UK Politics - a new thread for the new board

[mormont]

ISIS is a single state in practice, as it has one territory, army and government, as I explained.

I'd dispute that it is one territory, in many sense, or that the government is functional enough to meet the definition, but whatever. The point is that this is not a country. This is an area that falls within the borders of two existing countries. Two very different countries.

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).

How does that work, then? If this is one territory, and half of it is under constant attack, and the half that isn't has a veritable river of people fleeing (to be replaced by a tiny trickle of people arriving), how is that other half getting stronger? Where is this additional strength coming from? Not from the Iraqi territory controlled by IS, certainly.

I mean, you've admitted that bombing Iraq weakens this single territory or state or whatever, overall - now you seem to be saying that the Syrian areas can grow stronger independently of the Iraqi areas. That's.. not consistent.

Those areas will have to be retaken anyway, but who are they going to be retaken by? That's one of the answers I'm asking for before we even begin. You should be too.

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.

Yes, there is. Having explained it twice, I'm not inclined to go into it a third time. Instead I'll ask a few questions. Who are we helping? What are we helping them to do? What will happen once we've weakened IS, and how do we predict or control that? If our 'allies' wind up stronger as a result, will they use this strength to tackle IS or will they fight each other instead? What does Syria look like once we've finished bombing? Is it a viable state at that point? What is our end game? If we accept, as every military expert does, that we cannot eliminate IS by bombing alone, at what point do we stop bombing and how do we stop IS coming back? What, in short, is our plan? ('Bomb IS' is not a plan, by the way: and 'contain, degrade and roll back IS' is just 'bomb IS' by way of a thesaurus.) Do you have credible answers for these questions? I've heard none.

We do not currently have a plan. We have an urge to make a gesture instead.

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.

Again, I have. And you appear to largely accept it: you admit that bombing in Iraq will weaken IS, even if it does not do so as quickly as bombing in Syria. So it would clearly not be illogical to be in favour of bombing in one area but not another. At worst, you can argue it's less effective, but that's not the same thing at all as illogical.

As to why one would choose the less effective strategy, that's because there are risks and costs as well as benefits, and in the case of Syria those risks and costs outweigh the benefits. 

You ultimately seem to want to look at the whole area as being just one undifferentiated chunk of territory, ignoring the political context - a blinkered approach. I don't think that's a good idea.

[Chaircat Meow]

I'd dispute that it is one territory, in many sense, or that the government is functional enough to meet the definition, but whatever. The point is that this is not a country. This is an area that falls within the borders of two existing countries. Two very different countries.

How does that work, then? If this is one territory, and half of it is under constant attack, and the half that isn't has a veritable river of people fleeing (to be replaced by a tiny trickle of people arriving), how is that other half getting stronger? Where is this additional strength coming from? Not from the Iraqi territory controlled by IS, certainly.

I mean, you've admitted that bombing Iraq weakens this single territory or state or whatever, overall - now you seem to be saying that the Syrian areas can grow stronger independently of the Iraqi areas. That's.. not consistent.

Those areas will have to be retaken anyway, but who are they going to be retaken by? That's one of the answers I'm asking for before we even begin. You should be too.

Yes, there is. Having explained it twice, I'm not inclined to go into it a third time. Instead I'll ask a few questions. Who are we helping? What are we helping them to do? What will happen once we've weakened IS, and how do we predict or control that? If our 'allies' wind up stronger as a result, will they use this strength to tackle IS or will they fight each other instead? What does Syria look like once we've finished bombing? Is it a viable state at that point? What is our end game? If we accept, as every military expert does, that we cannot eliminate IS by bombing alone, at what point do we stop bombing and how do we stop IS coming back? What, in short, is our plan? ('Bomb IS' is not a plan, by the way: and 'contain, degrade and roll back IS' is just 'bomb IS' by way of a thesaurus.) Do you have credible answers for these questions? I've heard none.

We do not currently have a plan. We have an urge to make a gesture instead.

Again, I have. And you appear to largely accept it: you admit that bombing in Iraq will weaken IS, even if it does not do so as quickly as bombing in Syria. So it would clearly not be illogical to be in favour of bombing in one area but not another. At worst, you can argue it's less effective, but that's not the same thing at all as illogical.

As to why one would choose the less effective strategy, that's because there are risks and costs as well as benefits, and in the case of Syria those risks and costs outweigh the benefits. 

You ultimately seem to want to look at the whole area as being just one undifferentiated chunk of territory, ignoring the political context - a blinkered approach. I don't think that's a good idea.

Everything I've heard suggests the Caliphate is one territory with a single government, army etc. I have no interest in whether it is a country or not.

Refusing to bomb in Syria means ISIS will have an easier time defeating its foes in Syria, and so will be more effective in Iraq (morale will be higher, more fighters will be available from Syria, etc). If unimpeded by airstrikes in Syria it will find it easier to conquer and hold territory, thereby expanding its borders and resources (this is arguably what happened when the US refused to get involved wrt Palmyra). I fail to detect any inconsistency here ... Ultimately this will make it harder for us to contain and beat ISIS in both Syria and Iraq.

You explained nothing wrt why the differences between the Syrian situation and the Iraqi mean Syira should not be bombed but Iraq should be. You've only said the situation is different in Syria to Iraq, although, actually, most of the issues you've now cited hold true for Iraq too.

The purpose of bombing is ultimately to facilitate the defeat of ISIS on the ground by some kind of muslim force. However, we are also aiding anti-ISIS forces to simply hold their positions and lands, even if those forces do not intend to take the fight to ISIS beyond certain geographical frontiers (this is true of the Iraqi kurds for instance). The hope is that eventually some deal will be reached in Syria between the remnants of the Assad regime and sections of the opposition, and the military of this re-forged state will take on ISIS. In the meantime it makes little sense to allow ISIS to make further advances in Syria. In Iraq we hope the Iraqi army will improve to the point it can retake land held by ISIS (although so far little seems to be being done to show how we can hold the Sunni areas with a Shia dominated Iraqi state). It was stressed during the debate yesterday that no one thinks this war can be won without success on the diplomatic front in Syria.

Unless there's a good reason to respect the now defunct Iraqi-Syria border you haven't proved that the obvious and logical point about the need to bomb ISIS across all of its state is inane. The fact bombing ISIS anywhere is likely to do some good is not a counterargument of any kind. By the same logic we should refuse to help the Iraq kurds, because bombing ISIS only on its southern border will at least do some good. Such a decision would be illogical, because there is no reason for it, given our objectives, and its the same wrt Syria. It is indeed illogical to opt for a less effective course over a more effective one if you want to achieve your objectives.

I'm not ignoring the political context. I'm pointing out that given the purposes of the bombing there is no reason to think those political differences constitute a reason to bomb on some fronts and not on others at all.

[Werthead]

Refusing to bomb in Syria means ISIS will have an easier time defeating its foes in Syria, and so will be more effective in Iraq (morale will be higher, more fighters will be available from Syria, etc). If unimpeded by airstrikes in Syria it will find it easier to conquer and hold territory, thereby expanding its borders and resources (this is arguably what happened when the US refused to get involved wrt Palmyra). I fail to detect any inconsistency here ... Ultimately this will make it harder for us to contain and beat ISIS in both Syria and Iraq.

Strawman argument. You are saying what will happen if everyone stops bombing in Syria. This will not happen. Russia, France, the United States and Syria continuing to bomb ISIS in the Syria. The practical impact of the UK's contribution to the bombing campaign is and will continue to be negligible in Syria because everyone else is bombing there as well. OTOH, Turkey, Russia and Syria are not involved in bombing in Iraq, so the contribution of the UK to the air campaign there (where only the US and some other NATO forces are in direct action otherwise) is more notable. There are also clear lines of communication between the Iraqi Army and Allied air forces, and between the Kurds and Allied air forces (on a much more limited scale, also with the Sunni militias). No such clear lines of communication exist between the air forces in Syria and the ground forces, only between the Russians and the Syrian government forces, which means a confused shitstorm mess in Syria.

You have also ignored the point I made that the majority of ISIS's ground forces are currently in Iraq, not in Syria, so stripping forces from Iraq to engage numerically inferior enemy forces in Syria is not only militarily nonsensical but actually dangerous in allowing ISIS greater freedom of movement in Iraq.

[Chaircat Meow]

Strawman argument. You are saying what will happen if everyone stops bombing in Syria. This will not happen. Russia, France, the United States and Syria continuing to bomb ISIS in the Syria. The practical impact of the UK's contribution to the bombing campaign is and will continue to be negligible in Syria because everyone else is bombing there as well. OTOH, Turkey, Russia and Syria are not involved in bombing in Iraq, so the contribution of the UK to the air campaign there (where only the US and some other NATO forces are in direct action otherwise) is more notable. There are also clear lines of communication between the Iraqi Army and Allied air forces, and between the Kurds and Allied air forces (on a much more limited scale, also with the Sunni militias). No such clear lines of communication exist between the air forces in Syria and the ground forces, only between the Russians and the Syrian government forces, which means a confused shitstorm mess in Syria.

You have also ignored the point I made that the majority of ISIS's ground forces are currently in Iraq, not in Syria, so stripping forces from Iraq to engage numerically inferior enemy forces in Syria is not only militarily nonsensical but actually dangerous in allowing ISIS greater freedom of movement in Iraq.

So you don't object to bombing ISIS in Syria! And here the argument ends. I have never seen anyone argue so vehemently against something that they agree with.

I am also not going to play armchair general. The decision as to where to focus airpower lies with the American commanders of the coalition forces. It is a military decision. If they feel the UK planes are best utilized in Iraq they will still do their work there.

 

[polishgenius]

It is possible to think that something needs to be done about ISIS in Syria of which bombing may well be a part while still realising that Cameron's campaign is a badly thought out, opportunistic piece of work designed with nothing more in mind than protecting him politically, you realise?

[Werthead]

So you don't object to bombing ISIS in Syria! And here the argument ends. I have never seen anyone argue so vehemently against something that they agree with.

Second strawman argument. The discussion was never about the ongoing, futile military operations launched by other countries but about the UK's role in the reality operation. Clearly, since we are never going to stop the US, France and Russians bombing targets in Syria (if most of them unrelated to ISIS). I'm not sure why you thought that argument was being made, save for the fact that pretending it was is the only way that your position makes any sense.

That the UK has no concrete role to play in Syria and that any action taken by the UK or others in Syria with no credible ground forces to back them up is pointless is not in dispute by any side in this debate. The pro-intervention argument boils down to a desire to see us flying the flag and a desire to see David Cameron going to war because it makes him look tough and distracts from his own domestic issues (the "long-drawn out military campaign" he spoke of today is just the thing to regrettably delay that EU vote indefinitely if it looks like he'll lose it, isn't it?) and absolutely nothing else.

I am also not going to play armchair general.

But you are willing to play armchair politician and armchair diplomat, apparently?

[The Marquis de Leech]

Another bit of evidence on Corbyn's electability:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2015/dec/03/oldham-byelection-labour-corbyn-ukip-challenge-in-first-test-of-corbyns-popularity-live

 

[mormont]

Everything I've heard suggests the Caliphate is one territory with a single government, army etc. I have no interest in whether it is a country or not.

Here's an interesting comparison, and we don't have to look very far. Kurdistan is a single territory, or at least the Kurds (our allies in this very issue) view it as such. They are in effective control of large parts of it.

Happily, neither Saddam (in the past) nor the Turks (in the past and now) could ignore international borders in fighting the Kurds despite this. However, that does not mean that the Kurds were not badly weakened by these attacks, or that they grew stronger in areas not under assault.

So sometimes, wars are not fought across international borders just because that's where the enemy is, or that's what they regard as their single indivisible territory. Why not? Because there are obstacles in the way: the cost is too high. Because we can't simply ignore extant borders on the grounds that we really want to. And if, like the US, you effectively have the power to do so? Well, that does not make it wise to do so.

Having said that, apparently we are doing so. So, that's that. I'm not happy about it, I think it's a terrible idea, I think it's a case of MPs being stampeded into a decision with emotive rhetoric, I know there is no real plan, and I believe it is ultimately an expensive and wasteful gesture made to benefit David Cameron's political position domestically and internationally rather than a sound military decision made on the basis of the evidence. But it's happening anyway, so there we are.

[Chaircat Meow]

Here's an interesting comparison, and we don't have to look very far. Kurdistan is a single territory, or at least the Kurds (our allies in this very issue) view it as such. They are in effective control of large parts of it.

Happily, neither Saddam (in the past) nor the Turks (in the past and now) could ignore international borders in fighting the Kurds despite this. However, that does not mean that the Kurds were not badly weakened by these attacks, or that they grew stronger in areas not under assault.

So sometimes, wars are not fought across international borders just because that's where the enemy is, or that's what they regard as their single indivisible territory. Why not? Because there are obstacles in the way: the cost is too high. Because we can't simply ignore extant borders on the grounds that we really want to. And if, like the US, you effectively have the power to do so? Well, that does not make it wise to do so.

Having said that, apparently we are doing so. So, that's that. I'm not happy about it, I think it's a terrible idea, I think it's a case of MPs being stampeded into a decision with emotive rhetoric, I know there is no real plan, and I believe it is ultimately an expensive and wasteful gesture made to benefit David Cameron's political position domestically and internationally rather than a sound military decision made on the basis of the evidence. But it's happening anyway, so there we are.

There could be a cost in ignoring a border. If Iraq was wary of taking its fight with the kurds into Turkey this may have something to do with there being a lot more Turks than there are Iraqis, and them having a pretty good army (for the Middle East). Not really sure why this applies in Syria. The Turks are actually ignoring the border now to fight the kurds themselves. Anyway, there is only something we could call a Kurdish state in Iraq. Kurds live in other countries around Iraq, but they don't all live under a single government, or have a single army, so they don't function as a state.

In other news, Labour surpasses expectations in Oldham. I never expected them to lose the seat, but the size of their lead over UKIP was a surprise. The intimidation of the Blairites by the Corbynites is also continuing. Stella Creasy, the MP for Walthamstow, is coming under particularly furious attack.

[Hereward]

Another bit of evidence on Corbyn's electability:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2015/dec/03/oldham-byelection-labour-corbyn-ukip-challenge-in-first-test-of-corbyns-popularity-live

 

No evidence at all. A 40% turnout and a right-wing candidate with a strong local presence (and an endorsement from the Economist).

[mormont]

There could be a cost in ignoring a border. If Iraq was wary of taking its fight with the kurds into Turkey this may have something to do with there being a lot more Turks than there are Iraqis, and them having a pretty good army (for the Middle East). Not really sure why this applies in Syria.

It doesn't, and I never suggested it did. I said that there is a cost to ignoring borders. Clearly that's not the same in every case. In the case of Syria, the cost is getting involved in an ongoing civil war with multiple sides who have different objectives from ours  - namely defeating each other, which they regard as equally or more important than defeating IS - and who are backed by external powers who, despite being theoretically our allies, also have different and conflicting objectives (Turkey and Russia). Few of those factions appear to be less problematic than IS itself and those that do have little chance of winding up in control of Syria, for whatever reason.

In other words, we're wading into a river of shit. Don't be surprised if we find ourselves up to our necks in it.

In other news, Labour surpasses expectations in Oldham. I never expected them to lose the seat, but the size of their lead over UKIP was a surprise. The intimidation of the Blairites by the Corbynites is also continuing. Stella Creasy, the MP for Walthamstow, is coming under particularly furious attack.

I dunno. I keep hearing about how scared and intimidated these moderate Labour MPs are - largely because they keep running to journalists to feed them stories about it. I'm not denying that there has been unacceptable behaviour by some on the left, but it strikes me it would be naive to pretend that the Blairites are not in turn making use of that in their own attempts to undermine a leader they never wanted.

[The Marquis de Leech]

No evidence at all. A 40% turnout and a right-wing candidate with a strong local presence (and an endorsement from the Economist).

Funny how this was billed as a referendum on Corbyn in the lead up - with a media just waiting for a bad Labour result. Since the actual result was an excellent Labour result, they've had to find excuses.

Fact is, I'm fully prepared to accept the argument that Labour's performance in Oldham hinged on local factors and a good candidate. Fine. It's just that if Corbyn were apocalyptically toxic, he would have outweighed those other factors - not least since (1) your average voter in Oldham is unlikely to read The Economist, and (2) this by-election was tailor-made for those grumpy with Corbyn to sit on their hands and let the leader take the blame. As it is, the by-election has arguably helped heal a rift. The new MP may have been a Kendall supporter, but he's publicly expressed positive things about Corbyn. 

[Chaircat Meow]

Probably the first thing that has gone well for Jez since he became leader.

[Hereward]

Just because the media were hoping this would provide a good opportunity to put the boot into Corbyn and were dissappointed, doesn't say anything about Corbyn's electability. His electability does not hinge on his ability to hold on to seats like Oldham. 

[mormont]

I think there's an element of people wanting to have it both ways - some people who would have enthusiastically seized on a loss as an indictment of Corbyn are undoubtedly now lining up to explain why the win is not an endorsement of him. And they may not even be wrong.
(Although Roose is right that it at least indicates there is some limit to the impact Corbyn might have.)

The takeaway is that people will tend to interpret data in the way that suits the story they prefer. Nothing new in that. It's human nature. More data is needed before we can say that any of those interpretations are wrong.

[SeanF]

I think there's an element of people wanting to have it both ways - some people who would have enthusiastically seized on a loss as an indictment of Corbyn are undoubtedly now lining up to explain why the win is not an endorsement of him. And they may not even be wrong.
(Although Roose is right that it at least indicates there is some limit to the impact Corbyn might have.)

The takeaway is that people will tend to interpret data in the way that suits the story they prefer. Nothing new in that. It's human nature. More data is needed before we can say that any of those interpretations are wrong.

That's not inherently unreasonable.  Had Labour lost (or nearly lost) a safe seat, that would have been a frightfully bad result.  Whereas holding a safe seat comfortably is necessary, but by no means sufficient, to win power.

Undoubtedly, though, the result was far better than most people (including many Labour MPs) were expecting.

But, the polling is still terrible for Labour.

[Chaircat Meow]

Islamic terror strikes London in machete attack at Leytonstone Station.

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/machete-wielding-man-stabs-victim-in-tube-station/ar-AAg3NAj?li=AAaeUIW&ocid=HPCDHP

[HexMachina]

That article doesnt actually mention the IS bit, although i know what you are referring to. This one does though. And contains a video link too. The video is...well the pool of blood is gruesome, but the casual way bystanders just wander around baffles me.

 

Worth noting too that knife wielder is only alleged to have said "For Syria" and thr Met havent confirmed this (or hadnt last time i checked)

[mormont]

Also, it's reported to be a knife with a three inch blade. That's... definitely not a machete.

[Maltaran]

#YouAintNoMuslimBruv is such a typical London response.