Jump to content

UK Politics - a new thread for the new board


Maltaran

Recommended Posts

Corbyn voted against the airstrikes in Iraq (the vote was in 2014). So he does disagree with fighting ISIS in Iraq.  It is exactly the same war; leaving ISIS's lands in Syria free from air attack obviously makes things easier for them across the board (and so in Iraq). I have no idea why we didn't just join in the strikes in Syria from the start: everyone else has.

Because it would achieve nothing without any reliable forces on the ground and create a shitstorm where different factions were all fighting one another rather than ISIS and we would get screwed over by our own allies. As has proven the case.

It is also only the same war from ISIS's point of view. From the outside, there is a unified opposition to ISIS in Iraq (well, more unified than Syria, anyway), opposing ground forces that have made headway and a somewhat straightforward strategy for victory. None of this applies in Syria.

Corbyn did want to whip the party; Abbott was making noises about this all over the weekend. He then found the SC too opposed, and Watson came up with a compromise. He has not removed any mechanism by which intimidation can be applied: have momentum disbanded while no one was looking? He was telling rebel MPs they have nowhere to hide just today. Cameron refused to give Corbyn the extra time he wished, perhaps in part because there is a sense support for him from labour is leaking away.

Cameron did give Corbyn the extra time, he just rolled it into one day rather than two. One of the MPs just congratulated on Bercow for staying in the speaker's chair for the whole seven hours (so far) without a break.

edit: suggesting intervening with air strikes in Syria, against ISIS (not Assad) has the potential to be as big a disaster as Iraq 2003 is daft. Diplomatic initiatives can go on at the same time as airstrikes.  

The military action in Syria overall has the potential to be as bad as in Iraq in 2003, yes, but you are quite correct: the UK joining the military action will have no measurable impact on the conflict and is indeed pointless.

Furthermore Cameron shouldn't have said what he said, because, while true

Except it isn't true, remotely and is in fact a deeply stupid, juvenile and insulting thing to say which shows zero appreciation of the complexities and nuances of the issues. Which is very much Cameron's understanding of the world.

I'm saying I can't see that there is a good reason to have Wert's position, i.e. that bombing in Iraq is a good idea but extending the bombing over the rest of ISIS is a bad idea. It never made much sense. 

Well, it does make sense, but only from a military, economic, political and moral position.

I'll lay it out again for you: a military victory (although a long-lasting political victory, maybe less so) in Iraq with the forces currently in play is possible. A military victory in Syria with the forces currently in play is completely impossible without a radical shift in how the conflict is being approached.

No, but Corbyn and McDonnell are. 

That's simple hyperbole. C'mon, don't just repeat slogans, why is Corbyn a terrorist sympathiser? For suggesting we make peace with the IRA? What does that make Major, Blair, Brown and Cameron who all pursued the same course?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because it would achieve nothing without any reliable forces on the ground and create a shitstorm where different factions were all fighting one another rather than ISIS and we would get screwed over by our own allies. As has proven the case.

It is also only the same war from ISIS's point of view. From the outside, there is a unified opposition to ISIS in Iraq (well, more unified than Syria, anyway), opposing ground forces that have made headway and a somewhat straightforward strategy for victory. None of this applies in Syria.

Cameron did give Corbyn the extra time, he just rolled it into one day rather than two. One of the MPs just congratulated on Bercow for staying in the speaker's chair for the whole seven hours (so far) without a break.

The military action in Syria overall has the potential to be as bad as in Iraq in 2003, yes, but you are quite correct: the UK joining the military action will have no measurable impact on the conflict and is indeed pointless.

Except it isn't true, remotely and is in fact a deeply stupid, juvenile and insulting thing to say which shows zero appreciation of the complexities and nuances of the issues. Which is very much Cameron's understanding of the world.

Well, it does make sense, but only from a military, economic, political and moral position.

I'll lay it out again for you: a military victory (although a long-lasting political victory, maybe less so) in Iraq with the forces currently in play is possible. A military victory in Syria with the forces currently in play is completely impossible without a radical shift in how the conflict is being approached.

That's simple hyperbole. C'mon, don't just repeat slogans, why is Corbyn a terrorist sympathiser? For suggesting we make peace with the IRA? What does that make Major, Blair, Brown and Cameron who all pursued the same course?

ISIS's lands in Syria and Iraq all form one state under their control, so refusing to bomb part of it because it used to be part of another state is not a good idea. It may be that airpower advances the anti-ISIS cause more in Iraq than Syria: it doesn't follow using airpower in Syria will do no good for the anti-ISIS cause at all.

Bombing ISIS in Syria shouldn't make the situation there any worse but it may play some role in preventing ISIS taking advantage of the mess and make them less able to fight effectively in Iraq. For instance, US airstrikes were crucial in defeating ISIS at Kobani: would you rather those fighters there had been free to be transferred back to Iraq? Finally, bombing in Syria doesn't have the potential to create as big a mess as the 2003 Iraq invasion: only Cameron's demented 2013 plan had the potential to do that (and the HoC wisely thwarted him).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't mention the IRA, though there is a clear difference between making peace with people you despise and supporting them when they are killing your countrymen. I was referring to his support for his "friends" in Hamas and Hezbollah, his relationship with Cage and his support for and joint appearances with known violent anti-Semites.

Please do not accuse me of parroting slogans. I am capable of independent thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ISIS's lands in Syria and Iraq all form one state under their control

Or, they form parts of two other states, temporarily and extralegally occupied by terrorists. Since the territory controlled by IS is not contiguous, but consists of bits and pieces, that would actually probably be a much better description.

I'm not sure why this is supposed to be relevant anyway. Even if we grant your view, those lands? They are bordered by different states. IS are fighting different forces in each part. The terrain is different. The occupied people are different. These are two different contexts, two different situations. If this is one state, it's a state where there are two different scenarios in two different parts of it.

It may be that airpower advances the anti-ISIS cause more in Iraq than Syria: it doesn't follow using airpower in Syria will do no good for the anti-ISIS cause at all.

'Maybe it'll do some good' isn't a very good argument for bombing in Syria either. We need details of exactly what good it will actually do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or, they form parts of two other states, temporarily and extralegally occupied by terrorists. Since the territory controlled by IS is not contiguous, but consists of bits and pieces, that would actually probably be a much better description.

I'm not sure why this is supposed to be relevant anyway. Even if we grant your view, those lands? They are bordered by different states. IS are fighting different forces in each part. The terrain is different. The occupied people are different. These are two different contexts, two different situations. If this is one state, it's a state where there are two different scenarios in two different parts of it.

'Maybe it'll do some good' isn't a very good argument for bombing in Syria either. We need details of exactly what good it will actually do.

 

For military purposes it is one state: they transfer fighters and resources within it, between different fronts. Refusing to shore up their foes on one front makes everything easier for them. I think this should be obvious ... 

On the bolded, I said maybe bombs in Syria do less good than bombs in Iraq, not maybe bombs in Syria will do some good.

In any case, I did give an example. ISIS's offensive against Kobani was thwarted by US airstrikes. The defeat dented their morale and meant those fighters couldn't be used in Iraq.

edit: Question for mormont: mormont, what's your view? Do you think the UK should be aiding the coalition bomb in Iraq but not Syria (like Wert) or do you think the UK should not be involved in military action in either Iraq or Syria (Corbyn's unstated position).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ISIS's lands in Syria and Iraq all form one state under their control, so refusing to bomb part of it because it used to be part of another state is not a good idea.

So, you have conceded control of Syria and Iraq to IS and the border between the two countries is irrelevant because IS thinks it is? Ignoring the fact that international law, the UN, the Syrian opposition forces, the NATO forces, the Russians, the Iranians, the Kurds, the Turkish and the Syrian and Iraqi people on the ground all think it does make a pretty big difference?

It may be that airpower advances the anti-ISIS cause more in Iraq than Syria: it doesn't follow using airpower in Syria will do no good for the anti-ISIS cause at all.

Indeed, and the allied bombing campaign has no doubt played a major role in preventing IS from achieving greater successes on the ground by reducing their ability to move, reinforce and resupply (although not enough to prevent them moving on Palmyra and Tikrit this year, it should be noted). But that's been going on for 18 months without us. The question of what tangible positive impact the addition of eight British aircraft to the Syrian warspace will be remains. And if the conclusion is that the addition of eight British aircraft to Syrian airspace is indeed crucial, than it also follows that the removal of eight British aircraft from Iraqi airspace will likewise have a noticeable, detrimental impact on operations there.

This is something which I think has also been undervalued in all of this: although it has been discussed that additional forces may be deployed to the area, right now and for the immediate future the aircraft attacking ISIS in Syria will be exactly the same aircraft currently bombing Iraq. Adding Syrian operations to their mandate means reducing their role in Iraq.

Bombing ISIS in Syria shouldn't make the situation there any worse 

No, but there is zero evidence it will make things any better. The removal of those aircraft from Iraq also means that either allied air operations over Iraq will be reduced, or the Americans will have to step up to replace them, and in the former case that does make things in Iraq worse, if marginally.

but it may play some role in preventing ISIS taking advantage of the mess and make them less able to fight effectively in Iraq.

Again, the question must be asked what our eight aircraft are going to do that hundreds of American, French, Russian, Syrian and Turkish aircraft are not already achieving? Despite some mildly bizarre claims to the contrary, neither the Tornado nor its ordinance brings anything to the table that is not available to other forces already engaged in action.

I didn't mention the IRA, though there is a clear difference between making peace with people you despise and supporting them when they are killing your countrymen. I was referring to his support for his "friends" in Hamas and Hezbollah, his relationship with Cage and his support for and joint appearances with known violent anti-Semites.

Corbyn's choice of words was not great. But then pretty much everyone involved in the situation acknowledges that Israel either has to abandon democracy and give up any pretence of being a reliable actor, or it has to sit down and talk to other parties including Hamas (at least) in order to achieve a lasting peace at some point (the context of the full quote). This is not an unreasonable position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For military purposes it is one state: they transfer fighters and resources within it, between different fronts. 

That doesn't make it 'one state' - I can drive to France, doesn't make it part of the UK.

But in any case, as I say - this is irrelevant. One state or two, it's two different areas, two different sets of circumstances. Two different fronts, if you like. It would be foolish to suggest that there are no differences that require different approaches.

Refusing to shore up their foes on one front makes everything easier for them. I think this should be obvious ... 

Beware the obvious. It's usually our unfounded assumptions pretending to be facts.

The 'foes' of IS on the ground are not the same in Syria as they are in Iraq. For one thing, those foes in Syria hate each other as much as they do IS. Their objectives don't all match ours. Some of them are backed by Russia, who have their own objectives, which also don't match ours. By contrast, in Iraq, the situation is much clearer.

On the bolded, I said maybe bombs in Syria do less good than bombs in Iraq, not maybe bombs in Syria will do some good.

Actually, what you said was that it 'shouldn't make the situation there any worse' and that 'it doesn't follow that using air power in Syria will do no good at all'. These are speculative statements about how bombing might, perhaps, work. Not explaining exactly how it will, in practice, work.

edit: Question for mormont: mormont, what's your view? Do you think the UK should be aiding the coalition bomb in Iraq but not Syria (like Wert) or do you think the UK should not be involved in military action in either Iraq or Syria (Corbyn's unstated position).

My view is that I recognise that these are two different situations, and that the government has not made the case for bombing in Syria: until and unless it does so, I think we shouldn't do it.

ETA  - 'unstated position', by the way, is a bullshit phrase. It just means 'this is what I think this other person is thinking'. It's trying to dress up a preconception as an insight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent. We now get to go and blow some shit up (once recon actually finds something left standing we can actually blow up). It doesn't matter what or why or who, or that there are no forces on the ground to follow up on such actions, we just get to go and do something so we can feel good about ourselves, and if any civilians get killed in the crossfire, who cares?

* high fives all around *

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That doesn't make it 'one state' - I can drive to France, doesn't make it part of the UK.

But in any case, as I say - this is irrelevant. One state or two, it's two different areas, two different sets of circumstances. Two different fronts, if you like. It would be foolish to suggest that there are no differences that require different approaches.

Beware the obvious. It's usually our unfounded assumptions pretending to be facts.

The 'foes' of IS on the ground are not the same in Syria as they are in Iraq. For one thing, those foes in Syria hate each other as much as they do IS. Their objectives don't all match ours. Some of them are backed by Russia, who have their own objectives, which also don't match ours. By contrast, in Iraq, the situation is much clearer.

Actually, what you said was that it 'shouldn't make the situation there any worse' and that 'it doesn't follow that using air power in Syria will do no good at all'. These are speculative statements about how bombing might, perhaps, work. Not explaining exactly how it will, in practice, work.

My view is that I recognise that these are two different situations, and that the government has not made the case for bombing in Syria: until and unless it does so, I think we shouldn't do it.

ETA  - 'unstated position', by the way, is a bullshit phrase. It just means 'this is what I think this other person is thinking'. It's trying to dress up a preconception as an insight.

There is one ISIS Caliphate not two. That is it is one state, with one government, one set of finances, one army, etc. If you are at war with a country it normally does not make sense to only bomb half of its armies or supplies lines, or to offer aid to only half of its enemies. 

In some ways the situation in Syria and Iraq is similar (ISIS is attacking and being fought) but in other ways the situation in Syria is different to the situation in Iraq, and there are different situations in the various parts of Iraq and Syria. However, if you think this rules out strikes in Syria it is up to you to show why this is relevant. You have not done so. You only gave me some facts about the situation in Syria, such as the fact that there are many factions, many of them opposed to each other. Why does that mean anti-ISIS forces, like the Syrian kurds, or the FSA, should not be given support like the Iraqi kurds (there may be a reason but you need to actually say what it is)? I, OTOH, gave examples as to how bombing in Syria stalls ISIS's advance and improves matters in Iraq. 

Again, I didn't say bombing in Syria will 'maybe do some good,' as you claimed. You are now repeating other statements of mine but not making an argument. 

You didn't answer my question. Do you support the bombing in Iraq or not?

Corbyn was the teller for the noes in the 2014 vote, and refused to say he backed the action in Iraq today. I'm more than happy to conclude he's against it. This is a deduction from evidence, not a preconception.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, in an ideal world it would have been much better to ignore IS on half their territory while pissing off our closest Allies and congratulating ourselves on our almost unbesmirched moral purity. 

Yes, in an ideal world it would have been much better to ignore Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction while pissing off our closest Ally and congratulating ourselves on our almost unbesmirched moral purity.

That argument worked out well for us and the region.

By bombing Syria we achieve. Nothing. Nothing at all. Nothing practical. Nothing military and nothing political. We will not achieve peace in Syria by this. We will not achieve the defeat of ISIS by this. We will not stop the flood of refugees by this. We will not achieve any kind of positive outcome without a coherent military force on the ground to actually hold territory or by some kind of diplomatic effort to stop the fighting between the other factions so they can focus on ISIS. Many of the "moderate" groups actually have zero interest in hurting ISIS, believing they act as a drain on the Syrian army's resources that allow them to achieve successes against Assad.

Not only are there no ground forces in Syria capable of taking on and defeating ISIS, there are no signs that one will appear soon. If Turkey sends in troops, it will be against Assad and not against ISIS (and Turkey is highly unlikely to intervene that strongly). The rebels are not strong enough and are disunified. The Syrian army is distracted by the other rebels and not exactly a reliable force in the best of times. Russian ground forces, if deployed, will first go after the "moderate" groups holding territory in the west and north-west of the country. Defeating ISIS in Syria in any kind of short term will require an international intervention force, probably involving NATO boots on the ground. Without that, there is no immediate prospect of ISIS being defeated in Syria. Put that option on the table, and I'd actually be more inclined to take it seriously.

I'm sure France and the US will make some kind of positive noise about this, but their several hundred-strong aerial forces were not exactly crying out for our assistance previously. And they would not get "pissed off" if we declined to hit ISIS in Raqqa but instead hit them in Ramadi and Mosul instead. That is a preposterous idea.

There is of course another, much more valid strategy available: double down in Iraq, help the Iraqi army retake Ramadi (the city is effectively besieged right now) and Mosul, use moderate ground forces if necessary, but drive out and destroy IS in Iraq with predominantly local forces. Fuck it, throw a party afterwards for the Kurds, the Sunni militias and the Iraqis (who have actually been working together, somehow, through all of this) and get them to talk about improving their country after the conflict. It might do some good. Then you also have an effective base near the Syrian border from where a couple of NATO divisions can drive on Raqqa in a few days through eastern Syria (which is almost wholly either ISIS-controlled or not controlled by anyone, in contrast to the chaotic west of the country) and take the city. Take Mosul and Raqqa and ISIS ceases to exist (to probably re-emerge five years down the line under some new name, but avoiding that in any case may be impossible).

It may also be worth noting at this point that of ISIS's actual manpower, some estimates place the majority of them in Iraq, and a very large chunk of them in Mosul, which they'd need to be to control a city of that size. If you actually want to destroy ISIS manpower, Iraq is very much the place to be.

What happened today instead of any consideration of actual political or military strategy is that the United Kingdom voted to go to war so that the Prime Minister could demonstrate that he, in fact, apparently has testicles. But no brains.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, in an ideal world it would have been much better to ignore Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction while pissing off our closest Ally and congratulating ourselves on our almost unbesmirched moral purity.

That argument worked out well for us and the region.

By bombing Syria we achieve. Nothing. Nothing at all. Nothing practical. Nothing military and nothing political. We will not achieve peace in Syria by this. We will not achieve the defeat of ISIS by this. We will not stop the flood of refugees by this. We will not achieve any kind of positive outcome without a coherent military force on the ground to actually hold territory or by some kind of diplomatic effort to stop the fighting between the other factions so they can focus on ISIS. Many of the "moderate" groups actually have zero interest in hurting ISIS, believing they act as a drain on the Syrian army's resources that allow them to achieve successes against Assad.

Not only are there no ground forces in Syria capable of taking on and defeating ISIS, there are no signs that one will appear soon. If Turkey sends in troops, it will be against Assad and not against ISIS (and Turkey is highly unlikely to intervene that strongly). The rebels are not strong enough and are disunified. The Syrian army is distracted by the other rebels and not exactly a reliable force in the best of times. Russian ground forces, if deployed, will first go after the "moderate" groups holding territory in the west and north-west of the country. Defeating ISIS in Syria in any kind of short term will require an international intervention force, probably involving NATO boots on the ground. Without that, there is no immediate prospect of ISIS being defeated in Syria. Put that option on the table, and I'd actually be more inclined to take it seriously.

I'm sure France and the US will make some kind of positive noise about this, but their several hundred-strong aerial forces were not exactly crying out for our assistance previously. And they would not get "pissed off" if we declined to hit ISIS in Raqqa but instead hit them in Ramadi and Mosul instead. That is a preposterous idea.

There is of course another, much more valid strategy available: double down in Iraq, help the Iraqi army retake Ramadi (the city is effectively besieged right now) and Mosul, use moderate ground forces if necessary, but drive out and destroy IS in Iraq with predominantly local forces. Fuck it, throw a party afterwards for the Kurds, the Sunni militias and the Iraqis (who have actually been working together, somehow, through all of this) and get them to talk about improving their country after the conflict. It might do some good. Then you also have an effective base near the Syrian border from where a couple of NATO divisions can drive on Raqqa in a few days through eastern Syria (which is almost wholly either ISIS-controlled or not controlled by anyone, in contrast to the chaotic west of the country) and take the city. Take Mosul and Raqqa and ISIS ceases to exist (to probably re-emerge five years down the line under some new name, but avoiding that in any case may be impossible).

It may also be worth noting at this point that of ISIS's actual manpower, some estimates place the majority of them in Iraq, and a very large chunk of them in Mosul, which they'd need to be to control a city of that size. If you actually want to destroy ISIS manpower, Iraq is very much the place to be.

What happened today instead of any consideration of actual political or military strategy is that the United Kingdom voted to go to war so that the Prime Minister could demonstrate that he, in fact, apparently has testicles. But no brains.

Maybe you should write to the Pentagon and tell them all about your plan if you think it's that good.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simplistic bloated rhetoric delivered strongly and passionately is still just simplistic bloated rhetoric. The praise for Hilary Benn's speech is outrageously OTT. All he said was that IS are bad and we should do something about it (well no shit, Sherlock!). Nothing he said countered the reasons for opposing airstrikes. It's not a question of airstrikes or nothing, it's a question of airstrikes or a superior alternative course of action that is less certain to cause the deaths of thousands of innocent bystanders.

Furthermore, if you were horrified by the terrorist attacks in Paris and the deaths of civilians there but not horrified by the certainty of many more civilians dying from these airstrikes in Syria, your sense of morality is quite frankly fucked up!

 

Now listen to a man extremely well qualified to speak sense on the subject

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is one ISIS Caliphate not two. That is it is one state, with one government, one set of finances, one army, etc. If you are at war with a country it normally does not make sense to only bomb half of its armies or supplies lines, or to offer aid to only half of its enemies. 

I'm going to reiterate this point, because I think it's important in principle. The territory occupied by IS is not a state and should not be referred to as such, even for the sake of argument. This is territory occupied by armed terrorists but which remains part of Iraq and Syria. Iraq and Syria are states. These areas are not. They are patches of ground under the control of a terrorist organisation.

We are not at war with a country, therefore. We're assisting two separate sovereign states with an internal problem that they happen to share.

You have to frame the issue in these terms because it's the sole foundation (and not a very sound one) for your argument. But even putting that aside, as I've pointed out, your argument doesn't work. These are two different fronts in whatever you want to term this conflict. Different circumstances demand different approaches.

In some ways the situation in Syria and Iraq is similar (ISIS is attacking and being fought) but in other ways the situation in Syria is different to the situation in Iraq, and there are different situations in the various parts of Iraq and Syria. However, if you think this rules out strikes in Syria it is up to you to show why this is relevant. You have not done so. You only gave me some facts about the situation in Syria, such as the fact that there are many factions, many of them opposed to each other. Why does that mean anti-ISIS forces, like the Syrian kurds, or the FSA, should not be given support like the Iraqi kurds (there may be a reason but you need to actually say what it is)? I, OTOH, gave examples as to how bombing in Syria stalls ISIS's advance and improves matters in Iraq. 

You gave one example of a successful action where US bombing was of assistance to one faction in one objective. You gave no examples at all of how UK bombing would help the situation generally.

When it comes to bombing, that is or should be a last resort, something we do when we have no other choice: so no, it's not up to me to justify why we should not be bombing. Not bombing is the default. The onus is always on those who think we should be bombing, to make their case.

What I have done, though, is point out why the situation is different and more complicated. As I said, and as Wert has detailed, our 'allies' in Syria have very different objectives, many of which are in conflict with each other. Many of them are seeking to weaken each other as much as they are IS. How do we progress our military objectives in that scenario? Where we're dependent for ground troops on factions who are not committed to those objectives, who have other goals, and who don't want to work together? Heck, where even our allies in the air campaign don't have the same aims? Does Turkey want to support the Kurds in their fight? Does Russia want to support anti-Assad forces? What happens if we support these factions and our allies are pissed off? What happens if our allies undermine these factions?

It's a bad idea to enter a bombing campaign without a clear idea of how you'll attain your goals; I can't see how we can have such a plan, when our 'allies' are working at cross-purposes. Complications will inevitably arise. Those will mean that achieving our objectives in Syria may be more difficult and costly than we are being led to believe, if it's possible at all.

You didn't answer my question. Do you support the bombing in Iraq or not?

I'm not 100% opposed to bombing in principle. But as I've said above: I believe bombing is a last resort. When you bomb people, inevitably, innocents will die. We can take all precautions to minimise that, but it will happen. We owe it to those people to ensure that we do it only when we're sure there is no other way to achieve our objectives and only when we're sure that it will achieve those objectives.

In the case of Iraq, I think we're a lot closer to having made that case. I'm not completely comfortable with it, but we should never be completely comfortable with dropping bombs on people, should we?

Presumably, this is when you pull out what you think is your trump card and say 'aha! But we can't achieve our objectives in Iraq without bombing in Syria too!', which would be a pretty inane response IMO. Again, IS is not a country, and even if it were, we're not invading it. We're not bombing in order to eliminate or defeat IS. We're doing so to weaken them so that others can defeat them. And we can weaken them by bombing in Iraq, without needing to do so in Syria. We could weaken them further, perhaps, by bombing in Syria also. But that requires a separate case to be made for bombing in Syria: one which, as I said, has not yet been made. The problems of expanding the campaign have not been addressed. All we've heard is a lot of war-rhetoric: 'these people are bad!', 'don't sympathise with the terrorists!', 'something must be done!', 'stand with our friends!'. Appeals to emotion and beating of drums, not actual arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to reiterate this point, because I think it's important in principle. The territory occupied by IS is not a state and should not be referred to as such, even for the sake of argument. This is territory occupied by armed terrorists but which remains part of Iraq and Syria. Iraq and Syria are states. These areas are not. They are patches of ground under the control of a terrorist organisation.

We are not at war with a country, therefore. We're assisting two separate sovereign states with an internal problem that they happen to share.

You have to frame the issue in these terms because it's the sole foundation (and not a very sound one) for your argument. But even putting that aside, as I've pointed out, your argument doesn't work. These are two different fronts in whatever you want to term this conflict. Different circumstances demand different approaches.

You gave one example of a successful action where US bombing was of assistance to one faction in one objective. You gave no examples at all of how UK bombing would help the situation generally.

When it comes to bombing, that is or should be a last resort, something we do when we have no other choice: so no, it's not up to me to justify why we should not be bombing. Not bombing is the default. The onus is always on those who think we should be bombing, to make their case.

What I have done, though, is point out why the situation is different and more complicated. As I said, and as Wert has detailed, our 'allies' in Syria have very different objectives, many of which are in conflict with each other. Many of them are seeking to weaken each other as much as they are IS. How do we progress our military objectives in that scenario? Where we're dependent for ground troops on factions who are not committed to those objectives, who have other goals, and who don't want to work together? Heck, where even our allies in the air campaign don't have the same aims? Does Turkey want to support the Kurds in their fight? Does Russia want to support anti-Assad forces? What happens if we support these factions and our allies are pissed off? What happens if our allies undermine these factions?

It's a bad idea to enter a bombing campaign without a clear idea of how you'll attain your goals; I can't see how we can have such a plan, when our 'allies' are working at cross-purposes. Complications will inevitably arise. Those will mean that achieving our objectives in Syria may be more difficult and costly than we are being led to believe, if it's possible at all.

I'm not 100% opposed to bombing in principle. But as I've said above: I believe bombing is a last resort. When you bomb people, inevitably, innocents will die. We can take all precautions to minimise that, but it will happen. We owe it to those people to ensure that we do it only when we're sure there is no other way to achieve our objectives and only when we're sure that it will achieve those objectives.

In the case of Iraq, I think we're a lot closer to having made that case. I'm not completely comfortable with it, but we should never be completely comfortable with dropping bombs on people, should we?

Presumably, this is when you pull out what you think is your trump card and say 'aha! But we can't achieve our objectives in Iraq without bombing in Syria too!', which would be a pretty inane response IMO. Again, IS is not a country, and even if it were, we're not invading it. We're not bombing in order to eliminate or defeat IS. We're doing so to weaken them so that others can defeat them. And we can weaken them by bombing in Iraq, without needing to do so in Syria. We could weaken them further, perhaps, by bombing in Syria also. But that requires a separate case to be made for bombing in Syria: one which, as I said, has not yet been made. The problems of expanding the campaign have not been addressed. All we've heard is a lot of war-rhetoric: 'these people are bad!', 'don't sympathise with the terrorists!', 'something must be done!', 'stand with our friends!'. Appeals to emotion and beating of drums, not actual arguments.

ISIS is a single state in practice, as it has one territory, army and government, as I explained. Refusing to bomb on one front passes up opportunities to weaken ISIS across the board, and lets them grow stronger in certain areas (which will eventually have to be retaken). Your argument doesn't even get close to rebutting this, because it is not addressed to the fact that ISIS is functioning as a state in practice (and Iraq and Syria certainly are not), even if it isn't in principle or in international law. The legal status of the Caliphate was never part of my argument, btw.

The situation in Syria has some differences to the situations in Iraq yes, but there is still no explanation as to why this makes bombing a bad idea. Bombing can still contain ISIS by preventing it making large coordinated assaults and can aid forces opposed to it, like the Syrian kurds, hold ground. This is the essential similarity. The fact these forces have different objectives doesn't mean we shouldn't support them against ISIS as whatever settlement we have for Syria we don't want ISIS to be any part of it.

Why does the fact our allies are tripping over each other mean we shouldn't support them if they are fighting ISIS? The fact our allies, the Turks, are bombing the kurds in Iraq, and have totally opposing goals to the kurds, doesn't mean we should stop supporting the kurds in Iraq, does it?

We have clear goals: to contain, and then degrade and roll back ISIS.

No, I'll just repeat the point that limiting ourselves to bombing in Iraq when ISIS have their HQ in Syria is silly. You have provided no reason to think this obvious and logical point is inane. You deny ISIS is a state, but as I explained it is for practical purposes, even if you don't want to dignify it with the title. Then you say we can weaken them just by bombing Iraq, which is true, but this doesn't explain why we shouldn't weaken them more, if we can, by also bombing them in the the rest of their state. Usually in military affairs you try to give yourself as big an advantage as possible. You've failed to really say what the problems with expanding the campaign are (and in fact, of the issues you've cited, some also apply in Iraq).

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to reiterate this point, because I think it's important in principle. The territory occupied by IS is not a state and should not be referred to as such, even for the sake of argument. This is territory occupied by armed terrorists but which remains part of Iraq and Syria. Iraq and Syria are states. These areas are not. They are patches of ground under the control of a terrorist organisation.

We are not at war with a country, therefore. We're assisting two separate sovereign states with an internal problem that they happen to share.

The United Kingdom is assisting one sovereign state, Iraq, and indirectly assisting an internal problem in another by maintaining support for the Syrian armed opposition. The US-led bombing campaign against ISIS in Syria is a violation of Syrian government sovereignty, though I've yet to see that argument raised in opposition to UK entry.

Regarding ISIS, statehood isn't as clear-cut a category as is being assumed here. Just in terms of recognition there are internationally-recognised states that in practice do not have a monopoly on force across much or most of their nominal territory as well as large stable polities that languish on the sidelines of recognised statehood. I think it's accurate to say that ISIS aspires to sovereignty, albeit of a fairly unique kind that doesn't recognise the legitmacy of any other, and is in control of its current territory, both of which put it somewhere on the spectrum of sovereign statehood.

And we can weaken them by bombing in Iraq, without needing to do so in Syria. We could weaken them further, perhaps, by bombing in Syria also. But that requires a separate case to be made for bombing in Syria: one which, as I said, has not yet been made. The problems of expanding the campaign have not been addressed. All we've heard is a lot of war-rhetoric: 'these people are bad!', 'don't sympathise with the terrorists!', 'something must be done!', 'stand with our friends!'. Appeals to emotion and beating of drums, not actual arguments.

Britain has eight planes bombing Iraq, and now Syria. This might go up to sixteen. If the intensity of the debate was any guide a passer-by would be pretty safe in thinking the number was closer to 160. Almost all the problems of expanding the campaign in Syria are already present with the current campaign against Iraq. Britain supports the US-led campaign in Syria and shares the same diplomatic program, regardless of whether its planes are deployed there. Yet somehow, a sizeable chunk of the political class just managed to convince themselves they were Churchill in 1940, just as their opponents strove to match Robin Cook in 2003. This leads me to think that the crux of the matter isn't to be found in Syria.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...