Commons vote on Syria airstrikes (round 2).
Discussion
Osborne states that if the government fails to get Parliamentary backing for air strikes in Syria it would be a propaganda victory for IS. No pressure on MPs then.
http://news.sky.com/story/1591964/mps-to-vote-on-i...
Meanwhile the Foreign Affairs Select Committee have concluded that:
http://news.sky.com/story/1591964/mps-to-vote-on-i...
Meanwhile the Foreign Affairs Select Committee have concluded that:
parliament.uk said:
we believe that there should be no extension of British military action into Syria unless there is a coherent international strategy that has a realistic chance of defeating ISIL and of ending the civil war in Syria. In the absence of such a strategy, taking action to meet the desire to do something is still incoherent.
34.We consider that the focus on the extension of airstrikes against ISIL in Syria is a distraction from the much bigger and more important task of finding a resolution to the conflict in Syria and thereby removing one of the main facilitators of ISIL’s rise.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmfaff/457/45707.htm34.We consider that the focus on the extension of airstrikes against ISIL in Syria is a distraction from the much bigger and more important task of finding a resolution to the conflict in Syria and thereby removing one of the main facilitators of ISIL’s rise.
Edited by BlackLabel on Monday 23 November 00:47
JuniorD said:
Air strikes will mean hundreds of dead civilians so essentially we would be doing to Syria what Isis did to France. They'd be a waste of time, money and life but would make Cameron feel like Bertie big b
ks and one of the lads.
Indeed, and then next year the bleeding hearts will be saying "it's our fault, we have to take 1 million 'refugees'".ks and one of the lads.The PM said today that there are 70000 'non-Islamist', 'moderate', and 'credible' ground forces waiting to take over the country once ISIS (and presumably Assad) leave. This is a figure given to him by the intelligence community so must be true. Who knows perhaps these moderate Syrians are ready to attack ISIS and Assad's troops in 45 minutes.
"David Cameron: Syria air strikes will make UK 'safer' but war could last for years"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleea...
"David Cameron: Syria air strikes will make UK 'safer' but war could last for years"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleea...
BlackLabel said:
The PM said today that there are 70000 'non-Islamist', 'moderate', and 'credible' ground forces waiting to take over the country once ISIS (and presumably Assad) leave. This is a figure given to him by the intelligence community so must be true. Who knows perhaps these moderate Syrians are ready to attack ISIS and Assad's troops in 45 minutes.
"David Cameron: Syria air strikes will make UK 'safer' but war could last for years"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleea...
This, for me, is the main reason we shouldn't be drawn into this conflict (more than we already have been). In Cameron's response to the select committee's report he keeps banging on about this "moderate opposition" force of 70,000. In truth, these guys are not 'a force' at all. They are multiple bands of fighters with different goals, allegiances, motives and morals. It's not like we can coral them into a cohesive army, take over ISIL territory and then set up a new democratic Syrian government."David Cameron: Syria air strikes will make UK 'safer' but war could last for years"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleea...
The select committee's report also asked about an international strategy for ending the civil war in Syria. Cameron's response doesn't answer this very well either. Lots of talk about action groups but never addresses the elephant in the room of Russia/Iran and their involvement. He hints that they have been engaged in talks and we might be able to agree with them sometime but there's nothing definitive.
To me it looks like a never-ending bombing campaign that will achieve nothing except allow Cameron to cuddle up to his coalition buddies and pretend that he's making a difference. WE MUST DO SOMETHING ABOUT THESE ISIL GUYS NOW!
I'd rather they took some time and convinced the partners in the region to sort it out themselves. Invasion force from Saudi, UAE, Qatar etc? Never going to happen but why are we solving problems in their back yard. They all need to step up.
Also, Cameron talks about our unique missile capability with the Brimstone missile. We're the only air force with these wonder weapons and the bombing campaign can't possibly succeed without them. A quick look on wikipedia reveals one other nation with these missiles, guess who... Saudi Arabia.
I urge anyone against this military action to write to their MP and tell them so. I wrote to mine earlier this week and will give them serious grief if they vote for it.
KarlMac said:
I would have more support for action in Syria of there wasn't such a large number of domestic issues that needed resolution first.
Why is the conversation so focused around air strikes?
Because it would show the international community that we are doing 'something'.Why is the conversation so focused around air strikes?
All the military experts say that British air strikes without a credible ground offensive is just pissing in the wind - on it's own 7 or 8 aging aircrafts bombing Syria will make no difference at all in the grand scheme of things. Which is why Cameron surprised the house today with his comment about a 70,000 strong Syrian force ready to take action on the ground.
Cameron's desire to involve the RAF in Syria is a political issue and not a military one - he is embarrassed that Britain is perceived as not doing enough in the eyes of the Americans and the wider international community. I suppose this is an argument which has some merit however I wish he would be honest about it and tell us the truth about his motives to get us involved in Syria.
BlackLabel said:
Cameron's desire to involve the RAF in Syria is a political issue and not a military one - he is embarrassed that Britain is perceived as not doing enough in the eyes of the Americans and the wider international community. I suppose this is an argument which has some merit however I wish he would be honest about it and tell us the truth about his motives to get us involved in Syria.
If MPs fail to see this as the primary motivation I will be seriously disappointed.Interestingly, Crispin Blunt, Chairman of the select committee has now changed his mind and is in favour of air strikes. I find this hard to believe given the fact that Cameron's has so poorly answered the questions outlined in the select committee's report. Keep an eye out for his name in the next re-shuffle!
The RAF is currently providing Reaper and Voyager support to the coalition in Iraq. It's not just '8 aging Tornados'. From a pragmatic point of view, having them assisting in Iraq but not in Syria, given the non existant border, is stupid. No problem with this going ahead (especially as it looks like Assad is off the menu).
Ridgemont said:
The RAF is currently providing Reaper and Voyager support to the coalition in Iraq. It's not just '8 aging Tornados'. From a pragmatic point of view, having them assisting in Iraq but not in Syria, given the non existant border, is stupid. No problem with this going ahead (especially as it looks like Assad is off the menu).
I've seen this argument and it's one that Cameron has used. "If were bombing the country next door to Syria, why can't we just bomb Syria too?"Well, we're only bombing Iraq to try to sort out a totally f***ed situation that we helped create. The Syria conflict is new and separate to the one in Iraq (even if we are essentially fighting the same people). I really don't think this is a valid argument upon which to base a new military engagement.
Evidence given to the foreign affairs select committee by military experts has confirmed that our involvement in air strikes in Syria will have no meaningful impact.
mcbook said:
Ridgemont said:
The RAF is currently providing Reaper and Voyager support to the coalition in Iraq. It's not just '8 aging Tornados'. From a pragmatic point of view, having them assisting in Iraq but not in Syria, given the non existant border, is stupid. No problem with this going ahead (especially as it looks like Assad is off the menu).
I've seen this argument and it's one that Cameron has used. "If were bombing the country next door to Syria, why can't we just bomb Syria too?"Well, we're only bombing Iraq to try to sort out a totally f***ed situation that we helped create. The Syria conflict is new and separate to the one in Iraq (even if we are essentially fighting the same people). I really don't think this is a valid argument upon which to base a new military engagement.
Evidence given to the foreign affairs select committee by military experts has confirmed that our involvement in air strikes in Syria will have no meaningful impact.
k Iraq.It *is* separate to the Syria situation? Where on earth do you get that idea?
Furthermore your presentation of the foreign affairs select committee is incorrect. Worth watching the sessions especially around 14.56. Our intervention is adjudged to not be decisive but would be useful and would add capacity
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/commi...
The were three dissents to that report by committee members who disagreed with Blunt's original findings. I'll see if I can dig up the reference.
- edited for bad layout
Edited by Ridgemont on Thursday 26th November 16:28
Ridgemont said:
The operations are against the same targets. Applying a restriction is not going to unfk Iraq.
It *isn't* separate to the Syria situation? Where on earth do you get that idea?
Furthermore your presentation of the foreign affairs select committee is incorrect. Worth watching the sessions especially around 14.56. Our intervention is adjudged to not be decisive but would be useful and would add capacity
I say that the Iraq situation is separate to Syria because parliament approved the Iraq intervention and the military action there is part of an ongoing conflict and work to create a stable situation in Iraq. Bombing Syria, even though it is the same enemy, is completely separate to that. If it wasn't, we'd already be in there.k Iraq.It *isn't* separate to the Syria situation? Where on earth do you get that idea?
Furthermore your presentation of the foreign affairs select committee is incorrect. Worth watching the sessions especially around 14.56. Our intervention is adjudged to not be decisive but would be useful and would add capacity
I'll agree that I was a bit loose with my interpretation of the select committee's opinion on the effectiveness of our intervention. However, here's a direct quote from the report
"In military terms, we noted that although our witnesses believed that a decision to extend airstrikes into Syria would be welcomed by Coalition allies, some said that it would not have anything other than a marginal effect. The experts told us that it would not be likely to involve extra aircraft but would simply re-focus existing assets; that the UK was already contributing valuable surveillance in Syria; and that the ability to conduct airstrikes as well would not have a decisive effect. Sir Simon Mayall concurred, adding: There are not that many of them, actually. This is not an air campaign anything remotely like the scale of 1991 or 2003. We need to be very clear about this. This is not a war-winning air campaign, by any stretch of the imagination."
The GCC countries need to step up and sort this out. They have long enjoyed the west's protection and us doing their dirty work for them. They have become fat off the back of it whilst we get all the splash back.
Trying to force our ideals onto them is a hiding to nothing. They are nations and people based on fundamentally different values to ours so it's ludicrous to think we can sort it out. Treat fire with fire by getting the local nations to step up to the plate and get some public stonings, shamings and amputations on the go. This is the only language of discipline and order that these barbarians will understand or take any notice of.
Trying to force our ideals onto them is a hiding to nothing. They are nations and people based on fundamentally different values to ours so it's ludicrous to think we can sort it out. Treat fire with fire by getting the local nations to step up to the plate and get some public stonings, shamings and amputations on the go. This is the only language of discipline and order that these barbarians will understand or take any notice of.
Edited by dvs_dave on Thursday 26th November 16:50
Some arguments against bombing Syria...
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2015/11/dav...
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2015/11/dav...
Peter Hitchens said:
Some may argue that last week’s UN Security Council resolution changes this to some extent. However, the resolution was vague, not operational, and did not authorise military force.
As the New York Times pointed out here….
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/21/world/europe/un-...
…..the resolution offers ‘no legal basis for military action. Nor does it cite Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter, which authorizes the use of force.’
As the New York Times pointed out here….
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/21/world/europe/un-...
…..the resolution offers ‘no legal basis for military action. Nor does it cite Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter, which authorizes the use of force.’
The alternative to us bombing Syria is having a believable strategy.
This will mean,in the current scenario supporting Russia and Assad and realising that alliance forces on the ground will be necessary.
I am fully aware this is not in the West's best interests but let's solve one problem first.
If and when Isis is defeated it then means REMAINING in the area and REBUILDING the country and then 5 years down the line we might have stabilised Syria.
This will be very difficult as Assad has alienated many of his own people but removing him at this stage will only create more problems.
I do not believe just bombing Syria into oblivion will solve this most complex of problems.
I am astonished that we have not learnt the lessons from our campaigns in Libya and Iraq and Afghanistan.
There are no short cuts to these problems and no quick fixes.
The Muslim World is going through what could be a renaissance period similar to that whiich Europe went through centuries ago.
Most ordinary people in Africa and the Middle East are dirt poor and ruled by despots.
It could easily take a generation or more to solve the problems.
This will mean,in the current scenario supporting Russia and Assad and realising that alliance forces on the ground will be necessary.
I am fully aware this is not in the West's best interests but let's solve one problem first.
If and when Isis is defeated it then means REMAINING in the area and REBUILDING the country and then 5 years down the line we might have stabilised Syria.
This will be very difficult as Assad has alienated many of his own people but removing him at this stage will only create more problems.
I do not believe just bombing Syria into oblivion will solve this most complex of problems.
I am astonished that we have not learnt the lessons from our campaigns in Libya and Iraq and Afghanistan.
There are no short cuts to these problems and no quick fixes.
The Muslim World is going through what could be a renaissance period similar to that whiich Europe went through centuries ago.
Most ordinary people in Africa and the Middle East are dirt poor and ruled by despots.
It could easily take a generation or more to solve the problems.
Some interesting stuff in here about the military situation in Syria, the lack of targets to bomb and the strength of the 70,000 opposition troops referred to by Cameron.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/26/sy...
The idea of arming and training Syrian rebels doesn't seem to have worked too well for the US so far - $600m spent, only a handful of the trained rebels still fighting.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/26/sy...
The idea of arming and training Syrian rebels doesn't seem to have worked too well for the US so far - $600m spent, only a handful of the trained rebels still fighting.
I think history will show that bombing the st out of various groups in Syria will achieve nothing that couldn't otherwise have been achieved by other means, other than many more 1000s pf non-combatants dead directly at our hands.
Anyway, what is the status of Assad? Is he actually in Syria, holed up somewhere with the missus, crapping himself at his impending demise? He must be well protected if his enemies haven't got hear him yet, or if we have been unable to impose a bit of regime change on him.
If we had to esclate things and get troops on the ground (which must be an inevitability to achieve our goals, whatever they are) that will surely mean many British soliders coming home in boxes to RAF Lyneham. In which case, if ISIS were to stike a deal whereby they would give up their struggle without British forces loss of life in return for David Cameron giving himself over for execution, do we think Mr Cameron would be so willing to make that ultimate sacrifice himself?
t out of various groups in Syria will achieve nothing that couldn't otherwise have been achieved by other means, other than many more 1000s pf non-combatants dead directly at our hands.Anyway, what is the status of Assad? Is he actually in Syria, holed up somewhere with the missus, crapping himself at his impending demise? He must be well protected if his enemies haven't got hear him yet, or if we have been unable to impose a bit of regime change on him.
If we had to esclate things and get troops on the ground (which must be an inevitability to achieve our goals, whatever they are) that will surely mean many British soliders coming home in boxes to RAF Lyneham. In which case, if ISIS were to stike a deal whereby they would give up their struggle without British forces loss of life in return for David Cameron giving himself over for execution, do we think Mr Cameron would be so willing to make that ultimate sacrifice himself?
This is Cameron's big test and I am sorry to say that he is failing.
Why the ludicrous, disingenuous and even cynical level of argument?
Would air strikes make Britain a likelier target for attack? Wrong question. A. Britain is already a target B. Are they seriously saying that the main reason that Britain isn't wading in is because we are too chicken?
We need to join the campaign because not to do so would 'send the wrong signal' to ISIL? That is not an argument for anything. It is the crudest form of jingoism.
We need to stand with France after the recent attacks? That is not an argument for going to war and it doesn't make bombing right. Should we have stood with the USA in Vietnam?
The recent attacks prove that we need to do something about ISIL? Yes, but something intelligent and positive not something crazy.
Britain can make a big difference to the bombing campaign? Pull the other one. And what happens when the inevitable collateral damage happens and we bomb a school or a hospital.
There are 70,000 local troops ready to attack ISIL on the ground? They belong to a large number of different factions with different objectives many of whom hate each other and plenty of whom hate us.
What about all the key questions which are NOT being asked?
Why are we not putting more pressure on countries like Saudi Arabia to stop the funding of extremists?
Why not focus more on identifying and catching those who were actually responsible, some of whom were Belgian or French nationals.
What do the terrorists hope to achieve with terror attacks in the West? Surely one thing. For the Western Nations including the U.S. , Britain, France and Germany to rise up in concert and launch a war against them. These are by no coincidence basically the same nations that took part in the Crusades from 1093 to 1291. Young Muslims might be disgusted and repelled by murders in Paris, but they are going to feel differently when they witness a new Crusade in Syria, particularly one which involves large numbers of civilian casualties. They may well feel that the West regards European casualties as more important than Syrian ones. So why are we dancing to their tune and playing right into their hands?
Why are we not sitting down with the interested parties in the region and trying to work out a political settlement involving the locals. In the end we had to sit down and talk with the IRA and in the end we are going to have to sit down and talk to Iran, Russia, Assad, Al Quaeda, and probably even ISIL. Demonising any of these parties is only going to make that process longer and more difficult.
Do we still think that wars can be won by aerial bombing? Have we learnt nothing from Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya? That is Bomber Harris thinking. Let us accept now that all we are going to achieve is shed a whole lot of blood, much of it innocent, and destroy yet another country's infrastructure. The more blood that is spilt, the harder any settlement is going to be.
What are we going to say to the families of service people who die in this conflict? What will have been the purpose of their sacrifice? I am all for honouring our armed forces, and we are very good at Remembrance Services but we owe them a responsibility not to send them into danger purely for the benefit of our politicians short term interests. That is not protecting the country.
The Americans may feel that they have an axe to grind in the Middle East - to do with the balance of power, the relative influence of Russia and the security of Israel. These are the source of some of the difficulties in the Middle East, the Americans should recognise this and be a great deal more inclusive and less gung ho. Either way, these issues are simply not our fight. For example, why did the Turks consider it a good idea to shoot down a Russian jet? These are supposed to be partners in this great alliance? Who is pushing them to get aggressive with the Russians?
Why is there no sign of our leaders adopting an intelligent response to Paris? Let's face it, the only reason we are having this debate is because the Americans are pressuring us to support them.
Why the ludicrous, disingenuous and even cynical level of argument?
Would air strikes make Britain a likelier target for attack? Wrong question. A. Britain is already a target B. Are they seriously saying that the main reason that Britain isn't wading in is because we are too chicken?
We need to join the campaign because not to do so would 'send the wrong signal' to ISIL? That is not an argument for anything. It is the crudest form of jingoism.
We need to stand with France after the recent attacks? That is not an argument for going to war and it doesn't make bombing right. Should we have stood with the USA in Vietnam?
The recent attacks prove that we need to do something about ISIL? Yes, but something intelligent and positive not something crazy.
Britain can make a big difference to the bombing campaign? Pull the other one. And what happens when the inevitable collateral damage happens and we bomb a school or a hospital.
There are 70,000 local troops ready to attack ISIL on the ground? They belong to a large number of different factions with different objectives many of whom hate each other and plenty of whom hate us.
What about all the key questions which are NOT being asked?
Why are we not putting more pressure on countries like Saudi Arabia to stop the funding of extremists?
Why not focus more on identifying and catching those who were actually responsible, some of whom were Belgian or French nationals.
What do the terrorists hope to achieve with terror attacks in the West? Surely one thing. For the Western Nations including the U.S. , Britain, France and Germany to rise up in concert and launch a war against them. These are by no coincidence basically the same nations that took part in the Crusades from 1093 to 1291. Young Muslims might be disgusted and repelled by murders in Paris, but they are going to feel differently when they witness a new Crusade in Syria, particularly one which involves large numbers of civilian casualties. They may well feel that the West regards European casualties as more important than Syrian ones. So why are we dancing to their tune and playing right into their hands?
Why are we not sitting down with the interested parties in the region and trying to work out a political settlement involving the locals. In the end we had to sit down and talk with the IRA and in the end we are going to have to sit down and talk to Iran, Russia, Assad, Al Quaeda, and probably even ISIL. Demonising any of these parties is only going to make that process longer and more difficult.
Do we still think that wars can be won by aerial bombing? Have we learnt nothing from Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya? That is Bomber Harris thinking. Let us accept now that all we are going to achieve is shed a whole lot of blood, much of it innocent, and destroy yet another country's infrastructure. The more blood that is spilt, the harder any settlement is going to be.
What are we going to say to the families of service people who die in this conflict? What will have been the purpose of their sacrifice? I am all for honouring our armed forces, and we are very good at Remembrance Services but we owe them a responsibility not to send them into danger purely for the benefit of our politicians short term interests. That is not protecting the country.
The Americans may feel that they have an axe to grind in the Middle East - to do with the balance of power, the relative influence of Russia and the security of Israel. These are the source of some of the difficulties in the Middle East, the Americans should recognise this and be a great deal more inclusive and less gung ho. Either way, these issues are simply not our fight. For example, why did the Turks consider it a good idea to shoot down a Russian jet? These are supposed to be partners in this great alliance? Who is pushing them to get aggressive with the Russians?
Why is there no sign of our leaders adopting an intelligent response to Paris? Let's face it, the only reason we are having this debate is because the Americans are pressuring us to support them.
Edited by cardigankid on Friday 27th November 23:09
Edited by cardigankid on Friday 27th November 23:15
Tactically it would make more sense to help Assad defeat all the armed gangs and restore sovereignty of Syria. we should talk to him, and offer assistance alongside the Russians and give the legitimate Syrian army all the help it needs to defeat Daesh and everyone affiliated to it. The government in Syria needs to regain control of the situation but it can't if we, our allies, and the Saudis,and , and , and.... persist on undermining it and arming mercenaries. There is no such thing as moderate opposition. Anyone who takes up arms and ambush & kill Syrian soldiers/ policemen is part of the problem not the solution.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff