DaveP said:
I have listened to the debate all day. I have heard speakers both for and against extending British involvement into Syria.
I have heard speakers ranging from great passion and eloquence to those of weasel words. There are some who seem to have their finger on the pulse and those to whom it's all too much to take in. It is of course Democracy in action but it's scary to watch because so many don't seem up to speed, there are people on this forum who know more about what's going on in the world. Maybe it's because we are all techies at heart that we like to know how things work.
Representative government is messy, and many in office are poorly, or mis-informed. Not that we have perfect knowledge. In an ideal world they are better informed than we by the intelligence community.
What comes across to me is that the Iraq debacle has seriously f***ed up all our decision making.
I really hate how history gets re-written to push different political conclusions and agendas. I realize that the UK had a slightly different experience in IRAQ. IIRC the british forces were concentrated in southern Iraq,
For some people on the left even the UN resolution 2249 is not enough justification to get involved.
Indeed... both polar extremes exist with perma-hawks around too.
Some people want certainty of outcome in a world where certainty is not on offer.
Certainty in warfare does not exist, because the enemy gets a vote too.
Fighting in Syria is "really" complicated as has already been discussed in another thread. ISIL has been tolerated and even supported by the Assad regime as a useful decoy to draw attention from him and his behavior. It appears the Assad regime has been buying oil from ISIL, and preferentially targeting anti-Assad rebels over ISIL. .
France, our closest ally, has asked for our help, but some are not moved by that request.
NATO membership should compel other members to come to their assistance but there is a school of (political) thought that we should just tolerate a number of these terrorist attacks as the new normal, and deal with them as isolated crimes not coordinated acts of war.
We are a member of the Security Council and with that privilege comes a responsibility, some don't seem to appreciate what that means.
The security council has long been influenced by competing interests. China and Russia as permanent members make agreement difficult. At the moment among the smaller members I don't see Venezuela as being very supportive.
Hillary Benn just gave an outstanding speech worthy of a party leader and better than anything his father ever did.
Do our American Cousins find the same things in their Congress??
Best
DaveP
To be honest, we don't have the same kind of public open outcry debate like you do. We are already active in the region from the air, so arguments if any would be about degree. Perhaps we should review the rules of engagement that are severely limiting the effectiveness of the already limited air campaign. I believe the US just announced another 50 special forces in the region while the US force level in Iraq has slowly ramped up to a few thousand (3,500?).
The campaigner in chief is more aggressive about fighting climate change than ISIL, but I have noticed one nuanced change. Lately he has started calling them Daesh, instead of ISIL. Daesh is considered pejorative by them so at least more disrespectful language if not action (but he is similarly disrespectful of Republicans).
There are several huge elephants in the room.
-Russia bringing anti-aircraft batteries into Syria raises the question of why. Apparently to prevent western air campaigns against Assad. Russia recently sold anti-aircraft weapons to Iran which will complicate any military intervention against their nuclear program.
-Where is the support from other countries in the region. Why do all the refugees get funneled up to the EU and other western countries, not the nearby middle eastern countries, with the exception of while passing through?
-Who is going to provide the boots on the ground? Ground troops to be effective, and provide long term security need to come from the region, and remain in place for years. The west is more than willing to rain armaments from above, but ISIL has already adjusted to that by digging in underground so any real conclusion to this will require effective ground forces (like the Kurdish peshmerga in retaking Sinjar). But Turkey and even Baghdad is apprehensive about too much Kurdish power in the region.
-Another example about the severely limiting rules of engagement, the Iraqi army has been dropping leaflets on Ramadi warning of the imminent plan to retake Ramadi from ISIL. ISIL in classic fighting dirty response, has threatened to kill any civilians who try to leave, so they will remain and serve as human shields. These are bad people, and it will be difficult to surgically remove them after they have dug in. Difficult but not impossible, they have been pushed back by effective ground campaigns when mounted.
The air campaign is mostly a feel good demonstration of "see we are doing something" . The recent strategic shift to bomb oil trucks and oil infrastructure is a slightly more productive effort to reduce cash flow to ISIL, but the real focus should be on who is buying all that oil? While I don't see much recourse against Assad, Turkey needs to seal their border with Syria and stop the smuggling there.
Interesting times, but until we see an effective (regional/local) ground force this will just be more of the same. Now that Russia has Assad's back, he will likely regain power and survive his civil war in Syria. Russia in providing that support is actively bombing western assets and western supported forces. Adding western ground troops to the mix invites direct conflict with Russia. We almost forget Iran in this noise, but they are also on the ground there supporting Assad.
I am not very religious, but if you are, now would be a good time to pray.
JR
