Bombing Syria

[BerwickMad]

Btw, from what I have read and heard I would be against it, but the level of debate is horrific. If you need to resort to calling people terrorist sympathisers on one side, or 'war hungry' on the other side like that Herald columnist, you're not doing very well at winning an argument.

[yoda]

There's an interesting-ish article on the Washington Post website by Stephen Biddle and Jacob Shapiro. It's from a US-perspective (but obviously applies to the UK since we would be joining the US-led coalition, wouldn't we?) but calls for a containment policy as, to steal a phrase from a different article, "the least bad option":

A containment strategy would try to limit the Islamic State’s lethality and contagion, and wait for the Islamic State to collapse from within — as it almost certainly will.

The Islamic State will eventually exhaust its ability to support a war effort. Its territory is mostly desert with little economic activity. Oil production is dropping, partly because equipment is bombed or failed and partly for lack of experienced management. What oil is sold goes at a discount rate. Taxes are the main source of revenue, and they appear to be high and unpredictably imposed.

Those who can flee often do, resulting in serious drain of human capital. The group’s treasury will surely erode over time: two decades of research in economics and politics have shown that highly extractive autocracies cannot sustain economic growth.

Of course this is far from ideal. It could take many years for the Islamic State to exhaust its economy. Meanwhile it would still pose a terror threat. And the way containment would end that threat is by slowly strangling the Islamic State’s economy, which means impoverishing the population. Containment thus means real suffering for millions of innocents trapped in places like Raqqa, Mosul, and Ramadi, innocents who are already being kept in place with coercive measures.

But what alternative is there? Moving a little bit further, a little bit faster, up the escalation ladder by adding only 10-20,000 more troops will increase the costs to Americans—without much changing the outcome. We’ve seen this movie before.

To paraphrase Churchill, the evidence suggests that containment is the worst option except for all the others. Nothing in the Paris attacks changes this regrettable fact.

[Baxter Parp]

This,

I hate the idea of getting involved in Syria again but ISIS need to know that they can't get away with these kind of cowardly attacks Scott free. I think that regardless of what choice was made it would encourage attacks.

They're already being bombed by about ten other countries.

[Baxter Parp]

Believing there should be a free vote rather than parties whipping their MPs is an entirely valid opinion.

And the reaction in some of the tweets I saw was embarrassing. Pictures of crying kids and the like. Because there all picking flowers and playing on roundabouts at the moment of course.

It's not an easy decision, but some of the idiots who seem to imply that we would be deliberately targeting 'bairns' is as bad one way as Cameron's terrorist sympathiser bollocks is the other way.

Not bombing people is SNP policy, of course it's a three-line whip. "Bairns" will die because of the bombing if it goes ahead, you can count on that.

[Baxter Parp]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/syria-air-strikes-poll-shows-uk-is-divided-over-decision-to-extend-bombing-a6756171.html

According to voteScotland-England, a new online polling organisation based on registered voters, a clear majority of Scots, 72 per cent, are against air strikes that could intensify the hatred of Isis towards the UK.

In England, those in favour of the air strikes, 54 per cent, back the line that an escalation of military action is necessary to prevent Isis terrorists becoming stronger in the Middle East and beyond.

[doulikefish]

Not bombing people is SNP policy, of course it's a three-line whip. "Bairns" will die because of the bombing if it goes ahead, you can count on that.

Maybe it is but snp mps on twitter basically telling people that nobody has told them how to vote

[ICTJohnboy]

They're already being bombed by about ten other countries.

Indeed.

And as Obama said the other day it's not aircraft they're short of here it's identifiable targets.

Is there really a desperate need for us to be there?

.

Edited December 2, 2015 by ICTJohnboy

[strichener]

Indeed.

And as Obama said the other day it's not aircraft they're short of here it's identifiable targets.

Is they're really a desperate need for us to be there?

There is a desperate need for us to be seen there. I wonder if they will use the International Development budget to pay for it.

[Baxter Parp]

Maybe it is but snp mps on twitter basically telling people that nobody has told them how to vote

Probably because the whip hadn't been issued.

[kevthedee]

If they have any sense at all they'll avoid discussing it at work so you don't have to realise how racist your co-workers actually are.

Racist against who ??

[THE KING]

Cameron: Sadly it's inevitable they'll attack us if we bomb them. But if they're going to attack us, we need to stop them. By bombing them.

[welshbairn]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/syria-air-strikes-poll-shows-uk-is-divided-over-decision-to-extend-bombing-a6756171.html

According to voteScotland-England, a new online polling organisation based on registered voters, a clear majority of Scots, 72 per cent, are against air strikes that could intensify the hatred of Isis towards the UK.

In England, those in favour of the air strikes, 54 per cent, back the line that an escalation of military action is necessary to prevent Isis terrorists becoming stronger in the Middle East and beyond.

I'm not convinced of the military advantage of us dropping a few more bombs, and setting people alight for political and diplomatic reasons leaves a bad taste. But not bombing them because we might make IS angry at us is laughable and craven.

[Savage Henry]

Not bombing people is SNP policy, of course it's a three-line whip. "Bairns" will die because of the bombing if it goes ahead, you can count on that.

It shouldn't be, though. That's the point. If anyone has come to a conclusion based upon empty rhetoric like "not bombing people is our policy", it shows they don't understand the issue. There is a very decent case to be made for non-intervention, but that case has more to do with middle class Europe rather than Syrian "bairns". Most people, for example, think that we're going to be bombing towns and cities. We aren't. Just like in Iraq and Libya, we'd be bombing convoys and roads and bridges as well as bases.

The case for both sides is being made appallingly and as a result almost nobody is going to change their minds on it. It's an incredibly complex issue, and for party leadership (of whatever party) to dictate to its members is merely indicative of the piss poor level of debate.

I'm only (just about) in favour of it because I was in Libya when the revolution started and in Iraq at the moment, and I've been to the refugee camps and I know what the majority of Syrians and Iraqis living there want us to do. I also know something about the current state of the IS army in Iraq - it's on its last legs. The uncomfortable truth for a Guardian-reading, SNP member like myself is that for 75% of the Iraqi population, the US is seen as doing two great things in the region. 1. The no-fly, safe haven zone for the Kurds and 2. The Second Gulf war.

Having said all of that, bombing Syria does nothing to solve the increasing popularity of "jihad-chic" in Europe. In fact, it probably makes it worse. So how anyone can come to an easy decision on this is beyond me.

But when I see Wahhabism being used as a synonym for Salafism, when I see people talking about oil and gas pipelines, when I read about crushing the (US/Israel-manufactured) ISIS army before it becomes a threat, I think that both sides are doing a horrible job of presenting the very real dilemmas at hand. The nadir was most definitely the Irish guy on RT who blamed the "Corporations" and claimed the refugee camps I've visited don't exist, and people credited him with "destroying the case for bombing."

You can't make a case for anything when you resort to talking about gas pipelines and "corporations". Nor can you when you exaggerate threats and use hyperbole.

By the way, apropos of nothing, the sound of a Russian missile fired from the Caspian see passing over your head (or at least, within a visible vicinity) makes is pretty similar to the sound of a missile in a Roadrunner cartoon.

[Enigma]

Are you really an SNP member? I remember you as being one if the firmer no voters on here up to 2014.

[Savage Henry]

Are you really an SNP member? I remember you as being one if the firmer no voters on here up to 2014.

Mistaking me for someone else. I was undecided for a long while, right enough.

[welshbairn]

But when I see Wahhabism being used as a synonym for Salafism...

I didn't think there was much difference except for Wahhabism being the term for specifically Saudi Sunni fundamentalism and Salafism the term more often used internationally.

[Baxter Parp]

It shouldn't be, though. That's the point. If anyone has come to a conclusion based upon empty rhetoric like "not bombing people is our policy", it shows they don't understand the issue.

Bollocks. It shows they understand the issue very well. Bombing people has produced zero results (other than negative ones) in the middle east. If you'd prefer, it shows that they're accepting the will of the Scottish people who have shown they don't want us to be involved.

[Savage Henry]

I didn't think there was much difference except for Wahhabism being the term for specifically Saudi Sunni fundamentalism and Salafism the term more often used internationally.

Well yes, but that in itself is a huge difference. Saudi Sunnis generally speaking don't want a caliphate. They are quite happy keeping themselves to themselves, turning Saudi into a hermit state, but an essential non-threatening one. They don't really want to kill non-believers (other than Shia muslims). They just want nothing to do with them.

Using Wahhabism as a label for IS indicates a direct link to Saudi which may or may not exist.

[LongTimeLurker]

...The uncomfortable truth for a Guardian-reading, SNP member like myself is that for 75% of the Iraqi population, the US is seen as doing two great things in the region. 1. The no-fly, safe haven zone for the Kurds and 2. The Second Gulf war...

I'm sure the Shia majority have forgotten and forgiven the absence of a no-fly zone for them in the south and how that enabled Saddam to defeat them and carry out reprisals against them. It's only a matter of time until they finally turn away from pro-Iranian parties and embrace American style democracy. The neoCons were right all along.

[Savage Henry]

Bollocks. It shows they understand the issue very well. Bombing people has produced zero results (other than negative ones) in the middle east. If you'd prefer, it shows that they're accepting the will of the Scottish people who have shown they don't want us to be involved.

That's a direct contradiction. I've already given at least one example of where bombing has saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of Kurds. Baghdad would have fallen to IS long ago had there been no bombing.

Look how polarised this thread is. There's no settled will of the Scottish people. There's a whole bunch of differing opinions, some informed, some ill-informed, some based on empty rhetoric. A three-line whip does nothing to voice the opinions (plural) of the Scottish people, of which you and I are equally representative. It represents SNP leadership and SNP leadership only. Political expedience over reasoned, moral choices.