Bombing Syria....

[number 6]

Will go down as an even bigger mistake that bombing Iraq. We need Assad on our side to defeat ISIS , not against us. Would be a huge mistake if we bomb Syria.

[Arginald Valleywater]

I see this as a backdoor way of forcing regieme change in Syria...

[David Johnson]

This is a messy situation in which it is difficult to predict the outcome.
1. ISIL has proclaimed a caliphate including large parts of Syria so can be viewed as an enemy of Bashir al Assad.
2. I suspect that informal channels of communication have been used between Syria and the US so that Syria knew these strikes were coming and therefore did not put up any defence. The more ISIL get bombed to fuck the better for the Syrian regime.
3. However, in the absence of any commitment to put "boots on the ground" Obama is dependent on the other rebel troops who are fighting ISIL to step up to the mark backed by extra weapons and funding from the US. So a strengthened "moderate" rebel force can only weaken the Syrian regime.
4. Bombing people from 30,000 ft has many unintended consequences in that you can end up bombing the wrong people, turning them towards ISIL.
5. I suspect the only reason the Syrian airforce hasn't been used as far as I am aware to bomb ISIL to bits is the Bashir al Assad is more than happy to see rebel forces slaughtering each other.

In short, in this mess, any outcome is possible. It makes the Iraq situation look straightforward in comparison.

[spider]

Cameron has wanted to get into a war for years.

He thinks it will make him look good come May next year.

I bet Hague is really pissed he has given up the Foreign Secretary job and missed his change to be in a "War Cabinet".

Does anyone really think this is going to end well?

[David Johnson]

"Does anyone really think this is going to end well"

Yep. I would like to see ISIL destroyed but it is difficult to see how this is going to happen.

Take Iraq for example.

1. There are many, many wars that show that insurgencies cannot be defeated by bombing alone. They tend to just merge with the local population and any bombing in that situation just throws the local innocent population into the arms of the likes of ISIL.

2. The US and Britain have categorically stated that there will be no boots on the ground in IRaq. We will see. In their absence in Iraq it is going to be down to the Iraq government to defeat ISIL and push them from the Sunni areas of Iraq where their control lies.

3. Given the Allies supported a sectarian Shia government in Baghdad that alienated the Sunni population to the point that many Sunnis prefer ISIL to the Shia government there is going to be a lot of capturing of hearts and minds that is going to need to happen over the next few years to get the Sunnis onside.

4. The Allies spent many years and many billions on arming and training the Iraq army and the result? The first real test from ISIL and they ran away leaving all their huge dumps of modern, American weaponry for ISIL. It could well be years before the Iraq army is turned into a proper fighting force needed to help the US and Britain meet their objectives.

I can see trouble ahead..........

[Sam Slater]

It is a difficult one to navigate.

1. Bombing Iraq alone is no good. ISIS will just find refuge over the border in Syria and continue quick fire raids into Iraq when when they feel like it.

2. Assad has used chemical weapons against his own people, breaking international law. Should we team up with such a regime, and would defeating ISIS together put other more peaceful, legitimate groups who oppose Assad at greater risk from a strengthened government?

Personally, and I said it on here at the time, we left Iraq too early. It was/is a new democracy and very weak. It wouldn't take much for it to fall apart and it just about has. I can see why a Shia majority government was put into place in Iraq due to them being a minority and wanted to feel protected after decades of a Sunni majority Ba'athist oppression and genocide. But now the Sunni majority feel they are being ruled by a Shia elite minority. Whatever, this all stems from mistrust of the other. What was needed as long-term rule by one or the other so both sides could be assured that no matter what form of Islam happened to dominate governance in Iraq, both Sunni and Shia felt listened to and more importantly, safe. And for that, western (mainly US) support on the ground was needed. We pulled out while the foundations were still being built. No wonder it's crumbling.

Again.......religion at the heart of this mistrust and hatred of the 'other'.

[Sam Slater]

[quote]Cameron has wanted to get into a war for years.

He thinks it will make him look good come May next year.[/quote]

I don't know about that. Tony Blair was the most liked and successful PM since the early days of Thatcher and it was the Iraq war that was his downfall. Without that we would never have had Gordon Brown and he'd have most likely still won the 2010 election imho.

Cameron will only 'look good' if this all turns out well.......which as you can tell with people's scepticism on here, that's a long shot. Even I think this is a tricky situation, much more complicated than the ousting of Saddam, and I supported that war.

I think this is a gamble for Cameron, but one he has to take.

[David Johnson]

"Bombing Iraq alone is no good. ISIS will just find refuge over the border in Syria and continue quick fire raids into Iraq when when they feel like it."

This is clearly nonsense. This is why the US is bombing in Syria to attack ISIL's power base and cross border movement of ISIL troops looking to make attacks in Iraq.

[Sam Slater]

David again seems confused.

I say 'bombing Iraq alone is no good'.

He says 'this is nonsense......the US is bombing Syria as well as Iraq'.

Kind of made my point. The man's lost it.

[David Johnson]

Nonsense.

Rightly or wrongly, the Uk has committed to bombing Iraq alone. For the UK to bomb Iraq by itself will be both legal and okay in terms of expressed military objectives not "no good" as you argue. Whether it will be ultimately successful is a different matter.

Why?

Because contrary to what you say "ISIS will just find refuge over the border in Syria and continue quick fire raids into Iraq when when they feel like it.", the US, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain etc. will monitor cross border ISIL troop movements and use remote, armed drones and air strikes to attack these "quick fire raids".

So in short, current UK objectives within the Allies can be met. And thus your statement for the UK to bomb Iraq alone is no good is incorrect.

Have a relaxing weekend !wink!