Forum menu
We're at war with these folks. Like it or not, and regardless of how we got here, that's the way it is. Once one is in this situation, the best thing to do is crack on and get it done. The longer wars go on the worse they get in general.
So I don't see why any option that might help get it finished should be off the table.
Should the UK bomb IS in Syria? Honestly I don't know if that would be tactically beneficial, but I am sure it's stupid to block out the option.
As for the "bombing isn't working" brigade, I'd question that. Nobody ever said bombing would be a magic bullet, but if it forces the enemy to adapt their tactics, destroys assets, restricts movement and so on, then it's contributing to the day, that will eventually arrive, when they collapse.
So I'd vote yes.
[quote=mattjg spake unto the masses, saying]We're at war with these folks. Like it or not, and regardless of how we got here, that's the way it is. Once one is in this situation, the best thing to do is crack on and get it done. The longer wars go on the worse they get in general.
So I don't see why any option that might help get it finished should be off the table.
Quite. But that is begging the question. There is no evidence that bombing will finish anything. Not in Syria, not in Iraq, not in Afghanistan, not in Libya.
Not even in Palestine, where the Israelis have had massive firepower raining bombs down week after week, year after year, decade after decade, and they STILL haven't extinguished the will of the Palestiinan people.
(Excellent article here by the way:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/27/bomb-isis-west-learned-nothign-from-war-terror-defeat-muslim-world-equal-partner)
Bombing won't finish it alone, you're quite right. Nobody's expecting it will. It's one tool in the toolbox, one that we have, with moderately low risk of casualties on our side, which is material.
Libya: my recollection is Gadaffi's forces were advancing on separatist minded Benghazi, which had long been a thorn in his side, an there would have been a slaughter of medieval proportions had they not been stopped.
Iraq: that was a failure to manage the peace immediately following the fall of Saddam.
We're at war with these folks. Like it or not, and regardless of how we got here, that's the way it is. Once one is in this situation, the best thing to do is crack on and get it done. The longer wars go on the worse they get in general.
Must be nice to live in your world. Everything is so simple. No time for fuss. Or thought. Or reason. Or rational. Crack on. Get it done.
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/27/bomb-isis-west-learned-nothign-from-war-terror-defeat-muslim-world-equal-partner?CMP=share_btn_fb ]I think this guy's right[/url], bombing won't work, and will play into their hands.
"If you strike me now, I will become more powerful than you could ever imagine.."
Bombing won't finish it alone, you're quite right. Nobody's expecting it will. It's one tool in the toolbox, one that we have, with moderately low risk of casualties on our side, which is material.
The point is that what you're saying would suggest bombing as part of an overall strategy to achieve a recognised end goal.
Do you see that? Because I don't.
It seems like its Iraq all over again
We'll do Shock and Awe*, then.... erm... I dunno... any suggestions?..... oh, it'll probably be alright.... something will come up..... I'm sure it'll be fine...... anyway... Shock and Awe... [b]LETS GO!!!![/b]
* Copyright Donald Rumsfeld
> "If you strike me now, I will become more powerful than you could ever imagine.."
Airey fairy nonsense. Dead fighters can't fight, ammunition destroyed at the dump can't be used for fighting, roads under the eye of a drone can't be used to get forces to the front. Knock by knock, it reduces the enemy's capabilities. Obviously they're prefer none of this happened.
"If you leave me alone for fear of the consequences, I will also become more powerful than you could ever imagine.." 😉
@binners fair points re the follow through. One can hope there are deals going on behind the scenes. I doubt we know more than 5% of what's really happening.
Airey fairy nonsense. Dead fighters can't fight,
Umm.. a dead civillian can inspire many more fighters though. Surely you must agree with that?
PS I'm not suggesting leaving them alone either.
One can hope there are deals going on behind the scenes. I doubt we know more than 5% of what's really happening.
That's the bit that concerns me...
History suggests that the deals being done won't help build a stable situation. Why is this time going to be better and not just make things incrementally worse with a new ISIS which is even worse than the current ISIS in place instead?
No one can say what is being done differently but somehow expect a different outcome.
> Umm.. a dead civillian can inspire many more fighters though. Surely you must agree with that?
Yes of course. Horribly, civilian casualties are inevitable. If nothing is done, they're also going to mount up, inexorably, under the brutality of IS. We see that already. But I see the civilians in Mosul, Raqqa etc as living under an army of occupation, something analogous to Europe under the Nazis, rather than them being fundamentally sympathetic to the occupiers.
Nobody ever said bombing would be a magic bullet...
But I think that's part of the problem. It's being sold as such. And even if it works and IS is decimated, what happens then? Who fills the void? This is why some sort of infrastructure to follow attacks is needed, which is what seems to be lacking in the grand masterplans at the moment.
One can hope there are deals going on behind the scenes. I doubt we know more than 5% of what's really happening.
I'm sure that's happening. What worries me is what's being done to genuinely defeat IS / make the (our?) world a safer place, and what's being done to boost difficult arms-producing economies, increase share values and define governments.
If only we had some clever people around, we might be able to figure out a way to stop IS that's better than just bombing their houses from the air with planes.
Just to REPEAT in case you missed it, I am not advocating doing nothing.
My point is that whilst we do need to do something, bombing won't actually work.
Yes of course. Horribly, civilian casualties are inevitable. If nothing is done, they're also going to mount up, inexorably, under the brutality of IS.
Can you explain what makes you morally superior to somebody who supports ISIL? You both agree that killing civilians is justified for your beliefs.
mattjg - Member
> "If you strike me now, I will become more powerful than you could ever imagine.."Airey fairy nonsense. Dead fighters can't fight, ammunition destroyed at the dump can't be used for fighting, roads under the eye of a drone can't be used to get forces to the front. Knock by knock, it reduces the enemy's capabilities.
True, but an undefeated enemy being losing a conventional war tends to resort to asymmetrical warfare eg guerrilla warfare or coming to our country and blowing up civilians. Can't see that happening though.
Oh....
If we're going to take on ISIS it needs to be on the ground.
No I didn't miss it molgrips. What would you do?
I think bombing won't work on it's own, but I can see it could be part of the strategy that will work.
& it's OK to disagree, that happens a lot here!
True, but an undefeated enemy being losing a conventional war tends to resort to asymmetrical warfare eg guerrilla warfare or coming to our country and blowing up civilians.
An article in the Observer last week, from a regional expert, was saying just that. That the destruction of the Caliphate could be the worst possible result, as ISIS then disseminates itself around Europe to reek terrorist havoc around the continent.
As it stands, all the lunatics are pretty much contained in one place.
I feel absolutely certain that our government will have fully considered this before they go doing anything rash. Definitely.
I think bombing won't work on it's own, but I can see it could be part of the strategy that will work.
And that strategy would be....?
> Can you explain what makes you morally superior to somebody who supports ISIL? You both agree that killing civilians is justified for your beliefs.
No. I'm going to follow a rule I learnt from a friend on who to debate with, so decline this opportunity.
No I didn't miss it molgrips. What would you do?
I'd be gathering as much intelligence as I could and working from that. As I'm not in government, I'm not really in a position to propose solutions in any kind of detail. I don't expect many others on this thread are either.
We do however have quite a lot of historical evidence in the public domain to suggest that airstrikes on terrorist organisations don't work very well. Do you think that it would be different this time?
Airey fairy nonsense. Dead fighters can't fight
No but you kill a fighter and his father/brother/son cousins all become fighters.
This is why the Taliban in Afganistan weren't remotely worried about casualties, every death grew their armed forces.
I watched a documentary about Vietnam a while back, they interviewed half a dozen or so ex-VC. The thing that struck me was that every single person had joined the VC after an american attack on them or their family. There was no other recruitment motive amongst the people they interviewed.
We can empathise with this can't we? My great uncle was a conscientious objector in WW2 until his cousin got killed in Africa - then he joined up and became a fighter pilot. Time and time again you see people on the history channel who joined up when a father/brother/cousin got killed or a house got bombed. It was a typical motive to become a soldier in WW2 and you can bet it is amongst modern day Sunnis.
Every dead Sunni, will create a handful of new Sunni fighters. No doubt.
No. I'm going to follow a rule I learnt from a friend on who to debate with, so decline this opportunity.
I think, with that response, you have answered my question.
No
My great uncle was a conscientious objector in WW2 until his cousin got killed in Africa - then he joined up and became a fighter pilot.
It's why the Poles made such good pilots during the Battle of Britain. Rather ironic, really.
It's why the Poles made such good pilots during the Battle of Britain. Rather ironic, really.
Also ironic that they ended up fighting on the side of Russia who'd invaded Poland on the same day as Germany.
Which takes nothing away from the quality and fighting spirit of their pilots.
> I'd be gathering as much intelligence as I could and working from that.
Yes that's another part of the toolbox too. Absolutely. Perhaps they are! I hope so.
> We do however have quite a lot of historical evidence in the public domain to suggest that airstrikes on terrorist organisations don't work very well. Do you think that it would be different this time?
I don't see IS as a terrorist organisation any more, I think they're bigger than that now. They hold significant territory and assets for one thing.
My expectation is the process will be very unpleasant and the outcome messy but it will probably be better than "doing nothing". OK you don't advocate nothing, I realise.
I can see a case for stopping at 'containment', but I don't see how in practice that can be actioned other than by military force, which brings us back to positive action against them.
The chap in that guardian article had some suggestions.
The thing is, even if we can't think of anything else, I don't think bombing them will actually work at all. It'll kill some terrorists but it could well just create more.
Yes.
I would still class them as terrorist because the land they occupy (ok it's mostly desert..) is somebody else's country which has an international definition and a ruling authority. let's face it Assad or the Iraqi council haven't agreed to let them take it over
they have assets but no people, this is why I think bombing isn't the answer, because bombs will enable recruiting; better to stop the money flow but you don't do this with weapons.
The "What next" is the $64m question
Which takes nothing away from the quality and fighting spirit of their pilots.
Totally agreed.
My enemy's enemy is my ally?
The chap in that guardian article had some suggestions.
I'm sure there's others, but that's actually the first article I've read with what appear to be plausible alternatives that uses first-hand experience instead of advised guesswork based around political popularity.
But I see the civilians in Mosul, Raqqa etc as living under an army of occupation, something analogous to Europe under the Nazis, rather than them being fundamentally sympathetic to the occupiers.
The Nazi analogy is fine, but can we also learn from another aspect of the European theatre of WW2: that after Germany was defeated, there were many years of refugee movements, ethnic cleansing, some civil wars, an expensive and problematic reconstruction process, and a large group of people who were placed under puppet regimes friendly to the military victors.
It would be nice if we could remember that problems don't all get solved on the last day of a war.
> better to stop the money flow but you don't do this with weapons.
This is essential too.
The US recently destroyed 160 (I believe) tanker trucks by bombing, which probably helps in a small way, but really the oil purchase has to be stopped at the economic/diplomatic level.
It's not just the oil. They have access to vast amounts of agricultural land that rakes in a lot of money. GOod luck banning the sale of that.
Time to break out some herbicides.
> Time to break out some herbicides.
Oh. That didn't work out too well in Vietnam either.
I've posted this on another thread but it's even more relevant here... [url= http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/16/isis-military-france-paris-attacks-nato-article-5 ]http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/16/isis-military-france-paris-attacks-nato-article-5[/url]
"But the biggest challenge comes if you imagine what victory would look like. Isis-held territory being reoccupied by armies that, this time, can withstand the suicide bombings, truck bombs and kidnappings that a defeated Isis would unleash. Mosques and madrassas across the region stripped of their jihadi preachers. A massive programme of economic development focused on human capital – education, healthcare and institution building – as well as physical reconstruction. Nonsectarian, democratic states in Iraq and Syria and an independent Kurdistan state spanning parts of both countries. To achieve this you would need to unleash surveillance, policing and military action on a scale that could only be acceptable to western electorates if carried out with a restraint and accountability not shown in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The alternative is to disengage, contain Isis, deal with the refugees and try to ignore the beheading videos."
My expectation is the process will be very unpleasant and the outcome messy but it will probably be better than "doing nothing".
If that's the best case for military action we should not take military action.
But the biggest challenge comes if you imagine what victory would look like. Isis-held territory being reoccupied
More likely Sunni areas being reoccupied by Shias, who have already committed so many atrocities against Sunnis.
The only reason ISIS has any power at all is because Sunnis are far more frightened of Shia's than they are of ISIS.
I think you could make a case that leaving ISIS is place is less harmful than handing Sunni areas over to their enemies. ISIS have already done most of their revenge/ethnic cleansing. The Shias would be starting the new round of revenge/ethnic clensing, and you can bet they have countless grudges to settle.
no.
I am increasingly of the opinion that this won't get solved in the next 20 years or so.
I don't even know what "solved" means. Perhaps if that can be defined we can work out what needs to happen to get there?
Forget the place exists? Maybe they will forget we exist?
Hell yes! (just in case you miss reading my previous threads 😆 )
Bomb them until submission, if not bomb more or use mini-nuke (time to test some of them new toys).
Human population needs culling no ifs or buts.
They can keep their ideology as much/long as they like so long as this gives others the opportunity / reason to cull human population who are trying to become a disease.
Human population needs culling no ifs or buts.
Can I kill you then?
molgrips - Member
Human population needs culling no ifs or buts.
Can I kill you then?
Of course you can or if you wish to ... 🙄
How do you think I should response? Like a hypocrite? 😯
I am a fair person and I treat everyone equally so my view is applicable to the entire human population on this planet.
Everyone is going to die sometime in the future and no one live forever. Fact! Even your scientific mind cannot dispute that.
I'm wondering how ISIS would react if we said "We are Rome. Please assemble all your warriors in Dabiq, allow everyone who wants out to leave. They we can get on with the phrophesised battle".
What would they say?
outofbreath - MemberI'm wondering how ISIS would react if we said "We are Rome. Please assemble all your warriors in Dabiq, allow everyone who wants out to leave. They we can get on with the phrophesised battle".
What would they say?
They would find/use the dirtiest underhand tactics/tricks they could master to wipe all your warriors out then enjoy your woman and children as the like in their paradise on earth.
Then they have their national day(s) to celebrate by laughing at bunch of idiots warriors who died trying to fight fair and stoopid.
For them the interpretation of dirties underhand tactics/tricks is the sign of intelligence ... that dominates over the honest idiotic ways.
They would find/use the dirtiest underhand tactics/tricks
Not really. They'd be lined up in some kind of Medieval Battle order and we'd just napalm them from the air.
I'm just wondering what kind of excuse they'd use to avoid it. They can hardly say "We'd rather not have a fight at Dabiq".