Syria air strikes

[poontang]

So after all the argument, discussion and hand wringing on whether the UK should extend its air operations over the Iraqi border and into Syria a House of Commons vote on 2nd Dec last year was carried in favour of more bombing.

 

David Camerons case for further strikes was that it was 'morally unacceptable to let our allies shoulder the burden alone', that we've been called on 'time and time again to make the hardest decisions in defence of our citizens and our country' and that we would all be safer if the UK bomb ISIS in Syria.

 

All good stuff I'm sure you'll agree?

 

Unless of course you were expecting some sort of Shock and Awe moment, a decisive blow at the heart of those who would do us harm, and wave after wave of Britain's finest finally taking the fight to the bedraggled hordes of medieval head choppers.

 

It seems that there have only been 3 manned strikes since the vote (over 5 weeks ago) and one unmanned strike.

 

After all the talk and debate in the House of Commons, after all the arguments both for and against, after all the media coverage, it's all gone very quiet.

 

Why? What's going on?

 

Is there a lack of targets?

Are there too many Russian planes in the air?

Have we run out of bombs?

Have we finally realised that the 'good guys' are just as bad as the 'bad guys'?

Was it all just a cynical ploy by Cameron to split the Labour party? (seems to have worked).

Was it all just a dream?

Edited January 9, 2016 by poontang

[chrisjh]

According to the armed forces and political spokes persons they wont carry out military strikes which have any chance of collateral damage to none combatants (god alone knows who they are in this mess) whilst isis use schools hospitals and places of worship as military bases most missions return with a full payload of munitions.

 

we are fighting this with one arm sorry both arms tied behind our backs, were we to roll in with the full weight of our combined military conventional hardware isis would be a lot less capable but the flip side we would have killed bystanders and increased the tilde wave of refugees.

 

along with this the whole place is such a mess we are fighting with all sides helping the Saudis dealing with Iran and anyone else who has a cheque book

[felly100]

I think you may be onto something about splitting the Labour Party.

Along with Frank Field,Dan Jarvis is probably the best Labourite I know.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/09/senior-labour-mp-wary-of-standing-for-election-under-anti-nuclear-policy

[poontang]

Whilst I can fully understand the desire to minimse civilian casualties I was under the impression that one of Cameron's main points on this issue was that we had the munitions and targeting systems that could, and would, do just that? Which was one of his main reasons for wanting to join in the strikes.

 

I just find it surprising that more has not been done as yet. I would have expected the military to have had a list of safe potential targets drawn up before any debate in parliament.

[STOTTO]

I think that in this context, the correct term in the parliamentary arena is referred to as ‘Virtual Reality’, or sanctioning, ‘Arial Acrobatic Antics’ of a non-combative nature!

[achosenman]

Well I suppose it goes to show the lack of understanding about was being voted on.

 

Because unlike the Russians, we try to avoid collateral damage at all costs, there is no raining hellfire and damnation from above. DC has already mentioned this is going to be a long war. Having no safe haven is an important step forwards. It helps to remember that to target individuals or small groups, we need intel about who, where and when. That needs boots on the ground. Apart from the FSA and the Kurds we are a bit short on that atm. 5 alleged sets of eyes were killed a few days ago.

 

Personally, I would try to persuade the Russians to do the job. Flattening the entire city wouldn't bother Putin in the least, and he doesn't have the hand wringing wet left to deal with.

 

Perhaps some of the throat slitting, beheading and crucifixion pictures should be shown on western news media. Having seen some of those, I bet public opinion would be for hitting them with everything we have plus a bit more. By saving a few bystanders, we condemn many more to horrific barbarity, and we aid in displacing millions who flee the region. IMHO we should just get it over with, fast and permanent. Then we need to sort out the returning ISIS defectors who went over there and were complicit in the barbarity and quite frankly, crimes against humanity.

 

Atb

Edited January 9, 2016 by achosenman

[TIGHTCHOKE]

So after all the argument, discussion and hand wringing on whether the UK should extend its air operations over the Iraqi border and into Syria a House of Commons vote on 2nd Dec last year was carried in favour of more bombing.

 

David Camerons case for further strikes was that it was 'morally unacceptable to let our allies shoulder the burden alone', that we've been called on 'time and time again to make the hardest decisions in defence of our citizens and our country' and that we would all be safer if the UK bomb ISIS in Syria.

 

All good stuff I'm sure you'll agree?

 

Unless of course you were expecting some sort of Shock and Awe moment, a decisive blow at the heart of those who would do us harm, and wave after wave of Britain's finest finally taking the fight to the bedraggled hordes of medieval head choppers.

 

It seems that there have only been 3 manned strikes since the vote (over 5 weeks ago) and one unmanned strike.

 

After all the talk and debate in the House of Commons, after all the arguments both for and against, after all the media coverage, it's all gone very quiet.

 

Why? What's going on?

 

Is there a lack of targets?

Are there too many Russian planes in the air?

Have we run out of bombs?

Have we finally realised that the 'good guys' are just as bad as the 'bad guys'?

Was it all just a cynical ploy by Cameron to split the Labour party? (seems to have worked).

Was it all just a dream?

 

We are running out of RAF Armourers to fit the bombs!

[grrclark]

My personal thoughts on this is that the vote on bombing within Syria was much less about the action taken and much more about the principle behind it.

 

It established the ability of the government to instruct military action, they were effectively rendered impotent, it allows the UK to engage in any diplomatic or political discussion with more legitimacy as they are engaged militarily and on a tactical level it does perhaps allow us to directly act on any intelligence information that we might receive.

 

I have no doubt that we have had intelligence assets in theatre for quite some time and I imagine that we have had to pass on information from those people to other allied partners to act upon, perhaps exposing details about our intelligence capabilities that we would rather we did not have to, even to close allies.

 

I daresay that there was also a bit of blatant politicking in highlighting the obvious rupture in the Labour Party and also to highlight the apparent lack of resolve by JC and his close allies towards matters of defence. Even if the Syrian situation isn't actually about defence, the perception is that JC is a wet lettuce and as the economic argument starts to lesson for the Tories then they can now focus on matters of national security.

 

The Tories arguably had the upper hand on the NHS during the election campaign, they most certainly have the upper hand on the economy and now they have the upper hand in defence and national security. They are some of the key domestic politics issues. The only thing that JC has the upper hand on is the voice of those that believe that they should get a whole load of something for doing nothing.

[STOTTO]

My personal thoughts on this is that the vote on bombing within Syria was much less about the action taken and much more about the principle behind it.

 

It established the ability of the government to instruct military action, they were effectively rendered impotent, it allows the UK to engage in any diplomatic or political discussion with more legitimacy as they are engaged militarily and on a tactical level it does perhaps allow us to directly act on any intelligence information that we might receive.

 

I have no doubt that we have had intelligence assets in theatre for quite some time and I imagine that we have had to pass on information from those people to other allied partners to act upon, perhaps exposing details about our intelligence capabilities that we would rather we did not have to, even to close allies.

 

I daresay that there was also a bit of blatant politicking in highlighting the obvious rupture in the Labour Party and also to highlight the apparent lack of resolve by JC and his close allies towards matters of defence. Even if the Syrian situation isn't actually about defence, the perception is that JC is a wet lettuce and as the economic argument starts to lesson for the Tories then they can now focus on matters of national security.

 

The Tories arguably had the upper hand on the NHS during the election campaign, they most certainly have the upper hand on the economy and now they have the upper hand in defence and national security. They are some of the key domestic politics issues. The only thing that JC has the upper hand on is the voice of those that believe that they should get a whole load of something for doing nothing.

 

Foreign Aid?

[grrclark]

 

Foreign Aid?

I don't see foreign aid as that at all, it is rarely charity and altogether more deliberate and considered. For another discussion maybe.

[Hamster]

Whilst I can fully understand the desire to minimse civilian casualties I was under the impression that one of Cameron's main points on this issue was that we had the munitions and targeting systems that could, and would, do just that? Which was one of his main reasons for wanting to join in the strikes.

 

I just find it surprising that more has not been done as yet. I would have expected the military to have had a list of safe potential targets drawn up before any debate in parliament.

 

Correctly pointed out and also perfectly justified in pausing the question as to what has actually now been gained.

 

Once Russia got involved and made it clear that regime change wasn't on the cards the only thing the West could do was save face and at least pretend they were interested in ending the war. You simply cannot have a situation where Russia alone is seen to be fighting the bad guys.