikes. I'm surprised expected him to stick to his principles.