If Assad is as evil as John Kerry used to say why hasn't his own people overthrown him? Why haven't all his army left or defected? Why was large Christian communities allowed to live and practice in Syria under his leadership? Western leaders will say hes probably oppressing but how? Still? In a civil war his 'people' are all united now aren't they.
John Kerry started off ranting and raving about Assad. I remember watching the interviews and thinking whoa this guy is seriously short-sighted to hold such a position (but then- look at George Bush jnr..).
Fast forward and he realises the FSA has good elements but it also has a strong religious leaning, that then defects to ISIS. The atrocities committed by the opposition are covered up and barrel bombs dropped from helicopters are highlighted as 'indiscriminate'.
When you fire even a machine gun- is that pin-point? A shell? A RPG? War is bloody murky stuff and not clean-cut black and white.
Ironically theres talk of getting into bed with Iran now. Another 'bad' place.
buzz-lightyear - MemberThe region is plagued by successive waves of self-inflicted barbarism, because by-and-large the people and politics of the region is of a mindset similar to our un-enlightened European ancestors. Political, social and religious enlightenment in Europe was a long time coming. And it will be a long time coming to the Middle-East too.
I suppose you can argue that, if you ignore all external factors. Which are myriad.
jambalaya - MemberSending troops into Afghanistan helped to destroy Al-Q as a fighting force. ISIS needs to be defeated on the ground.
Seriously fella? Afghanistan has been the singular largest waste of time, resources, and more importantly; lives in history. It achieved absolutely * all! Once we're gone, it'll immediately revert back to exactly the same medieval barbarism that was there before. We've achieved absolutely nothing!
Al Qaeda wasn't remotely effected by western action. It self destructed! It was the usual 'we're more islamic than you' factional nonsense. Which ultimately gave us ISIS. That went well then? Jihadist nutters are no repeaters of borders. They just move somewhere else. And in tandem with Afghanistan, we supplied the perfect place for them to move on to too. Genius! Yay for US foreign policy!!!
If Afghanistan and Iraq have sent a clear message to the west it isn't the one you're espousing. Its that we should stay the * out of other peoples civil wars, our involvement in the whole region has been an unmitigated disaster from start to finish, and we should let them get on with it, as if we get involved now, it'll only make things infinitely worse!
We should basically work on the principle that whatever Tony Blair said should be immediately discounted as patent nonsense, and we should do the exact opposite!
We did create a lot of the mess in the Middle East. We were party to the deals that saw all those nice, neat, straight international boundary lines. IIRC, it was Churchill himself who advocated gassing the Kurds, long before Saddam. So we certainly have some responsibility for the mess out there.
However, going into any negotiation, let alone a war, without a clear objective, is very misguided and more often than not, extremely dangerous.
What is the outcome we desire? And who do we feel is our enemy? Where does the line between "devout Islamic" and "anti-Western democracy and freedom"? These questions are at the heart of the conflict and we cannot hope to do anything other than get stuck in a repeat-Gulf-War loop unless we define the problems and tackle them effectively.
If Assad is as evil as John Kerry used to say why hasn't his own people overthrown him?
Erm.....you are aware of how all this started, aren't you?
If Afghanistan and Iraq have sent a clear message to the west it isn't the one you're espousing. Its that we should stay the **** out of other peoples civil wars
They weren't having civil wars! Afg was effectively a huge training camp for AQ. Although it's fair to say that the Talib weren't the most liberal govt, they weren't at war.
Iraqs' card had been marked a long time ago, all Bush needed was an excuse, hence the WMD malarkey (RIP Dr Kelley). Iraq was oil based and afg was a direct response to 9/11 so that the mericans could be seen to be doing something. They couldn't find much else to do as they were utterly clueless as to who/how/why.
I see that IS got a good tickling with the loud stick last night.
Sending troops into Afghanistan helped to destroy Al-Q as a fighting force. ISIS needs to be defeated on the ground.
Are you saying this to create debate ?
If so good on you I look forward to reading what follows, if however you genuinely believe this and feel that the British government ought to commit troops and therefore British soldiers lives then I ask you one simple question.
Do you Mr Jambalaya feel that you are prepared to go and fight and would you commit your sons to go and fight ?
Personally I would not, I would not volunteer and I would resist conscription. Neither would I volunteer my son, because of this I do not feel it is appropriate or fair to say that we should commit our troops.
I do not know what the solutions are !
To be truthful I do not really care in as much as whatever we do will be immensely costly and the knock on effect to the country will only contribute to a further decline in what the government ought to be providing.
@binners, yes indeed I was serious. Iraq I think was a mistake and a terrible waste of lives. Afghanistan was reasonably effective, Al-Q was defeated both on the ground and organizationally and by cutting its funding off.
@cheeky, I said ISIS needs to be defeated on the ground but not by who. I think a special forces lead operation would be very effective and we all know the SAS and the US special forces are already there on the ground calling in the air strikes. As for the "would I go", its a bit academic as clearly I am not I would go in order to defeat ISIS (and as above Afghan yes, Iraq no) but soldiers don't get to choose. That's why the politicians must think very carefully about what we ask our troops to do.
@Jambalaya, as you said at the end it’s the politicians who make the decision as to where the troops are sent, this is the bit that grips my shit, there are no longer many politicians with any real military experience, military advice to politicians is given by people who are essentially looking towards where they themselves will end up as a consequence, there is very little regard as to the consequences of those doing the actual fighting, if ISIS are as bad as they are portrayed then woe betide any western soldiers captured by them !
Secondly why should we here on an Island off the NW coast of mainland Europe worry about a force with neither a Navy nor an Air force?
What threat do they pose to our Country; if the threat is that bad then surely we guard our borders!
If the response to ISIS is on humanitarian grounds then there are only two options
Total annihilation with a long standing commitment to western control off the region for a very long time, costing billions and ultimately ensuring the NHS and UK public services are decimated
Or
Jaw Jaw with the Bad Guys involving some serious concessions and ultimately the legitimatization of an (other) Islamic State in the region.
With regard to the Soldiers, there is a common belief by many people that soldiers, Sailors and Airmen are there out of some bizarre overriding patriotic duty to boldly go where they are told regardless of the consequences, the lie spread by politicians when they say that soldiers in Afghanistan have died fighting for their country has got to be the all-time biggest whopper of the century, they died fighting for the interests of the few!
Ps don’t believe all the Andy McNab shite, wars cannot be won by the SAS and pilots alone, if we were that good we would have nipped ISIS in the bud !
Why is it that when a 'Dictator is overthrown the net result is almost always a Islamic leaning/state/party?
@cheeky, I am not sure I agree that too many politicians make military decisions based upon their "promotion" prospects although the war in the South Atlantic certainly didn't do Mrs Thatcher any harm. I think we agree that the politicians should think very very carefully before sending troops into such situations.
I think we agree the SAS cannot defeat ISIS on their own, I don't think the Kurds can do it on their own and neither can the Iraqis as has been proven. Hence I agree with Blair, we should not rule out sending ground forces.
I also agree ISIS should have been nipped in the bud, I have read estimates of 500 UK citizens, 500 French and 700 Germans (most likely of Turkish descent) are fighting with ISIS. We have already had one French ex-ISIS fighter come back to Europe and kill 4 people (happened to be those visiting a Jewish museum in Belgium). ISIS is a problem for Europe, the latest video messages where trying to encourage attacks particularly in France. I think a reluctance to get involved post-Iraq has been seized upon by ISIS and it has allowed them to expand dramatically.
I think the fundamental problem is that we look at 'the region' in the arrogant terms of the borders that we arbitrarily drew when we carved it up. As ISIS are showing, they don't recognise these borders. And why should they? The whole region is divided along religious and tribal lines. Hence them having little time for our neat and tidy concept of democracy. If we can't even get our heads around that, then why are we trying to control the region? We're on a hiding to nothing right from the off!
So just let them get on with it. Its nothing to do with us! Lets be honest, look at Syria. All the possible outcomes are dire! So what the hell are we hoping to achieve? Erm.... we don't really know. Always an absolutely great premise for getting involved in a conflict!
And for those advocating military solutions - the likes if ISIS are so bold in their actions because the Wests apparent show of military might - shock and awe - has been exposed as anything but. Its just demonstrated in Iraq its limitations and weaknesses
Secondly why should we here on an Island off the NW coast of mainland Europe worry about a force with neither a Navy nor an Air force?
It doesn't work like that any more.
With regard to the Soldiers, there is a common belief by many people that soldiers, Sailors and Airmen are there out of some bizarre overriding patriotic duty to boldly go where they are told regardless of the consequences, the lie spread by politicians when they say that soldiers in Afghanistan have died fighting for their country has got to be the all-time biggest whopper of the century, they died fighting for the interests of the few!
That's the politicians fault, not the military peeps. Who gives the politicians the power to make these decisions?
Ps don’t believe all the Andy McNab shite, wars cannot be won by the SAS and pilots alone, if we were that good we would have nipped ISIS in the bud !
They didn't do too badly in GW2! You are correct regarding a guerrilla enemy though, but the same can be said for conventional ground forces.
I am not sure I agree that too many politicians make military decisions based upon their "promotion" prospects, although the war in the South Atlantic certainly didn't do Mrs Thatcher any harm. I think we agree that the politicians should think very very carefully before sending troops into such situations.
Where I said military advice to politicians I was referring to the desk driving Generals/Admirals looking towards their retirement, book deals, seat in the lords prospects rather than politicians.
With regard to the Falklands conflict it was Admiral Henry Leach who had Maggies ear and convinced her that they could retake the islands, the effect of this did boost Thatcher, it also saved our Armed Forces at the time as they were about to be decimated by a Tory Government, something the Cameron regime is keen to re-enact I may add.
Camerons desire to involve UK forces in these situations whilst still looking to slash defence spending shows his absolute unsuitability to lead anything other than a posh boys boozing club.
In a civil war his 'people' are all united now aren't they.
I'm not [i]entirely[/i] sure you've grasped the concept of a civil war.
Jam your views on conflicts, outcomes and the legitimacy of them is out of line with reality and morality.
You make Tony blairs views look grounded and realistic
The news has just said that parliament is likely to be recalled to discuss military involvement in Iraq.
Here we go again!
They didn't do too badly in GW2!
Yebbut that's just the same as winning at half-time. It counts for nothing.
JY funny how I seem to agree with politicians of all sides, the French (clearly left leaning) have initiated strikes before we have and the majority of military advisers and geopolitical commentators.
I think it's morally essential to defeat ISIS.
I think it's morally essential to defeat ISIS.
You can't defeat an ideology through military means. They will simply re-emerge in a slightly different form somewhere else in a few years time.
@ransos, plenty of examples of how you can defeat ideologies with respect to whether they pose a threat to you now or in the future.
As I've said above, we really need to define who or what we are attempting to engage? What is it that we actually disagree with?ransos - Member
I think it's morally essential to defeat ISIS.
You can't defeat an ideology through military means. They will simply re-emerge in a slightly different form somewhere else in a few years time.
It would seem to me that, [b]on a long enough time line[/b], the answer is likely to be anything or anyone that is staunchly and uncompromisingly Islamist, intolerant and extreme. And [i]that[/i], is a lot of people and places.
@digga - we disagree with them slaughtering people be they Muslims, Christians or Yazidi's. ISIS primary objective is currently to free Muslims from the tyranny of democracy, they have already embarked on the next phase which is to ensure their form of Islam is the only religion acceptable within the areas they control.
JY IMO it would be immoral to stand by and "let ISIS get on with it"
jambalaya - Member
plenty of examples
Go on then.
@ransos, plenty of examples of how you can defeat ideologies with respect to whether they pose a threat to you now or in the future.
That's not defeating an ideology, and that is why attempts at neutralising threats through military means result in a never-ending game of whack-a-mole.
But don't we also disagree with treating women like second class citizens -punishning rape victims, female genital mutliation, unequal education rights - and backward opinions on homosexuality?jambalaya - Member
@digga - we disagree with them slaughtering people be they Muslims, Christians or Yazidi's. ISIS primary objective is currently to free Muslims from the tyranny of democracy, they have already embarked on the next phase which is to ensure their form of Islam is the only religion acceptable within the areas they control.JY IMO it would be immoral to stand by and "let ISIS get on with it"
In which case, what 'we', the West are 'against' is far broader.
Yep definitely no people around now espousing Nazi or Facist theology, especially in Europe...
Yep definitely no people around now espousing Nazi or Facist theology, especially in Europe
The nazis are incomparable with religious extremists IMHO. The nazis relied on a few staunch nutters and then severe oppression of the state. The Argentine Junta and many others were the same. The religious extremists prey on the beliefs of the people and so, as such are a more formidable adversary. I can see no end for this and it scares me for the future for my kids.
RaveyDavey - Member
The religious extremists prey on the beliefs of the people and so, as such are a more formidable adversary. I can see no end for this and it scares me for the future for my kids.
Yet another reason why military action will not defeat this ideology. It will only entrench it.
That's the politicians fault, not the military peeps. Who gives the politicians the power to make these decisions?
I never said it was the fault of the military peeps, the main comment from me was the propaganda regarding the pseudo patriotic drivel spoken by politicians when the inevitable casualties are announced. A vote does not give the Politicians a licence to do as they please.
I cynically referred to the Isis Navy and Air Force to expose the myth that we as a country are actually under threat.
But don't we also disagree with treating women like second class citizens -punishning rape victims, female genital mutliation, unequal education rights - and backward opinions on homosexuality?In which case, what 'we', the West are 'against' is far broader.
Are you saying these are legitimate reasons for us to go to war ?
th smiles in suits from across the Atlantic made sure that a place where classical concerts was played, all sects lived together became a vast pit of death. Arab countries needstrongmen. Some are nasty murderers like Saddam. Others rule at the head of a committee. Peace is kept by 'dont mess and your day to day will be smooth/good. Us Westerners cant grasp that with our McDonalds corrupt democracies.
Seriously Hora, he wasn't just a nasty man who killed a few people. He presided over a wars that closely resembled the ferocity of World War 1, on top of that he carried out a campaign of genocide against the kurds and the targeted killing and torture of political opponents.
Yes you're right, as a westerner you can't grasp the fact that most Iraqi's hated the guy, you're coming up with a typically racist bien pensant western argument against the war, one that basically assumes Iraqi's are savages that can't handle democracy. Every Iraqi I know was happy that they had a chance of forming a democracy.
Whenever Hardline Islamic regimes have been established in the past, they've petty rapidly dissolved into a bloody, factional 'I'm more Islamic than you' competition, in a far-from-funny Judean Peoples Front/Peoples front of Judea parody. I doubt that this one will be any different. From the report in the Times the other week, after interviews with the British Jihadi's out there, it already is. So let them get on with it.
What politicians need to answer is
a) why do they pose a threat to us? (they don't!)
b) what do we hope to achieve by our involvement? (erm.....?)
c) how will our involvement bring these clearly stated aims about? (errrrrrrm.....?)
I doubt they can supply any satisfactory answers to any of these questions. But the Americans have clicked their fingers, so in we go. Again.
I think any British politician with any balls (can't think of any) or some intelligence (again... I'm struggling) would see that with the general cynicism and war-wearyness of the population after Blairs crusades, there are votes to be had in telling the Americans they're on their own this time
Fat chance!
We can start with the Nazis @lifer, in fact most facist regimes.@ransos, someone can sit and espouse (I won't say preach as that's too specific) and ideolgy and claim they have not been defeated but if they can no longer threaten you IMO they have been defeated.
Except it doesn't work. US attempts to fight communism in SE Asia and China resulted in most of the region becoming communist. Fighting Islamic extremism in the middle east is resulting in more Islamic extremism. As I said, it's whack-a-mole.
Your nazi analogy is a poor one for a few reasons. First (as has been said) it relied on heavy oppression of the state by a limited number of individuals. Second, the Allies put as much effort into winning the peace as they did into winning the war. Compare and contrast with WW1 - which in time will surely be linked with WW2 as a single conflict. Third, they posed an imminent threat to us and our allies.
As binners notes, it's unclear what threat ISIS poses to us, it's unclear what we're hoping to achieve, and it's unclear that any actions we take will be effective.
I'm not saying they are or are not.cheekyboy - Member
But don't we also disagree with treating women like second class citizens -punishning rape victims, female genital mutliation, unequal education rights - and backward opinions on homosexuality?
In which case, what 'we', the West are 'against' is far broader.Are you saying these are legitimate reasons for us to go to war ?
However, as others here point out, left to their own devices, hard-line Islamic nations have a tendency toward the same extremes. If we really object to any of this, we need to think about what, exactly, it is we object to, or otherwise stay the hell out.
I think the West have woken up post Al-Q, an organisation they saw observed growing steadily and which came very much to threaten the West directly. ISIS absolutely intend to threaten the West, as I said they are calling for action in France in particular at the moment. ISIS do not believe any Muslim should live in a democracy. They captured and detained Western aid workers who where trying to alleviate the suffering of the people of Syria and have held them purely so they can be used to try and manipulate the West. They kidnapped these people a long time ago, they knew where they where going strategically.
a) why do they pose a threat to us? (they don't!)
Aside from the fact that they do, this is an interesting point. Do we become a nation who uses their military only for defensive reasons, or do we continue to be expenditionary in our approach?
I see the arguement for a defence force, however that will also mean no more humanitarian operations, no disaster relief , no more peacekeeping etc.
I'm certainly not suggesting that we should go for the boots on the ground option, as I said earlier I don't think it's a good idea. But we can't do nothing. What do you think will happen when ISIS have Iraq and Syria? They will just stop and make a nice Islamic state and live happily ever after? That returning Jihadists will forget their military training, hang up their boots and quietly reflect on a job well done?
I think the West have woken up post Al-Q, an organisation they saw observed growing steadily and which came very much to threaten the West directly.
Observed? It was formed from the mujahideen - an organisation heavily supported by the US.
Jambalaya - - While kidnapping people isn't on, it certainly isn't a justification for going into another open-ended conflict, with some vague, fuzzy intentions, and little or no idea of what we are actually trying to achieve, or any thought as to the potential consequences.
We went into Iraq in the first place with absolutely no plan as to what to do when we got there, and even the most pessimistic forecasts hardly got close to the car crash we've ended up with. So why on earth do we think that wading in again, with the same lack of clear goals or outcomes, will improve matters?
It won't! Simple as that! Whats the Einstein adage again? About the definition of madness being to repeat the same exercise, and expect different results.
Let them get on with it. Leave them to their medieval barbarism, if thats clearly what they want.
And Jambalaya - you're history is as dodgy on this subject as it is on Israel. You seem to be making it up as you go along to suit your prejudices. And wilfully ignoring anything that doesn't suit your narrow world-view.
The Americans were more than happy to arm various islamic nut-jobs (even with surface to air missiles!), on the basis of my enemies enemy is my friend. Don't forget... 12 months ago we were being told we had to go into Syria to help the 'opposition' forces against Assad. Who at the time were being portrayed as some kind of heroic freedom fighters! I think we should be treating this latest call to ams with the same degree of suspicion. I just don't trust the ridiculously over-simplified account of the situation that we're presently being sold.
This isn't one conflict with 2 clear sides. Good guys and bad guys (are there any good guys here?) Theres a multitude of things at play. Sectarianism. Tribalism. Religious intolerance. Ethnic cleansing. Resentful ex-Sadaam supporters. Throw hardline extremism into the mix and you've got chaos! So lets add some western forces (infidel crusaders?) too eh? What could possibly go wrong?
wrecker - MemberDo we become a nation who uses their military only for defensive reasons, or do we continue to be expenditionary in our approach?
I see the arguement for a defence force, however that will also mean no more humanitarian operations, no disaster relief , no more peacekeeping etc.
I don't think they're mutually exclusive, and our 'expeditionary' approach has resulted in the current bit of a mess.
Quite. We were happy to arm these people when, during the Cold War, they were fighting the Russians. Now they've decided we're their (new) enemy, it's all a bit awkward.ransos - Member
I think the West have woken up post Al-Q, an organisation they saw observed growing steadily and which came very much to threaten the West directly.
Observed? It was formed from the mujahideen - an organisation heavily supported by the US.
What seems to be clear is that at the very least at the extreme, Islam clashes with western society and democracy. It is perhaps worthy of consideration as to whether this is an intrinsic clash of culture and religion and therefore insurmountable by peace and reason, or whether there is a solution if extremism can be quashed. If the latter, at what cost, if the former, then we are deluding ourselves greatly.
When the only version of western society the last few generations have known is at best 'do what we tell you' and at worst at the point of a gun/drone strike what do expect their reaction to be?
And also look at the people we still support in the region.
This piece focuses on Africa and Islamism, but it applies to our approach in other parts of the world:
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/posts/PARADIABOLICAL ]Here we go again on Al Qaeda's Merry-go-round[/url]
The West is worried about the rise of Islamism in Africa. There are two big fears - one is that there is a new international terror network that will come and attack Europe and America. The other is that sneaky Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood will get themselves elected - and then promptly abolish democracy.But behind these fears is an incredibly simplified - almost fictional - vision of the world. It possesses the minds of many western politicians, journalists and associated think tank "experts". And at its heart is a kind of filter that wipes away anything complex about power and the struggles for power in African countries - and replaces that with a simple picture of the world as divided between goodies (us in the west) and dangerous frightening baddies who are out to destroy us.
It's both blind and arrogant. And it's terribly dangerous.
@binners "history" of conflicts in many respects is interesting but doesn't necessarily dictate how they will play out, its the present and future which rules. The US funded Iraq/Sadam against Iran then then invaded. Going back to the 1940's might help to explain the Isreali/Palestinian conflict but is largely irrelevant to any solution the future. We agree on Iraq, it was poorly thought out with an exit plan which involved handing power back to "the Iraqi's" but with no real substance.
We where proposing to go into Syria to support the Syrian Free Army, the SFA have subsequently been attacked by ISIS who have become the prime agitator and in fact as interested in gaining territory in Iraq as they have been in fighting Assad, if not more.
The game plan here is to disable (/destroy) ISIS. Things change and perhaps leaving Assad in place is the solution in Syria. Lesser of two evils ?
Factions in the SFA have already joined ISIS, it's this kind of simplification of classifying groups fighting with flimsy allegiances as one homogenous body that is so dangerous. And the "history" of our involvement in the region shows we do it again and again. And now, again.
What do you think will happen when ISIS have Iraq and Syria? They will just stop and make a nice Islamic state and live happily ever after? That returning Jihadists will forget their military training, hang up their boots and quietly reflect on a job well done?
And will the nice Mr Putin sit back and let ISIS take Syria ?
We are told by our Media how well organised Isis are, how they have received money for equipment etc from oil sold on the black market, if we are so clever lets stop that happening, who did they sell the oil to ? what sanctions are we taking against them ?
Who tells our media these facts ? is it the government intelligence agencies by any chance ?
