The Long and Winding Road to Damascus
On Wednesday, the Commons will debate and vote on whether the fearsome might of the RAF – all half-dozen available planes – will join the US and the French in dropping bombs on Syria in the optimistic hope that some of the severed limbs tossed up in the air will have been detached from the torsos of ISIS fighters. In the Second World War, the Germans were in Europe and North Africa, whilst the Japanese were occupying the Pacific, so bombing raids over their strongholds were pretty straightforward in terms of knowing where to drop ‘em. Despite their best efforts to establish a ‘state’, ISIS are not a nation; and whilst the heart of their operations is centred in the Middle East, they have clandestine cells across Europe, most of which consist of home-grown operatives, born and raised in the countries they unleash their bloodshed upon.
David Cameron is adamant this aspect of Islamic terrorism can be dealt with by greater monitoring of Britain’s online traffic, even though France has had the kind of cyber surveillance the PM wants over here for some time, and that didn’t do much good in preventing a couple of notable atrocities in Paris this year. The ghost of Iraq means he is reluctant to commit boots-on-the ground, though judging by the inadequate footwear the British Army has apparently provided in recent years, that’s probably not such a bad idea. Therefore, Cameron is convinced dipping our toes in the airstrike waters is Britain’s best option for flexing its military muscles, a sort of halfway-house form of war – not a potentially awkward actual invasion, but a kind of invasion-lite, albeit one that offers the prospect of a sizeable enough body-count for Cameron to claim victory.
Were the UK, along with the rest of Western Europe and the Americans, prepared to bury the hatchet with the Russians and launch a coordinated coalition to tackle ISIS on home soil, perhaps some degree of success could be achieved. The inclusion of troops from Arab League nations wouldn’t go amiss either and would certainly counteract the inevitable recruitment posters for ISIS that are bound to view any assault on their territory as another attempt by outsiders to impose alien values and democracy on the Muslim world. But the Arab League, as we all know, is about as effective as the UN when it comes to taking decisive action and getting the job done, the archetypal chocolate fireguard of Middle Eastern politics.
The Prime Minister believes there is upwards of 70,00 of what he calls ‘moderate’ native fighters in Syria who will welcome British bombs raining down on their country, though gory stories of how Syrian rebels have dispensed justice on their own people hardly equates with any known form of moderation. But, of course, Syrian rebels are opposed to Assad, and when a vote was held in the Commons concerning Syria last year, it was Assad’s forces we would have been bombing; now we’re siding with Assad to rid his nation of ISIS. Is this a backdoor route to forming an alliance with Vlad? Time will tell.
The official stance of the Labour leadership is against the bombing of Syria; but Mr Corbyn is not exactly Mr Chips when it comes to inspiring loyalty amongst his underlings. His Shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary Benn is in favour of the PM’s plan, so there is a stark difference of opinion on the Labour frontbench, let alone amongst ordinary party members, with 75% of those polled being in line with Jezza’s point of view. An apparently heated meeting of Labour MPs on Monday concluded with Corbyn opting to offer his honourable members the luxury of a free vote, dispensing with the iron fist of the whips.
The media have excitedly regarded this as further evidence of weak leadership and as a possible harbinger of an imminent coup by Blairites. However, there’s also an argument that a free vote is reflective of a wider indecision within the British public as to whether or not airstrikes on Syria will actually prevent a UK equivalent of recent events in Paris happening here and will lead to us all sleeping a little sounder in our beds. In this respect, Corbyn’s choice of a free vote, whether it was forced upon him or not, could be seen as a realistic response to an extremely tricky moral issue.
The anticipated number of Labour MPs in favour of Cameron’s airstrike recipe – around fifty – will probably help the Government secure a ‘yes’ vote on Wednesday, and the bloody consequences of such a vote will probably provide apprentice British Jihadists with an excuse for emulating their brethren across the Channel. Granted, any boots-on-the ground intervention would no doubt do likewise; but if the various parties with a vested interest in stamping out the threat of ISIS could get together and thrash out a long-term military strategy for Syria and its surrounding nations – one that includes a post-liberation solution – that would undoubtedly achieve more than airstrikes. The curse of the quick-fix is one that never looks beyond the short-term, and the manner, for example, in which America sponsored the post-war economic transformation of Japan is difficult to envisage happening in Syria or Iraq; mind you, this only happened to Japan after America had dropped a couple of atom bombs on it.
It’s also hard to imagine a wannabe empire-builder like Putin being content to withdraw from Syria once he’s got a foothold in there, so any military operation is doomed to end up as unsatisfactory from the point of view of the west. Lest we forget, when the Soviets played their crucial role in liberating Germany from the Nazis, it took almost half-a-century for them to let go. In short, there is no easy answer to this contemporary conundrum, but it’s hard to see what difference dropping British bombs on a country that already resembles Dresden on a bad day will really make other than adding to what is one hell of a mess.
Petunia Winegum
-
December 1, 2015 at 11:33 am -
This is the worst planned intervention plan since Finland in 1939. Cameron has reversed his previous policy on to the agenda, but his apparent vanity of ensuring that the overthrow of the Assad regime is almost as high on his agenda as the destruction of Daesh is silly. How can you expect cooperation from a regime whose abolition you have pre-announced? How can you expect cooperation from Russia, which is (for the moment) committed to maintaining its support for that same regime?
I am appalled at this slapdash approach to foreign policy; every time we witness the collapse of some policy or other, the cry goes up: “Lessons will be learned…”
But they are not. Each time a Ba’ath leader is taken out or attacked – Egypt (1956), Saddam Hussein, Ghaddafi, bloody chaos ensues. The whole point of them is that they are equally feared and loathed by everyone, which is their key to exercising ‘grip’.
Now I may admire but not approve of this, but the obvious outcome is truly dreadful.
And Syria is important. Damascus is (I think) the oldest continuously occupied city in the world. Under Assad, Christians, Druse, even Jews, could thrive, or at least go unchallenged. You could buy beer! Its importance is cultural rather than ‘religious’.
Do we have a cadre of educated, well-trained civil servants and administrators ready to fill the vacuum? No. Do the Russians? I fear so…
-
December 1, 2015 at 11:39 am -
Bombs & bullets generally don’t win hearts & minds and any real solution to this issue will require the latter to be addressed and resolved. There’s no doubt that the combined military firepower of the ‘temporary allies’ could easily wipe out those ISIS adherents currently ensconced in Syria and Iraq, but the chances are that would simply re-inforce the bloodthirsty chip which sits undisturbed on the shoulders of their millions of known and unknown associates elsewhere.
The Middle East is no longer a remote zone whose local issues only affect itself: from the very presence of Israel to all the factional in-fighting between the many sub-sects of Islam and the questionable funding emanating from oil-enrichened states, all play a part in a labyrinth of conflicts which now spreads across the world. New York, London, Madrid, Paris have all borne witness to it already and many more will do so until some sort of political stability can be achieved.
At a practical level, Cameron’s urge to join the scrap will make precious little difference, a few more planes and a few more munitions won’t change the outcome, he just feels the need to be seen to be joining the gang. Corbyn may be right, but probably for the wrong reasons.
But in truth, the ‘war’ will not be won in Syria, it needs to be won in Bradford, Burnley, Rochdale, Luton and the many other ghettos around the world where the emotive Caliphate message hold silent sway over so many: until that can be turned round, the conflict will continue, whether Britain lobs more ordnance-fuel into the fire or not. -
December 1, 2015 at 11:41 am -
In 2003 while serving my country I found myself doing Blair and Bush’s dirty work in Iraq. I saw the folly of that exercise before it had even begun. This is no different. Our best bet for stabilizing the region is to help the loathsome Assad regain control of his country, though of course that will never happen.
-
December 1, 2015 at 3:22 pm -
The problem with Assad is that he is an ally of ISIS. And he has killed at least 200,000 Syrians, and driven millions into refugee camps.
Unstable is better than that.
-
December 2, 2015 at 5:23 pm -
“Assad is that he is an ally of ISIS” – this is just stupid.
-
-
-
December 1, 2015 at 11:46 am -
Via unblocked slipstream KOH, check mainstream BLOCKED Peerless Pilger.
http://www.kingofhits.co.uk/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=65&func=view&catid=2&id=139303#139314
-
December 1, 2015 at 12:20 pm -
That was a truly depressing read, but worthwhile nonetheless. But why take two clicks into the shower when you can click ‘n’ go?!?
http://johnpilger.com/articles/from-pol-pot-to-isis-the-blood-never-dried
-
-
December 1, 2015 at 11:50 am -
None of these generations of politicians pasing through would be taking these positions if they were not receiving fearsome advice to do by “the experts”. The experts seem to be as successful at persuading Blairite socialists as Bullingdon Tory boys. The real Establishment is outside Parliament and has it’s root deep in the legalistic socialism called Human Rights Law. People of the world will be free, even if it kills them and most of the time they prefer safe captivity anyway.
-
December 1, 2015 at 12:10 pm -
++IT++WILL++END++IN++TEARS++STOP++FOR++THE++LOVE++OF++GOD++JUST++STOP
-
December 1, 2015 at 1:24 pm -
Given that it wouldn’t make much material difference, perhaps the strongest argument for our taking part in the bombing in Syria is that it would show our determination and our solidarity with allies, especially the French after the traumatic atrocity in Paris.
Of course ultimately some accommodation will have to be reached with the Russians and with the Assad government. It would be ridiculous to refuse to deal with Assad simply on the grounds of his undoubted nastiness (he is a true chip off his old block), especially if we are going to have to depend on his army to tackle Isis on the ground. So much blood has been spilt during that awful civil war that it may prove impossible to find a satisfactory solution short of partitioning Syria to form autonomous areas for the Shia, Sunni, and perhaps Kurdish populations.
-
December 1, 2015 at 3:26 pm -
Assad’s army barely exists any more. It has been replaced with an Iranian army.
And the Iranian government is certainly a sworn enemy of Britain. It was Iranian-supported militias that made our occupation of the South of Iraq such a disaster.
-
-
December 1, 2015 at 1:59 pm -
We must be thankful that the last ‘Quartet’s Middle East Peace Envoy’ did such a magnificent job: it could all have been so much worse.
Meanwhile, as Ms. Winegum points out, Mr. Cameron has flip-flopped from wanting to bomb President Assad’s forces, to deciding instead to bomb his opponents: or, to put it another way, from supporting the ISIS beheaders and bombing their opponents, to supporting the Free Syrian cannibals (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23190533) and bombing their opponents.
The reality of the situation is really quite clear. Amongst the forces supporting Assad are Hizbollah who, of course, are the mortal enemies of the Israelis. Amongst the forces opposing Assad are Al Qaeda. The initial reaction of America and Britain to oppose Assad was, it seems to me, based entirely on an Israeli take on the situation. It led to the absurd situation where the Americans were initially allied with Al Qaeda (and opposed to Hisbollah) in opposition to President Assad. The Israeli dog was wagging its American tail and we British, the flea on the American tail, dutifully went along with it all.
Question: What is to stop our own aircraft being shot down by our NATO allies, the Turks?
I have no problem with killing aggressive Muslims, something that the English have been doing for almost a thousand years. I just suggest that if Mr. Cameron wanted to start bombing uppity muzzies who pose an ‘existential threat’ to our county, he might start at Molenbeek or Sangatte. The latter could do with a carpet-bombing. My Danish friends tell me that Copenhagen could also benefit from a visit. Even closer to home, some areas that might benefit from the Father Christmas-like visit of a Brimstone missile down the chimney include Luton, Dewsbury, Rochdale, and Tower Hamlets. There seems little point, to me, of bombing (what we are obliged to describe as) Englishmen in Syria when we have the slightly more pressing issue of their psychopathic co-religionists in this country. Still, perhaps that nice President Putin could come and sort our own problems out once he has dealt with Syria.
-
December 1, 2015 at 3:12 pm -
Pericles wotsit (apologies for not remembering your full moniker), afraid your comment has been swallowed up by Spam. I appreciate it was a long ‘un too, but if you have the energy to make the same points again, feel free. I don’t know why certain commentators seem to end up in Spam while some Spam ends up amongst the comments!
-
December 1, 2015 at 3:46 pm -
Wotsit here, Petunia. Perhaps its very size propelled it in to the spam bin. Anyway: shall repost presently.
Meanwhile: might I ask you to change — assuming it possible — the width of #container, in layout.css, to 100% (rather than 100em)? I have to effect that change every time I load a page on this site, that it might fit on the screen, and it would be nice not to have to. Thank you.
ΠΞ
-
December 1, 2015 at 4:28 pm -
Your original piece has magically reappeared in the Spam bin and has now been put where it should have been all along. I suspect a guiding hand from the past…
-
December 1, 2015 at 5:51 pm -
Was going to upload here a picture of a little animal but cannot see how to do that. (And, even could I recall the user-ID and password, I doubt I still have access to the back office.)
ΠΞ
-
-
-
-
December 1, 2015 at 3:51 pm -
* Rescued from the raccoons in the spam bin *
Insightful piece, Petunia.
Also I much like Robert Edwards’s comment, although I cannot confide as he does in the Russian administration of Muslim countries.
Mudplugger’s description of how widespread and multifaceted is the problem facing us leads to my own thoughts on the matter. My instinct — long held and not particular to the Syrian matter — is to recommend leaving the Muslims and the rest of the undeveloped World to deal with their own affairs, accepting that many peoples on Earth kill one another. Sad, perhaps, but that’s what they do … and, as we have no opportunity or (as far as I can see) inclination to eradicate it, religion will always form a ready fulcrum for the application of the class-war lever whose use — although we’re not allowed to mention it — is what really underlies these conflicts.
At the heart of much of the Muslim conflict, as Mudplugger says, is the problem — one we can never effectively discuss — of Palestine. More than a century ago we offered the Zionists a beautiful tract of East Africa, over which we then had dominion, as a homeland. They turned it down because of this absurd fixation on Jerusalem, something — one might say the only thing — they share with the Arabs. The chance of eliminating this running sore? About the same as that of removing the giant spot from the surface of Jupiter!
As to Mr. Corbyn’s decision (on the free vote): not a lot else he could do, really. Had he used the whip, he’d likely have caused a dangerous rift within his parliamentary party and still not won the vote.
I have no truck with his general political outlook but do have sympathy with him in his predicament. He’s spent thirty years or so as a backbencher raging against the machine; suddenly he finds himself cast in the rôle of the machine, one for which he’s had no training and of which no experience.
One ought not to dismiss entirely to-day’s relatively small R.A.F.: what our aeroplanes and other equipment offer differs in quality from and is complementary to the contribution of America, France &c.
Finally, this action — at least as it applies to Da‘ir/ISIL — is not a war but, to my mind, a attempt to enforce the criminal law. The ‘rules of war’ (Geneva &c. Conventions), therefore, do not and ought not to apply. If we intend to succeed in the military part of any action taken, we must first dispense with the asymmetry of ‘warfare’ in which Da‘ir luxuriates. No prisoners!
ΠΞ
-
December 1, 2015 at 5:09 pm -
Thank you for your kind comment, Sir, but please be advised – I have absolutely no confidence in Russia’s ability to govern or administer anything. Not even Russia, as I think of it.
The political vacuum is the issue. There is little prospect of Daesh surviving a serious assault, if it is taken seriously enough, provided (and only provided) that it is pushed through to the only logical conclusion. Some strands of DNA will remain, of course, as there still are in both Germany and Japan.
It is an unpleasant prospect, of course, but it must be done correctly, under purely military rules. “Go, but…” is simply not an option. But I also note with approval Spectrum’s comments above.
-
December 1, 2015 at 6:06 pm -
Just a few words in defence of the military: the rules by which we play are very much what I assume you mean by ‘Go but …’ (sc. in line with the conventions); hence the asymmetry of warfare to which I referred. This Da‘ir — the Islamic State (as the fifth-columnar B.B.C. delights in calling it) — is not a state at all; not even a gang of criminals; mere vermin to be eradicated by any means possible.
As I said at first, my instinct is to withdraw from the Third World altogether — we’re either the imperial power (as once) or nothing — but, if we must deal with this whole sorry saga by force, there can be no ****ing about: as I once saw on a T-shirt in a shop just off the Norfolk naval base: “Kill ’em all — let God sort them out!”
ΠΞ
-
December 1, 2015 at 7:06 pm -
Spoken like a true Christian Pericles
“Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius – Kill them all for the Lord knoweth them that are His” (2 Tim. ii. 19)
Gildas will recollect who spoke these words at the massacre at Beziers -
December 1, 2015 at 8:09 pm -
I couldn’t agree with you more; I wouldn’t wish to be misunderstood on this…
-
December 1, 2015 at 11:48 pm -
@Robert Edwards …..one we can never effectively discuss — of Palestine.,,,,,this absurd fixation on Jerusalem,
I can assure you Robert that I hope I do not misunderstand what I see as your point which I percieve as the noumenal Jerusalem HAVING to translate to the phenomenal Jerusalem to fulfill prophecy in the eyes of some. Probably a blasphemy to those who are literalists but then I am not a theist in the more common understanding of that concept and view that sort of theism as just a little unimaginative….gosh even that worst of sins….. dull.
Worth considering the point you make within the Mappa Mundi at Hereford Cathedral which reflected middle ages concepts of the world at the centre of the universe.and Jerusalem at the centre of the world…life might have moved on for some but not all so it seems.
There are other pretty scary literalist prophecies still in play by relatively influential players on the world scene …..all end of time jocks as I see it ….fun also but then I take such things as folly that could so easily lead to the end of the world for the most stupid of possible misinterpretations.Perhaps a little unwise to give “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.’ into the hands of such people because of course it too easily becomes a self fulllfilling prophecy but the deed is done.
Much much more importantly my eternal thanks Pericles in affording me opportunity to show off such little Latiin that I might possess. Gosh I think as I retire for the night …..SUCH erudition
-
-
-
-
December 2, 2015 at 12:45 pm -
Note that more recently ‘we’ offered them a slice of Palestine, and that time it was the surrounding countries that turned the offer down…
(http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/22469)
-
-
December 1, 2015 at 4:11 pm -
I’m all in favour of our brave RAF pilots dropping terror-inducing objects over ISIS territory.
Give MPs who vote for bombing, parachutes, and let them carry out on-the-ground research.
-
December 1, 2015 at 4:11 pm -
Thought you would pounce on this one Uncle since it is plat du jour aujour’dui.
As always a good critique to which i can add little but a couple of points of potential interest
1) The real push to bomb in Syria appears to coincide with determined Russian involvement in the region and there is talk of getting a seat at peace talks through the bombing …..just a little ugly to my mind.
11) Aaaaahhh the 70,000 unified moderates that just need a bit of air support ….like Libya eh? …..get rid of the Ghaddaffis and reason will prevail
111) The problem and the reason why ISIS has gained traction appears to have originated by the Northern Sunni Iraqis not thinking a great deal of the Western backed Shia Government of Maliki. It appears something similar might be said in East and West Syria …..throw in Kurdish Separatists and Turkish Interests and before one goes into tribal loyalties one has a fair old mix ….thats before US ,Russian , and European interests are considered ….all sorted by another nation joining in the bombing?
1v ) I rather distrust the excuse of preventing the spread of terrorism ….I am no expert for sure …..but then I was no expert on weapons of mass destruction. …..I don’t doubt ISIS has a proprtion of rabid youth (and more worryingly Baathist thugst) hat are being used but if it was just terror ISIS was selling in the region I am not sure they would have gotten as far as they have. They supply something to the people of the region they occupy …..perhaps what is needed is a new Patron who can supply at least the same but preferably better with rather greater stability and less cost.
v) The Parliamentary Labour Party ought to be whipped to abstain en mass until they grow up and stop playing domestic politics with the lives of foreign citizens as the table stakes-
December 1, 2015 at 6:14 pm -
I’m rather disappointed with the media coverage of all this, much of which seems to focus on the relative side-show of the Labour Party’s writhings. The main story is surely efforts being made to defeat ISIL, including diplomatic work. I gather the UN has passed a resolution calling on nations able and willing to defeat ISIL, but I’ve seen very little media coverage of this, or of diplomatic efforts to ensure a unity of purpose between the Western nations, Russia, and Arab nations; I’m almost sure there’s a lot being done in this field.
-
December 2, 2015 at 5:29 pm -
Look if the world wanted to defeat ISIS then Saudi Arabia and Qatar would be in the cross-hairs.
But the world hasn’t wanted to defeat ISIS. The Yanks have supposedly been bombing ISIS for over a year but it was the Russians that blew up the oil convoys from ISIS territory into Turkey and the shooting down of the Russian jet was a response to this.
Simply put, ISIS is a Saudi proxy attacking a Iranian Shia Ally, Assad, and when it comes down to it we have been supporting ISIS. [Who supplied most of ISIS’s weapons?]
We’ve picked a side in nthe Sunni Shia civil war. The problem for the Yanks etc is that Wahabist nutters never stick to the script. Hence ISIS is Al Queda mk 2 and when we obliterate ISIS Al Queda Mk 3 will come along.
-
-
-
December 1, 2015 at 6:07 pm -
Listening to the PM programme a few minutes ago, I learned that one capability that RAF Tornados have that even our close allies do not is an intelligence-gathering capability of exceptional resolution. Combined with precision weapons also not available to close allies, one begins to see why even a relatively few RAF fast jets could add to the fight against ISIL, and even more importantly add to intelligence gathering. Perhaps the latter might be the UK’s most significant contribution.
-
December 2, 2015 at 10:27 am -
The more I learn about the weaponry of our recent past, the more I’m sure we have little idea of the capabilities of present day stuff.
This soppy old fool after watching Guy Martin & the last Vulcan then wondered about the Victor (Dad worked for Handley Page at one time so I was interested). Very impressed with what was going on in the 1950’s & ‘6o’s, not interested in the debate about how worthwhile it all was: that’s past, and I guess enabled the Corbyns of our society to exist.
-
-
December 1, 2015 at 7:29 pm -
If I had seen this yesterday I would have wholly agreed with you. However today I spent an hour in the company of a senior military officer and he painted a very different picture. The essence of what he said is this……..
We may only have 3 or 4 Tornados in theatre but they are not the real contribution we are making. The really valuable stuff is the elint aircraft out there including some rather swish Jetstreams that loiter around at 60,000ft and monitor just about every electronic emission over the ISIS area. Fortuitously we also have our stone aircraft carrier HMS Akrotiri moored nearby and a stonking great GCHQ eavesdropping post up a mountain in in the same place.
Our Jetstreams and drones have effectively mapped all of the ISIS areas and now can spot anything that moves almost instantly. The pods fitted to the Tornados can be targetted by the Jetstreams on whatever the sneakies find or hear and can send a Brimstone to destroy it in before it can get away. It transpires that none of the other forces have this joined up intelligence, surveillance and zap capability and it is highly valued by the other countries bombing Syria.
The reason for this is that the bombing carried out by the coalition forces has effectively stopped ISIS from fighting over and taking any new ground. Their armour and vehicles have either been destroyed by air or are unable to come into the open. The reason Toyota pick up trucks are being taken out is that most of the ISIS mobile targets have been destroyed or neutralised. So ISIS is hunkered down and can’t go anywhere in Syria meaning that it is effectively not a threat to the surrounding states. The ISS part of ISIS is effectively contained and can’t come out in to the open.
The reason for extending the mission to Iraq is to achieve the same result there.
Note that this is not the same as defeating ISIS. It will take troops on the ground for this and the West does not have the will to do this ( yet?).
However as we found in Afghanistan the terrorist can simply melt into the civilian population and disappear.To me this all seems to make some sense. We have found to our costs that you don’t defeat terrorists in asymetrical warfare without alienating the people you are supposed to be liberating and containing the physical presence of ISIS in Syria and Iraqp is best response to the problem there. It does not solve the problem of our homebased groups but that is a different problem. Similarly, until we have addressed Turkey, KSA and the other players who are allegedly on our “side” but are supporting the religious terrorists, there is no way to clear the bastards out of the Levant.
His argument has convinced me that extending our surveillance and targetting areas into Iraq would do real harm to ISIS and would contain their potential for gaining ground there. Meanwhile the Russians are doing the dirty work that we don’t have the political stomach for, such as getting rid of Mr Erdogans oil smuggling aparatus.
Of course the whole situation is a mess caused by us backing the wrong side (KSA, Quatar Turkey etc) and stupidly believing that the T Blair version of society could be imposed on all those nice Arabs with their yummy souks and lovely Lawrence of Arabia looks.
Heads should roll for that stupidity but in the meantime I now think that RAF are actually doing something useful out there and extending it to Iraq would be a good idea.I commend this idea to the House………
( dons tin hat and waits for incoming fire)-
December 1, 2015 at 8:29 pm -
An interesting take about the situation, thanks Veritas.
-
December 1, 2015 at 10:08 pm -
Of course that should have said extending it to Syria ( not Iraq). I blame a bottle of Colchester Brewery Brazilian. ( other beers are available)
-
December 1, 2015 at 11:13 pm -
A minor and probably over-pedantic correction, but I doubt they were Jetstreams, they have been out of service with the RAF since 2003 and the RN since 2011. They were twin turboprop aircraft with a service ceiling of around 25,000 ft.
Of the currently overt UK crop, the possibilities are the Sentinel R1, a neat twin-jet although it’s role is battlefield and ground surveillance rather than ELINT, SIGINT or COMINT. The EC135W, a 4 engine heavy aircraft dedicated to COMINT whicb can reach 50,000 ft, but we have only just recived the second of three ordered so I’m not certain about the service status and finally, the Beechcraft R1, another twin turboprop with a ceiling of about 35,000 ft
I have little doubt that suitable collection assets are deployed exactly as you suggest and for the purposes described….. Just not Jetstreams
: ) -
December 1, 2015 at 11:44 pm -
Not just interesting, but a very credible and plausible summary. Thank you, Sir.
-
-
December 1, 2015 at 8:30 pm -
“The reason Toyota pick up trucks are being taken out is that most of the ISIS mobile targets have been destroyed or neutralised.”
So how much does a second-hand Toyota truck cost? How much does it cost to deliver one Brimstone on target?
The enemy is Islam, it has been at war with the rest of the world for 1200 years, blasting a few beaten up pick-ups in the desert won’t stop it, the hydra will just grow more heads.
There is a parallel with communism. “Of course they should be able to take part in the democratic process!” Except once they win the election there will be no more ‘democratic process’. Virtually unheard of in the UK pre-1960 Islam has changed the way we live in the West and those changes have been made by non-Muslims either as the result of misguided-liberalism or self-hatred. In the next few years we will see Islamic political parties that will take over local government in certain areas, using ‘democracy’ against the democrats.
The barbarians are within the gates that are held open by our ‘leaders’ while they pretend that the enemy is without. I wish I knew why.
-
December 1, 2015 at 10:06 pm -
The issue is not the destruction of the Hilux per se but the effect it has on the enemy. Imagine that you are an ISIS dolt in Syria. The days of advancing against a feeble opposition and taking new towns daily are long gone. You have seen the nice Humvees and Bradleys that you captured destroyed from the air. If you break cover and take the Toyota out to frighten the locals, the chances are that you are going to be vapourised without warning. You can’t even make a phonecall without risking death.
How would you feel under those circumstances?
I think I prefer this approach to a full blown war that would be costly to win on ground which we would be likely to hand back and lose in a few years time.
We’ve tried that before and look where it got us.
Of course the other alternative is to do nothing and let ISIS grow and prosper.-
December 1, 2015 at 11:28 pm -
How do you tell the difference between an ISIS Toyota and a ‘wedding party’? The US are flying two sorties an hour, we will be lucky to one a day, what’s the point? Chances are we will lose at least one aircraft by technical failure if nothing else, how embarrassing is that going to be?
We don’t even know who the ‘enemy’ is supposed to be. Taking sides in an Islamic civil war is stupid beyond belief. Our ‘allies’ with dogs in the race, like Turkey and Saudi Arabia, are funding ISIS so ‘we’ will never ‘win’. It is just a smoke screen to hide the real security problems at home.
The simplest solution will be to put the green, (or black), flag over Buckingham Palace and get it over with, insha’Allah.
-
December 2, 2015 at 9:05 am -
By that argument the logical response is to do nothing. Frankly I don’t have a huge problem with that but it needs to be kept in mind when we emote / react to the next outrage.
-
December 2, 2015 at 5:32 pm -
No the simple solution would be to cut ties with the Saudi’s. It just we’re not going to do that.
-
-
-
-
December 2, 2015 at 1:49 am -
Veritas paints a rosy picture of UK competence, however let me remind you that this is the same crew with the same “kit” who took the best part of a year to track ONE person -jihad john. I am underwhelmed by that expertise.
As to camorons vanity project, I can only express the wish that he will once again be embarassed in the House of Commons and this time be forced to resign.
Apart from anything else the last thing the world needs is another airforce flying operations over disputed territory and incompatible air traffic systems, risking more shootdowns and perhaps starting retaliatory actions that everybody will regret.
The USA and UK have been faffing about showing their incompetence (if not outright criminality supporting ISIS oil exports) for too long, Russia is doing a creditable job, stand back and watch how it is done camoron. -
December 2, 2015 at 10:10 am -
The whole unholy (pun intended) region is a mess, a basket zone, a shithole. In an ideal world I would advocate no involvement at all, simply a policy of isolating the region and letting them get on with slitting their own throats and throwing each other off buildings, or whatever the murder method of choice might be. I am not convinced that bombing will have any beneficial/useful effect in military terms. The only reason I can see is a wider diplomatic one; it would be wrong to let France stand alone. I don’t think that is viable.
At the same time, I find it amazing and profoundly annoying that “the West” feels it has to take action and deal with a refugee crisis when the Arab world appears to wash its hands of the whole thing.
Saudi Arabia appears to be actively funding these people.
I suspect the real need to bomb is rather closer to home; Rod Liddle in the Sunday Times suggested we might start with places like Luton or the Finsbury Park mosque. Quite.-
December 2, 2015 at 10:31 am -
Quite. It does seem insane that we are attempting to contain Islamic civil war in Syria and Iraq whilst allowing the contageon to spread via open border Europe and record levels of inward immigration.
Brussels is 40% Muslim and the figure is rising. London has a population of which 50% was born outside the UK. The Labour Party, the former champion of social justice, holds segregated meetings in Muslim dominated areas.
That rather puts the importance of extending the mandate to molest ISIS in Iraq, or not, into a proper perspective.
ISIS are not problem to me personally provided they stay where they are. The threat to my way of life and freedom is rather nearer home.-
December 2, 2015 at 5:50 pm -
This country has supplied some 2,000 jihadis fighting in Syria (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/11248114/Muslim-MP-2000-Britons-fighting-for-Islamic-State.html ). Not only is this an extraordinary number, ‘our boys’ are considered the most depraved of the lot ( http://en.alalam.ir/news/1597606 ).
Frankly, it would make far more sense to me if Presidents Assad and Putin would send some Predator drones armed with Brimstone missiles to deal with the problem at source.
-
December 2, 2015 at 8:07 pm -
And those with a reasonable memory will remember the camoron huffing-and-puffing and threatening to remove their passports, and disallowing jihadist re-entry to the UK. Result-we are told 450 have returned (though like all govt statistics that is probably closer to 1000) these people walk among you, undoubtedly attend the same radical mosques and are radicalising younger members of the religion of peace (another of the camorons mistaken beliefs). The real threat as most people have apprehended is inside the UK, and given the woeful state of plod in the UK, you are in serious trouble.
Your intelligence service domestic threat level is severe, their advice in case of a terrorist act is run, hide, tell, kindergarten stuff, run away and tell Miss (or ms in the modern vernacular). After the police are told-what then? They deploy camorons fictional rapid reaction force, good luck you will be waiting for them to arrive in 2020 (if you are lucky).
All of this is not exactly pertinent to the subject at hand, except you are being asked to trust the camorons judgement and enter a coalition that has achieved NOTHING but defeat and destruction in its recent history. Whatever the ridiculous positions that liebour posit, they are no worse than the camorons vanity project to once again seem relevant on the “world stage” spit.
-
December 2, 2015 at 8:29 pm -
I and all rational people agree with all of these replies and comments
-
December 2, 2015 at 8:53 pm -
By the way, Gildas, I meant to let you know that if you sign up for Amazon Prime – the first month’s free – you can watch a lot of programmes called ‘Vikings’. I think that it’s slightly better than Ubba and his lot on the iPlayer, although both series are short on the gratuitous sex ‘n’ violence. Although, I suppose that if you are a Viking, sex and violence is the whole point.
-
-
-
-
-
-
December 2, 2015 at 1:29 pm -
There’s not much point in destroying the stable door after the Trojan Horse has bolted in the direction of Europe.
-
December 2, 2015 at 5:29 pm -
It seems that I am a potential extremist! Have you read the guidelines just issued by Camden Borough?
With a couple of minor exceptions (I’m not young, and haven’t advocated violence … yet), I tick all Camden’s boxes. Their list is arrant nonsense! All young people rebel: it’s part of finding and forming one’s own identity. And, if a vestige of democracy is to be preserved, surely we are entitled to “appear angry about government policies, especially foreign policies” and “show a mistrust of mainstream media reports”? Not least because, with rare exceptions nowadays, the latter are a cut-and-paste of govt. views?
As for “a belief in conspiracy theories”…. For years, TPTB blithely dismissed concerns about over-reaching and possibly illegal state policies on exactly those grounds. Without evidence, TPTB couldn’t be gainsaid — until Snowden provided the proof. And the FOI Act (which Blair now regrets — I wonder why?) has given further insight into events and decisions which, hitherto, were kept under wraps. Indeed, were I a conspiracy theorist, I might hazard that the reason for outsourcing so many aspects of government to private companies was to thwart FOI requests: private companies are exempt from FOI. At this juncture, it probably behoves me to emphasise that I am not a conspiracy theorist!
Back to Camden Borough…. Is their advice likely to identify a potentially dangerous convert to extremism? Or is it more likely to (a) confuse parents/teachers, and (b) further alienate the naturally rebellious young? Perhaps the council members who wrote the document cannot remember their youth. But I can, and I am sure you can!
