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

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/isis-releases-video-purportedly-showing-beheading-alleged-russian-spy-n472921

I wonder why ISIS are picking a fight with Russia, they will less concerned with collateral damage and this plays into the narrative?

There are Chechens fighting for ISIS who probably want to continue the fight against Russia. Some Chechen fighters made peace with the Russian government while other Chechen fighters consider Russian to be like a mad dog that needs to be put down.

[wigginhall]

The alternative, it seems, is to let ISIS win.

I don't see why.  Al Qaeda were defeated in Iraq, partly with the help of the Sunni tribes.   In Syria, the Sunni are the majority, whereas in Iraq a minority, but I don't think the Syrian tribes and groups want an IS regime or an AQ regime.  They talk of autonomous Sunni regions, it might be possible, but in Syria they have to be part of the government.

[Jack Knave]

Wes Streeting the Labour MP posted the message below. I think it it a powerful set of thoughts

'This has certainly been the worst day I've experienced in Parliament since my election. It's come in stark contrast to every other day because I can - hand on heart - say that I love my job and every aspect of it. How many of us are lucky enough to say that?

The atmosphere in Parliament is febrile. Tempers are fraying and even good friendships strain as people debate the right course of action in a conflict that is deeply complex.

I felt very let down by the Prime Minister tonight, when the media reported that he told the Conservative backbenchers' committee (known as the 1922 Committee) not to "walk through the lobbies with Jeremy Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathisers". I have lived in this city, which has endured terrorism, all my life. This is a deep insult to MPs from all parties who have very serious concerns about the strategy that the Prime Minister set out last week - in a far more dignified way than he behaved tonight. This is not the way I'd expect any Prime Minister to behave in these circumstances.

I'm also upset at the way in which MPs who plan to support air strikes are being treated. I wrote before about some of the nasty tactics against some of my Labour colleagues, but there seem to be many people who believe that anyone voting for air strikes is unthinking or unprincipled. Let me assure you that nothing could be further from the truth. On an issue like this, we all weigh the evidence, we all search our consciences and we all do what we believe to be right. Opponents of air strikes do not have a monopoly on wisdom or conviction.

I bumped into someone this evening who has been working in foreign affairs for decades and he couldn't tell me with certainty what the right answer to Syria is. I felt reassured, because I've spoken to people who are 100% sure that air strikes are right and those who are 100% sure they're wrong. On the eve of tomorrow's vote, I both envy that certainty and find it unnerving.

This afternoon I added my name to a cross-party amendment opposing air strikes in these circumstances (see below). Tomorrow, I will support the amendment and oppose the government's strategy for air strikes.

However difficult today has been is nothing compared to a day in Syria. Whatever the decision tomorrow, I pray it's the right one. It is one that will rest heavily on our consciences'

And we have the EU referendum to come.

[Jack Knave]

The legality argument seems odd to me.  We are going into another country, without the permission of the government of that country?  Ah well, you can make it up as you go along.

I reckon that Cameron is feeling that it's in the bag, hence the 'terrorist sympathizer' gibe.  He doesn't have to be polite now, although he will probably give a half-apology in the Commons.   Well, he is OK, the Blairites will vote for war.

It seem the LibDems are going to vote for bombing as well....not sure why.

[Udayana]

I don't see why.  Al Qaeda were defeated in Iraq, partly with the help of the Sunni tribes.   In Syria, the Sunni are the majority, whereas in Iraq a minority, but I don't think the Syrian tribes and groups want an IS regime or an AQ regime.  They talk of autonomous Sunni regions, it might be possible, but in Syria they have to be part of the government.

Speculation:
If the West stayed out and left it to Assad and Russia (and possibly France), the Sunni rebels could join with ISIL in carving out a new state. The war would continue for ages with the rebels financed by Saudi and the Gulf states, similar to Afghanistan but without Russians on the ground.

[Jack Knave]

I agree that is too simplistic - but that goes for all arguments being put, in parliament and elsewhere. Of-course Russia supports Assad, which is exactly why they are happy hitting the Syrian Free Army, our proposed "boots on the ground".

Not sure exactly what is working in Iraq?  And Syria is not Iraq. We should not feel obliged to help our allies unless they can propose a strategy worth pursuing. imo we've not seen one yet.

How long have the Allies been bombing in Iraq, with all those Iraqi troops in support? Year plus? If so shouldn't have those amateur ISIS lot have been trounced by now? Cameron rattles on as if this is just the start of the bombing campaign and we're going in to deal with them with one good blow.

[Jack Knave]

If only that were true!

It's a quote from the start of WWI, which of course ended before Christmas.

[Shaker]

It's a quote from the start of WWI, which of course ended before Christmas.

Well, come on, be fair ...

... it ended before Christmas 1918.

[ad_orientem]

Speculation:
If the West stayed out and left it to Assad and Russia (and possibly France), the Sunni rebels could join with ISIL in carving out a new state. The war would continue for ages with the rebels financed by Saudi and the Gulf states, similar to Afghanistan but without Russians on the ground.

Personally I just trust Russia more at the moment. Russia was right when it warned the US & Co not to interfere. What is happening now is all part of the CIA and Mossad plan in the name of a greater Israel. Europe should have nothing to do with it. With should align ourselves with Russia.

[Jack Knave]

And Julian Lewis excellent 'bogus battalions'

I heard his speech and it pull out all the salient points.

I think one point why all this is getting so heated is because our Allies are wondering how reliable we are and one Syria vote has gone down the pan which scuppered things. I reckon all this is about our place in the world and less so about the Syrian people. If this fails then there's going to be a big ? over us in our Allies' eyes, and for some of our power crazy leaders that's looking like a massive lose of face.

[Jack Knave]

Dear Thoughts,

Our PM is weak.

Paris, France.

Vengeance.

I think I want bombing but the question still remains, what next, what else, seems to me that at some point troops will have to be sent in, who else will clean up.

What a bloody mess!

Gonnagle.

Yes. When the 70,000 'troops' fail will mission creep step in?

[Jack Knave]

Yes, I thought he was really stretching it, when he had a passage about ground troops becoming available, as a peaceful solution was found in Syria.   This would be comic, if it wasn't such a grave situation. 

Intervening in a civil war is usually an awful idea, but here you have so many different forces at work, Russia bombing FSA, Turkey bombing the Kurds, various Islamist groups, whose loyalties are uncertain, Hezbollah helping Assad, and so on. 

But I don't think Cameron's thesis has to be credible to get through.   If enough people want it to be true, it will pass, as with Iraq.

Cameron's speech just reminded me of the spin and lies, and double talk, of Blair!!!

[Shaker]

Cameron's speech just reminded me of the spin and lies, and double talk, of Blair!!!

Scarcely a Rizla between them, that's why.

[Nearly Sane]

I heard his speech and it pull out all the salient points.

I think one point why all this is getting so heated is because our Allies are wondering how reliable we are and one Syria vote has gone down the pan which scuppered things. I reckon all this is about our place in the world and less so about the Syrian people. If this fails then there's going to be a big ? over us in our Allies' eyes, and for some of our power crazy leaders that's looking like a massive lose of face.

So if the ally thing is crucial, that's why France helped us invade Iraq? Hmmm

[Nearly Sane]

Excellent speech by Hilary Benn

[Gonnagle]

Dear Forum,

We bomb.

Gonnagle.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Forum,

Just to add, twice in one year I have seen we are very lucky in this country to have the privilege of living in a free, open, democratic country.

Gonnagle.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Forum,

Just to add to the add, Cameron is in charge, no backbone Cameron, I feel a prayer coming on.

Father in Heaven,

I question your sense of humour, and yes I know your answer, we reap what we sow.

Gonnagle.

[Bubbles]

Dear Forum,

We bomb.

Gonnagle.

Yes and they have sent the first wave already

[Hope]

I find the juxtaposition of our first targets with what is happening in Paris this week somewhat ironic!!

[Hope]

Cameron's speech just reminded me of the spin and lies, and double talk, of Blair!!!

I saw that likeness several weeks ago, JK.

[Outrider]

So you think we should be the world's police? What mandate do we have to go invading countries just because we don't like the fact that they don't adhere to what we see as being correct?

The UN request to intervene, the UN case that the situation there is unacceptable. What we do is a strategic and tactical decision, but that we do something happens under that UN mandate.

That tends to be the case most of the time. It is an aggressive idealistic few with greedy motives that force the rest into their madness.

Not even all of the rest, just some of them. That's why the relatively indiscriminate tactic of arial bombardment in isolation is, I think, unjustifiable.

My response was about what is needed back home, which was I thought your comment was about. You mentioned educating those who may have jihadist attitudes but education to me implies talking at people as oppose to talking with them.

Whilst there are times when lecturing is an effective form of education (not the the most effective, generally), that tends to be in situations where you are delivering facts, not those situations where you are attempting to build a rapport and foster understanding and respect. Too often, I'd agree, the bravado of 'we're right' gets the in the way, from both sides.

If the Muslim community is outraged by all this then I would expect them to be proactive but I can't say I've seen much proof for this.

Hardly any at all, it would seem.

Neither can I see much proof for our government really trying to fully understand what is going on; understanding how British Muslim's feel and think etc. Instead they seem to just gather in their Westminster bubble and come up with schemes for the Muslim community to take on board.

I don't think we're alone in that. I don't see much in the way of a welcoming hand in France's ban on burquas, for instance, or in the US Republican candidates speaking of creating a register of Muslims in the country... but they are playing for the attentions of a slightly racist population. The down-side of democracy is that power, ultimately, lies in the masses who aren't necessarily equipped for the magnitude of the decisions.

Whether here or in Syria our government is way behind the curve and I see much of what Cameron does or want to do as too-late-knee-jerk-reactions.

From the a strategic decisions of trying to fight last century's wars, to the 'moral' case of only fighting back once 'we' have been attacked, because Syrian lives don't matter as much as, say, French...

O.

[jakswan]

I saw that likeness several weeks ago, JK.

According to the Shadow Chancellor Hilary Benn was very much like Tony Blair. Odd the way he took Cameron to task and defended Corbyn was very typical of what a leader should have done.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Excellent speech by Hilary Benn

Didn't get what he meant about standing shoulder to shoulder with allies opposing ISIS ideology, given our MPs voted to stand shoulder to shoulder with our ally Saudi Arabia, which appears to have done little to crack down on Saudi private funding for ISIS and are also funding Islamist rebel factions, as they are more concerned about using all available resources to oppose Assad.

We also appear to be standing shoulder to shoulder with Turkey, who aren't successfully policing their borders against ISIS fighters slipping back and forth, and who oppose the Kurds more than ISIS, and who according to Russia (which claims to have satellite images) are the main consumers of ISIS black-market oil.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/12/02/us-mideast-crisis-russia-turkey-idUSKBN0TL19S20151202#20kUfwMjHbW8DE6I.97

I agree with his point that what little air strikes that Britain can muster can hinder ISIS supply lines, troop movements and positions so can be considered an action in line with the UN resolution to dismantle their self-declared  state. If ISIS lose territory, that is a propaganda coup but as in Afghanistan any territory gains against ISIS would have to be defended on an on-going basis.

I also agree with his point that we don't know how many ground troops are available to fight ISIS. Any ground troops are split into factions that are spread over a wide geographic area in Syria, many of whom are fighting each other as well as Assad (who claimed his regime to be the last stronghold for secularism in the region) and who are unlikely to trek over as Britain's "boots on the ground" to ISIS controlled areas unless it is in their strategic interests, as opposed to because Britain got upset because some French people were murdered.

Also, there are desertions from the Free Syrian Army due to tough battlefield conditions and the low pay not being enough to provide for fighters' families who need to be evacuated from their shelled homes. Meanwhile Islamist rebels who reject secularism and democracy but are fighting Assad and fighting ISIS are better paid, better armed, more fired-up on their Islamist ideology and are therefore able to drive out ISIS from certain areas where the FSA have failed to do so, and in the process help themselves to FSA supplies and weapons. Their superior prowess attracts more fighters to their factions - as not surprisingly militants prefer to throw their lot in with strong groups that at least have some chance of battlefield success due to better weapons, supplies, training and motivation.

So essentially, Hillary Benn seems to be saying it's better to do something military against ISIS, however small or symbolic, rather than do nothing, and there will never be a perfect time to deploy the air strikes, so why not now.

[Nearly Sane]

I was more commenting on his delivery and that it is about the best case to be made. I agree that our allies are not just the French but they are the ones who have asked for our support.

As noted yesterday, I have severe doubts that Da'esh are as centralised as is being made out, so while the bombing can be argued for as being symbolic, the thing we are attacking is also, I would suggest, a symbol.

It was a great piece of oratory but there is no need for such to be correct.