I think I'm with Courtney on this one. Having been a LO out in the region for a large part of 14-15, and having had to see things I will never forget and would never want anybody else to have to see, I would instinctively say yes, but with caveats
D'aesh (the Arabic acronym for ISIL which they hate) are wholly unreconcilable. If we could talk to them, I'd say give it a go, but you can't. They understand one thing and one thing only. Given their love for death and their burning desire to meet their God, taking everyone else with them in the process I am only too happy for us to arrange the meeting. But, and it's a big but. Whilst my head is telling my heart that taking the gloves off will feel good, it is saying 'but what will it achieve?' In voting yes, I would like to see the following:
An unrestricted campaign with a political end state and a left/right of arc, and after that no political interference. Political meddling (damn democracy!) has left us in this strategically incoherent position of insisting on recognising a line on the map that our enemy doesn't. We can't fight with ur hands tied behind our backs if the politicians really want to achieve something; they have to trust us to meet their intent in the best and most humane way possible.
Targets must be significant, worthwhile and designed to cause maximum damage. Without second guessing planners and targeteers, dropping the odd PW on a machine guns post or the occasional technical or vehicle park is frankly about as much use as a chocolate fire guard. Targets must be chosen with the strategic plan in mind, not just to generate headlines and stats for the BBC and RAF News. If that means flying Psy Ops / IO missions to clear an are in advance - as the US did last week when a flight of A -10s I believe, made short work of a huge number of fuel tankers after dropping leaflets warning drivers to clear the area. - so be it. Minimise casualties, but don't shirk the difficult choices.
Whilst the air campaign must be unrestricted, the overall scope of the West's involvement must be restricted. Air alone will not solve this and ground forces are required; but they must be regional ground forces using western air assets to give the asymmetrical advantage.
Finally, this must be part of a bigger strategy. There will need to be measures in place at home to prevent a repeat of the Paris attacks, and there must be long term strategic thought from the outset. Like it or not, bombing Da'esh now will not win the war of ideas; that is a generational thing., but generational struggles don't generate good copy or win elections. At best, it will buy the moderate world time to work out what to do, but it won't solve the problem. There must must must be a credible follow up plan. And part of this follow up plan must be what to do with al Qaeda who will end up as the strongest party on the Syrian battlefield once D'aesh are defeated. Yes, that's my prediction. I'll say again, based on regional experience, we must be prepared for AQ to be the dominant player in Syria once D'aesh is defeated - how do we deal with that?
In case anybody thinks I've gone totally wibble, here's my thinking. D'aesh and AQ are both Sunni extremists but of different hues. D'aesh's philosophy is to seize territory and then beat and bully people into submission before proudly claiming to have so many millions of supporters though out a caliphate. On the other hand, AQ take the long game. They recognise that it takes time and you have to bring people with you if you are to have a sustainable form of domination that doesn't burn hot, bright and short. Only once you've got the peoples' hearts and minds do you declare the caliphate.
Whilst D'aesh in Syria are obvious, AQ are not so. Instead they are represented in Syria by Jabhat al Nusra who have proven themselves very capable on the battlefield, often working along side the moderate opposition. However, rather than beheading and crucifying people, throwing them off buildings, chopping limbs off, they are playing the long game, building a support base amongst the populace, fighting the Regime on the one hand whilst providing support and social services on the other hand, all the while practising a moderate extremism. However, they will eventually have to show their hand and I fear that when they do, when D'aesh has been defeated, it will be too late and they - and therefor AQ - will have an entrenched position in Syria and Syria 2016 becomes a re-run of the Taleban hosting AQ in 2001.
That's my thinking on all this, a qualified yes. If our leaders can think long term, past the headlines and understandable desire to lash out and actually come up with a plan that achieves something rather than a plan that gives the impression of doing something, then yes, take the gloves off and let's get on with it. Whether we are capable of getting on with a Syria surge, well that's another matter entirely.
Last edited by Melchett01; 30th Nov 2015 at 08:36.