Bombing Syria

[strichener]

It's not about how well trained they are. It's about who's commanding them and what their motives are.

Weel if we are going to get into motives, let's start with our own...

Edited December 4, 2015 by strichener

[doulikefish]

It's not about how well trained they are. It's about who's commanding them and what their motives are.

Dont you trust our coalition partners?Is that an official lib dem position?Has god fearing tim mentioned this?

[RedRob72]

Oh dear. What an absolute rocket you are

what!! Tony Benn 'birling in his grave' The rhetoric was widely repeated, what's untrue about that? Stick to your 'expert' Boxing analysis Marko! Ha ha!!

[Ad Lib]

Dont you trust our coalition partners?Is that an official lib dem position?Has god fearing tim mentioned this?

I don't trust Saudi Arabia to be left to their own devices as the only possessors and users of Brimstone missiles in Syria. I consider it preferable that the UK be in their position where possible.

I am not a spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats.

[doulikefish]

The US refusal to add Brimstone to their arsenal is pure protectionism.

Its a European product. The manufacturer are desperately trying to woo the Americans by promising them they'll be built by a US subsidiary they've set up.

In the States defence contracts are highly lucrative,they dont like to give them to pesky foreign types theres too much money and votes at stake

[doulikefish]

I don't trust Saudi Arabia to be left to their own devices as the only possessors and users of Brimstone missiles in Syria. I consider it preferable that the UK be in their position where possible.

I am not a spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats.

So its only us that you reckon are good enough to bomb oilfields that were bombed the week before by our coalition partners then thats fair enough

Good job we have joined the fray,nothings been bombed correct for a year

ps we dont train or arm the yanks is there bombing ok??

Edited December 4, 2015 by doulikefish

[strichener]

The US refusal to add Brimstone to their arsenal is pure protectionism.

Its a European product. The manufacturer are desperately trying to woo the Americans by promising them they'll be built by a US subsidiary they've set up.

They have lost out to Lockheed Martin who are modifying Hellfire missiles for the americans

[Ad Lib]

So its only us that you reckon are good enough to bomb oilfields that were bombed the week before by our coalition partners then thats fair enough

Good job we have joined the fray,nothings been bombed correct for a year

No I didn't say that.

I said in any given specific operation involving bombing in Syria where there was a risk of civilian casualties, I would prefer that the operation be conducted by the RAF than by the RSAF, because I believe our approach, experience and terms of engagement are less untrustworthy and more likely to limit the likelihood and volume of civilian casualties in those instances.

[ScotSquid]

They have lost out to Lockheed Martin who are modifying Hellfire missiles for the americans

Ah right. Thanks.

The rhetoric from the manufacturer did sound very pessimistic in the article I read from back in springtime.

[BuddieInDundee]

Would love to hear the plan for the region whenever ISIS are removed from the equation.

If we are getting involved then surely there's some sort of idea for what's next for Iraq and Syria. I mean, what government could be stupid enough to directly influence a foreign conflict with no clear idea of how to keep the region stable after a bloody, long conflict?

This rings bell...

[strichener]

No I didn't say that.

I said in any given specific operation involving bombing in Syria where there was a risk of civilian casualties, I would prefer that the operation be conducted by the RAF than by the RSAF, because I believe our approach, experience and terms of engagement are less untrustworthy and more likely to limit the likelihood and volume of civilian casualties in those instances.

Are the UK replacing Saudi in the coalition? Is it a straight first half substituion to allow for a tactical change or more likely just adding an additional striker into the mix.

[Ad Lib]

Would love to hear the plan for the region whenever ISIS are removed from the equation.

If we are getting involved then surely there's some sort of idea for what's next for Iraq and Syria. I mean, what government could be stupid enough to directly influence a foreign conflict with no clear idea of how to keep the region stable after a bloody, long conflict?

This rings bell...

It is not possible to give a definitive answer as to what kind of governing structures there should be in either Syria or Iraq until we can be certain as to what kind of territorial distribution and security exists on the ground once ISIS has been eliminated as an immediate military threat.

What we do know is that the longer Assad and the Russians are given the freedom to attack the non-jihadi rebels and the longer the Turks are not prevented from weakening the Kurds in Northern Syria and Iraq, the less likely it is that there will be a credible alternative to Assad once ISIS has been removed. In order to strengthen our hand in the diplomatic discussions, we need to take steps to protect the people who are supposed to be a part of the diplomatic solution.

If we wait another 2 years, and do not at least attempt to shape the conflict, any semblance of an alternative to Assad, who has killed 10 times as many Syrians as Daesh has, will be gone. We will then be forced either to tolerate the existence of a caliphate, hoping that of all people the Russians and Assad can exterminate it on their own and aren't malignant in the settlement they impose on the region thereafter, or we throw our lot in with Assad and face all the blow-back from backing yet another murderous dictator in the MIddle East.

There are no good options here. Only less bad ones.

ETA: And we should be clear, we aren't "just bombing". The Vienna talks are in place and they have the important players round the table. They are the closest Syrian equivalent of Dayton.

Edited December 4, 2015 by Ad Lib

[Ad Lib]

Are the UK replacing Saudi in the coalition? Is it a straight first half substituion to allow for a tactical change or more likely just adding an additional striker into the mix.

It is partly displacement and partly about redeployment. If the UK is involved in the more targeted activity that means the Saudis can continue to contribute but in attacks where the risks of civilian casualties are already lower. That means we can both have more attacks and fewer casualties.

[strichener]

It is partly displacement and partly about redeployment. If the UK is involved in the more targeted activity that means the Saudis can continue to contribute but in attacks where the risks of civilian casualties are already lower. That means we can both have more attacks and fewer casualties.

The same weapons delivered by the same planes with the same technology are going to give us the same results. I don't see what you are getting at here unless you are going to claim that the Saudis will deliberately target civilians. Which if this is the case would then make them as culpable as ISIS and we can expect the US and UK to start bombing f**k out of the Saud's oilfields.

[Savage Henry]

Would love to hear the plan for the region whenever ISIS are removed from the equation.

If we are getting involved then surely there's some sort of idea for what's next for Iraq and Syria. I mean, what government could be stupid enough to directly influence a foreign conflict with no clear idea of how to keep the region stable after a bloody, long conflict?

This rings bell...

The official US plan is for a unified Iraq under, presumably, The current president who has already overstayed his term in office, in lieu of anyone stepping up to take over.. The plan for Syria is less obvious, but from what I understand US State Department policy is that Syria as a state is a lost cause. Edited December 4, 2015 by Savage Henry

[BuddieInDundee]

It is not possible to give a definitive answer as to what kind of governing structures there should be in either Syria or Iraq until we can be certain as to what kind of territorial distribution and security exists on the ground once ISIS has been eliminated as an immediate military threat.

What we do know is that the longer Assad and the Russians are given the freedom to attack the non-jihadi rebels and the longer the Turks are not prevented from weakening the Kurds in Northern Syria and Iraq, the less likely it is that there will be a credible alternative to Assad once ISIS has been removed. In order to strengthen our hand in the diplomatic discussions, we need to take steps to protect the people who are supposed to be a part of the diplomatic solution.

If we wait another 2 years, and do not at least attempt to shape the conflict, any semblance of an alternative to Assad, who has killed 10 times as many Syrians as Daesh has, will be gone. We will then be forced either to tolerate the existence of a caliphate, hoping that of all people the Russians and Assad can exterminate it on their own and aren't malignant in the settlement they impose on the region thereafter, or we throw our lot in with Assad and face all the blow-back from backing yet another murderous dictator in the MIddle East.

There are no good options here. Only less bad ones.

ETA: And we should be clear, we aren't "just bombing". The Vienna talks are in place and they have the important players round the table. They are the closest Syrian equivalent of Dayton.

I agree with your points other than the argument that Putin/Assad have the potential to cause even more deaths and chaos, and that is a reason for us to get involved. British involvement is not due to humanitarian concern, never has been and never will be. It is national self-interest, as you've pointed out having a Russian puppet in the Middle East is hardly ideal for the West. No matter who ends up better off from the outcome in Syria, there are going to be a lot of pissed off Muslims in the region, which has been proven to cause yet more tension and resulting conflict.

[vikingTON]

The French and US specifically requested our involvement because they don't have Brimstone.

Erm no champ. Just because government officials publicly state something does not give it any basis in fact; rest assured that absolutely no credible analyst will attribute any value whatsoever to the 'providing better missiles than the world's dominant military superpower', utter bullshit excuse for UK involvement. The UK wanted to get involved because its governments enjoy scrambling for relevance in foreign affairs and the US are always happy to have some minnows tag along with them, in a campaign that they and other significant partners already decided to undertake.

Thanks for playing anyway, and please leave the deposit for your busted flush post with the site owner on your way out.

[Savage Henry]

I agree with your points other than the argument that Putin/Assad have the potential to cause even more deaths and chaos, and that is a reason for us to get involved. British involvement is not due to humanitarian concern, never has been and never will be. It is national self-interest, as you've pointed out having a Russian puppet in the Middle East is hardly ideal for the West. No matter who ends up better off from the outcome in Syria, there are going to be a lot of pissed off Muslims in the region, which has been proven to cause yet more tension and resulting conflict.

I don't think the two are necessarily mutually exclusive. Self interest can be served by dealing with humanitarian issues.

[welshbairn]

Daesh are an unintended (possibly) consequence of the Sunni (Saudi) v Shia (Iran) civil war, helped by the devastation left in the wake of Western disruption of the prevailing power structures. The Saudis are happy to bomb the Shia rebels in Yemen with no regard for civilian casualties, but I'd be amazed if they bomb Daesh targets while they're fighting Hezbullah, Allawite and Iranian opposition.

[Savage Henry]

Daesh are an unintended (possibly) consequence of the Sunni (Saudi) v Shia (Iran) civil war, helped by the devastation left in the wake of Western disruption of the prevailing power structures. The Saudis are happy to bomb the Shia rebels in Yemen with no regard for civilian casualties, but I'd be amazed if they bomb Daesh targets while they're fighting Hezbullah, Allawite and Iranian opposition.

Indeed. At the same time, it makes it highly unlikely that any Saudi Royal finances IS. It's an incredibly complex conflict.