Chain of command

[beardy]

BBC defence correspondent Jonathan Beale said: "Answering a Freedom of Information request, submitted by the human rights group Reprieve, the Ministry of Defence confirms that some UK military personnel have already been involved in military action against IS over Syrian airspace.
"The MoD says those British military personnel embedded with US, Canadian and French forces and under their chain of command have been authorised to take part in those nations' operations. The US and Canada have been involved in airstrikes over Syria."

I recall Parliament voted against UK military involvement in Syria, which begs the question ' who has command?' Parliament representing the Monarch or the MOD? If captured what would be their status and who would take responsibility, the host country or the UK? I recall that during the Falklands war and when I was on exchange during GW1 this was handled differently. This is, I assume since it over Syrian Airspace and without their invitation, an aviation matter, although not exclusively so since in the future we may have SF on the ground. Were it a NATO operation it would be different.

[smujsmith]

Good points well made beardy, I suppose that Fallons point is that British personnel, seconded to US/Canadian forces, do not come under the auspices of the British Parliament ? So, why not just second the SAS and the RAF to U.S./Canadian service, and ignore the wishes of parliament, and of course, the British people ? I'm damn sure if they thought they could do it, the current mob would try it on, and perhaps today's exposure is a controlled, experiment to gauge reaction. As for attacking IS, good luck to all involved, may every bomb bring a thousand martyrs !

Smudge

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

I suppose that Fallons point is that British personnel, seconded to US/Canadian forces, do not come under the auspices of the British Parliament ?

OH

YES

THEY

DO

[orca]

Parliament doesn't commit the military, government and the PM do.

[Harley Quinn]

Does this leave CNS in an untenable position? The news indicates that it RN/RM exchange pilots involved over Syria.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

The Government may not commit the military against the expressed wishes of Parliament*.

Given the statement by Sec Def, it is the PM's position which is untenable, not CNS.

And we all know full well the restrictions placed on British personnel serving on exchange in all previous conflicts.

The mainstream parties have courted Political Correctness to the point where they cannot now get anything sane through Parliament, so the party in Government is choosing to ignore Parliament when it doesn't suit them. Blair did the same by lying to Parliament about the Invasion of Iraq.

In simple language, this is tyranny.

*The PM did not have to ask for Parliament's permission, but is now bound by the decision having done so.
More here
https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/peter-harris/implications-of-syria-vote-how-britain-goes-to-war-or-not

[orca]

There are only three real things to debate here.

Firstly whether or not you believe that the last parliament ever voted against Air Ops against IS using Syrian air space - which of course it never did. The parliament voted against direct military action against the Assad regime and in particular its chemical weapons in order to alleviate humanitarian suffering. So no one can claim that parliament's wish has been ignored.

Point 1-alpha. The UK has been bombing IS for a while now. With parliament's knowledge and one assumes blessing.

Secondly the use of kinetics whilst on exchange. I know at least three guys who've done it and one even got awarded a Croix de Guerre reported in open press for doing so. So far no case to answer.

Thirdly, does your democratically elected PM and his democratically elected cabinet have to defer to a parliamentary vote whenever they want to apply military force. The actual answer is 'No but they have done recently so probably should because a precedent has been set'. But the answer is still 'No'. I personally think the answer should remain No' and when I go to war next I would rather have a parliamentary debate after I've pressed the pickle button than a parliamentary vote telling the enemy I'm just about to.

So the only real point of any interest is, who should have known, other than those who obviously did, and why?

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Orca - You are of course correct about the vote being purely about Assad's use of chemical weapons. However, during the debate

Mrs Gillan: The Deputy Prime Minister knows of the concerns that there is an incongruity in the way in which the motion has been drafted. Will he once again repeat for the sake of the House and for Members who would like to support the Government tonight that the vote will not be used as a fig leaf to cover any sort of UK military intervention? We need that assurance—that there will be another vote—and we need it from the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister in order to support the Government tonight.

The Deputy Prime Minister: I can be unequivocal and unambiguous; yes. The motion is very clear on this point. There will be no decision taken on any military participation on the part of the UK without a separate debate and a separate vote.

House of Commons Hansard Debates for 29 Aug 2013 (pt 0003) (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm130829/debtext/130829-0003.htm) Column 1544

So, the Government is quite clearly in breach of the "unequivocal and unambiguous" assurance it gave to Parliament.

[Courtney Mil]

Someone explain to me, please, what has this to do with human rights? Or does everything now come under human rights? Am I allowed to say, "a load of old bollocks"?

[Archimedes]

There are only three real things to debate here.

Firstly whether or not you believe that the last parliament ever voted against Air Ops against IS using Syrian air space - which of course it never did. The parliament voted against direct military action against the Assad regime and in particular its chemical weapons in order to alleviate humanitarian suffering. So no one can claim that parliament's wish has been ignored.


It didn't even vote for that - the debate led to both the government motion and the opposition amendments being defeated. The government motion said this:



Hansard: 29 Aug 2013 : Columns 1425-26
That this House:

Deplores the use of chemical weapons in Syria on 21 August 2013 by the Assad regime, which caused hundreds of deaths and thousands of injuries of Syrian civilians;

Recalls the importance of upholding the worldwide prohibition on the use of chemical weapons under international law;

Agrees that a strong humanitarian response is required from the international community and that this may, if necessary, require military action that is legal, proportionate and focused on saving lives by preventing and deterring further use of Syria’s chemical weapons;

Notes the failure of the United Nations Security Council over the last two years to take united action in response to the Syrian crisis;

Notes that the use of chemical weapons is a war crime under customary law and a crime against humanity, and that the principle of humanitarian intervention provides a sound legal basis for taking action;

Notes the wide international support for such a response, including the statement from the Arab League on 27 August which calls on the international community, represented in the United Nations Security Council, to “overcome internal disagreements and take action against those who committed this crime, for which the Syrian regime is responsible”;

Believes, in spite of the difficulties at the United Nations, that a United Nations process must be followed as far as possible to ensure the maximum legitimacy for any such action;

Therefore welcomes the work of the United Nations investigating team currently in Damascus, and, whilst noting that the team’s mandate is to confirm whether chemical weapons were used and not to apportion blame, agrees that the United Nations Secretary General should ensure a briefing to the United Nations Security Council immediately upon the completion of the team’s initial mission;

Believes that the United Nations Security Council must have the opportunity immediately to consider that briefing and that every effort should be made to secure a Security Council Resolution backing military action before any such action is taken, and notes that before any direct British involvement in such action a further vote of the House of Commons will take place...

The defeat of both motions meant that the House voted against further debate; although the effect was to stop military action, it did not explicitly vote against it.

Whatever the chap says in the Open Democracy article [for the avoidance of doubt, I have read it], Cameron is still entitled to use the Royal Prerogative. This was recognised in the debate on attacking Daesh/IS, in which John McDonnell's intervention at the end recognised that Cameron could deploy British personnel without recourse to the House.

Cameron is within his rights to allow (or perhaps more accurately, not prevent) those on exchange from participating in action against IS in Syria; the comment to which F3WMB refers is explicitly dealing with concern that had the 2013 motion passed, Cameron would then have used the Prerogative to attack Assad's CW sites - arguing that he had done so on the basis that the targets were time sensitive, or that other allies had decided to attack them and it would be preposterous for the UK not to participate given that there was a consensus, etc, etc.

The 2013 vote is arguably a red herring - it addressed a very specific set of circumstances; all Cameron's undertakings related to not attacking Assad's regime through its CW holdings.

This is relevant because of this:

Hansard 26 Sep 2014 : Columns 1365-66

Resolved,

That this House condemns the barbaric acts of ISIL against the peoples of Iraq including the Sunni, Shia, Kurds, Christians and Yazidi and the humanitarian crisis this is causing;

recognises the clear threat ISIL poses to the territorial integrity of Iraq and the request from the Government of Iraq for military support from the international community and the specific request to the UK Government for such support;

further recognises the threat ISIL poses to wider international security and the UK directly through its sponsorship of terrorist attacks and its murder of a British hostage;

acknowledges the broad coalition contributing to military support of the Government of Iraq including countries throughout the Middle East;

further acknowledges the request of the Government of Iraq for international support to defend itself against the threat ISIL poses to Iraq and its citizens and the clear legal basis that this provides for action in Iraq;

notes that this motion does not endorse UK air strikes in Syria as part of this campaign and any proposal to do so would be subject to a separate vote in Parliament;

accordingly supports Her Majesty’s Government, working with allies, in supporting the Government of Iraq in protecting civilians and restoring its territorial integrity, including the use of UK air strikes to support Iraqi, including Kurdish, security forces’ efforts against ISIL in Iraq;

notes that Her Majesty’s Government will not deploy UK troops in ground combat operations; and offers its wholehearted support to the men and women of Her Majesty’s armed forces.

John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister has informed us that he will take action without parliamentary authority if he feels it necessary. May I place on record an appeal to you, Mr Speaker, that if there is any indication of further action beyond the remit of this motion, that you consider yourself to have the power to convene the House?

Mr Speaker: I am guided by and must operate within the Standing Orders of the House. I am not under the Standing Orders of the House so empowered. However, for the time being—I say this in the best possible spirit—I will simply note that the hon. Gentleman has expressed his view with his customary force. It is on the record. [My emphasis; resolution reformatted for ease of reading]


In this context, 'UK air strikes' refers to forces under the C2 of the PM (on behalf of the Queen to be precise - she can always sack him if she disagrees...); it thus means that there is no bar at all against British aircrew on exchange from participating in strikes launched by the USAF/USN/RCAF/RAAF/French.

This is where McDonnell's point is pertinent, since no such undertaking was given we - no, aren't at war with Germany - but are in the position whereby Cameron made clear that he was retained the right to exercise the royal prerogative in actions against IS as he saw fit; this is what has happened here.

My point is that the issue is much, much less clear-cut than Reprieve and others would wish us to think because of centuries of precedent which can be argued - ad nauseum - to trump the supposed precedent of the votes on UNSCR 1973 and Syria - the PM chose to offer a vote but was not, and is not compelled to do so, and is using the 2014 vote in favour of action against IS, coupled with the prerogative as the basis for action.

Whether this is sensible, wise, moral or otherwise is questionable - but the critical point is that it is not a case of teetering on the brink of tyranny, nor is it as clear-cut a breach of the 2013 vote as many are suggesting.

I apologise for the length of this post, but I'm trying not to skim over the complexity - complexity which would, I can almost guarantee, see a colleague of mine with a similar background in 'doing' British politics and constitutional issues contend that while I might have a point, it was the wrong one... But it isn't clear cut.

[BEagle]

His verbis dictis, autem - but no matter the official HMG stance, if the chaps have been active in splattering the desert with the residue of daesh scum, then Very Well Done!

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Archimedes - many thanks; clears that one up. I was mistaken and the PM is within his rights given the 2014 debate. It would seem, however, that Parliament is against him. One awaits the Autumn session with interest.

BEagle - agreed. The only complaint I've expressed is that there isn't enough of it.

[smujsmith]

Absolutely second that Beagle, bugger the niceties of PC and whatever else, removing scum from the planet, whatever the method, should never be subject to media speculation or propaganda. "Word has it" that the government are intent on doing the "biz" whatever parliament decides. If it's knocking over IS scumbags, it will get my vote.

Smudge

[Pontius Navigator]

Maybe a curfew should be imposed. If it moves on a road after 5pm, or is not in a named and approved settlement after dark then it is a legitimate target.

[Bill Macgillivray]

Beagle, PN et al - Spot on! Does anyone remember Vietnam? We (the RAF) were never there!! Indeed, not many! But politicians live in a different world!:mad::mad:

[baffman]

I'm not sure that the timing of this revelation is so very inconvenient to HMG. I've checked the dates of the FOI request. The request was submitted on 20 March and the reply was issued on 15 June - after renewed speculation about likely British action in Syria.

[Courtney Mil]

Breaking news.

PM finally gives an answer to Parliament about the involvement of UK Armed Forces personnel in Syria.

http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/421792/19488957/1342595334987/ItTakesTwo.jpg?token=7gOBl72Y84z6mjmVEzZe%2FamH93Y%3D

EDIT: good post, Archimedes. Thank you.