Syria airstrikes conducted by UK military pilots
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Back in the NorthWest
Age: 77
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to show this work all ways.
During Gulf War 1 I was flying 47's for a US airline, the airline had a Civilian Reserve Air Force commitment.
A form letter was sent out asking for volunteers to fly the missions and one of the questions was "Are you a US citizen?". At that time I was not so I answered the question "No, but I would be pleased to help out".
Subsequently I made several flights but I suspect it was not my answer on the form that made a difference - I suspect no one even read the returned forms, they just grabbed the names.
.
During Gulf War 1 I was flying 47's for a US airline, the airline had a Civilian Reserve Air Force commitment.
A form letter was sent out asking for volunteers to fly the missions and one of the questions was "Are you a US citizen?". At that time I was not so I answered the question "No, but I would be pleased to help out".
Subsequently I made several flights but I suspect it was not my answer on the form that made a difference - I suspect no one even read the returned forms, they just grabbed the names.
.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: 92ak
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well that did not last very long. Perhaps it is seen as suitable time to bury the 10% pay increase headlines by whoever on the inside gave Reprieve the nudge to put in the FOI request.
Anyway, "operating as foreign troops" as an exchange officer is not true nor is "the fact that the UK seems to have turned over its personnel to the US wholesale" as blindly guessed by Reprieve. A formal request for involvement is made by the host nation, UK approval is granted (or not) and specific ROE and legal guidelines are developed as required. Regardless of whether your own nation is already deployed in the theatre in question referral to the UK is always required before any operational deployment with your host nation.
Yes it is a big deal as the exchange officer is a member of the team in harms way not because of what Parliament think they voted against or not. The situation has changed since Parliament voted and the fight is now focused in the correct area. In fact, on reading this, I am not sure if Parliament really know if it should have been either:
Research Briefings - Parliamentary approval for military action
As usual there is a 'need to know' creep that achieves nothing but to make completing the mission more difficult and above all more dangerous for the personnel involved. Thanks.
On the exchange comedy note, NORAD QRA is strangely not an option. Requests to join in the fun have been made and no serious answer was ever received. Just the standard 'it has always been like that' which is also not true. My favourite was being told that whilst I could generate and act on Sniper footage in cockpit I was not allowed to watch it back in the debrief as the debrief facility was NOFORN. It now isn't.
Anyway, "operating as foreign troops" as an exchange officer is not true nor is "the fact that the UK seems to have turned over its personnel to the US wholesale" as blindly guessed by Reprieve. A formal request for involvement is made by the host nation, UK approval is granted (or not) and specific ROE and legal guidelines are developed as required. Regardless of whether your own nation is already deployed in the theatre in question referral to the UK is always required before any operational deployment with your host nation.
Yes it is a big deal as the exchange officer is a member of the team in harms way not because of what Parliament think they voted against or not. The situation has changed since Parliament voted and the fight is now focused in the correct area. In fact, on reading this, I am not sure if Parliament really know if it should have been either:
Research Briefings - Parliamentary approval for military action
As usual there is a 'need to know' creep that achieves nothing but to make completing the mission more difficult and above all more dangerous for the personnel involved. Thanks.
On the exchange comedy note, NORAD QRA is strangely not an option. Requests to join in the fun have been made and no serious answer was ever received. Just the standard 'it has always been like that' which is also not true. My favourite was being told that whilst I could generate and act on Sniper footage in cockpit I was not allowed to watch it back in the debrief as the debrief facility was NOFORN. It now isn't.
It's a big deal because somebody somewhere must have done the staff work to ensure that our boys were legally protected and key allies supported in a fight against what is probably the greatest evil of our time.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah well, lets see how long ago was it our citizens were slaughtered on a beach?
The vote in parliament vetoed operations in support of those in opposition to the Assad regime, one which I strongly agreed with.
There are indeed some vipers very close to home.
The vote in parliament vetoed operations in support of those in opposition to the Assad regime, one which I strongly agreed with.
There are indeed some vipers very close to home.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
People are angry because Parliament weren't informed. Parliament wanted one thing to happen (non involvement) and voted accordingly-and find a little later that all their instructions weren't followed. For the civilian, its as simple as that.
Permitting British personnel to attack IS targets in Syria is covered by this; the 2013 parliament did not bind the PM to a position of not permitting attacks against IS in Syria; as glad rag notes, it prevented attacks on Assad's CW arsenal (it did not, in fact, vote against the attacks, since it was never invited to do so - a second vote would've been taken, but the failure of the first motion meant that there was never to be a vote authorising or disallowing attacks).
It's not simple - and while it may 'be as simple as that' it means that those who hold that view do not understand a critical aspect of how parliament works; which in turn means that they can't campaign for /persuade/pressurise their elected representatives to clarify or alter the position...
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A simple question from a former fish head blunty; what's the SOP for US personnel on exchange to our Units? In 2000 down South, 1435 had an exchange US pilot. I'm pretty sure that Chuck stood QRAs with the rest of the lads. Had Johnny Gaucho sent something offensive our way, would he have been authorised to engage it?
I shan't ask about current SEEDCORN kipper crews.
I shan't ask about current SEEDCORN kipper crews.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
People are angry because Parliament weren't informed. Parliament wanted one thing to happen (non involvement) and voted accordingly-and find a little later that all their instructions weren't followed. For the civilian, its as simple as that.
.As for the people being angry, thats to demonstrated, and in any event, its a while till the next election.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In the Ether
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With all this chat of "people" and "Parliament", it's probably time that we all reviewed the actual motion tabled in the House:
Business Today: Chamber for Thursday 29 August 2013
Note that it is specifically about the use/abuse of chemical weapons and an attempt to push the issue within the UNSC. Any vote on 'British involvement' would have been in the second motion which never happened.
The biggest issue at the time was that the press and opposition were allowed to rebrand this vote into one against military action in Syria; it was never that.
Business Today: Chamber for Thursday 29 August 2013
Note that it is specifically about the use/abuse of chemical weapons and an attempt to push the issue within the UNSC. Any vote on 'British involvement' would have been in the second motion which never happened.
The biggest issue at the time was that the press and opposition were allowed to rebrand this vote into one against military action in Syria; it was never that.
The
Subsequent exchanges in the House included this:
Taken from:
http://theparliamentaryreview.co.uk/...s-rejects.html
David Cameron was immediately challenged by the Labour leader Ed Miliband, to confirm that he would not bypass the will of the Commons by using his powers as prime minister to commit UK forces without a further vote. Mr Cameron told him, flatly, ‘I can give that assurance … It is very clear tonight that, while the house has not passed a motion, the British parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action. I get that, and the government will act accordingly.’ The vote had been forced by a backbench debate in the Commons on 11 July, which ended with a 114 to 1 vote approving a resolution requiring that ‘no lethal support should be provided to anti-government forces in Syria without the explicit prior consent of parliament’. So, when evidence emerged that sarin gas was being used by the Assad regime against the rebels in Syria, David Cameron recalled parliament.
http://theparliamentaryreview.co.uk/...s-rejects.html
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Courtney Mil 
Quote:
"UK will help destroy Islamic State, David Cameron tells US" - BBC News
"Well, if so let us hope that the wherewithal to do so for long enough to be effective is (magically) made available!"
Whether we keep on giving the USAF and USN the (tiny) hand we've given so far, it still remains true that 'boots on the ground' will be needed to do any serious damage to ISIL. The only 'boots' available in sufficient number in those parts are in Assad's army. You are not obliged to like the allies you need (eg Stalin ?)
D.
Quote:
"UK will help destroy Islamic State, David Cameron tells US" - BBC News
"Well, if so let us hope that the wherewithal to do so for long enough to be effective is (magically) made available!"
Whether we keep on giving the USAF and USN the (tiny) hand we've given so far, it still remains true that 'boots on the ground' will be needed to do any serious damage to ISIL. The only 'boots' available in sufficient number in those parts are in Assad's army. You are not obliged to like the allies you need (eg Stalin ?)
D.
Last edited by Danny42C; 19th Jul 2015 at 19:24. Reason: Delete extraneous material.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
exCDS views
the now Lord Richards was on the Marr programme this morning. I don't know if it is in this clip http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33584940 but his view is that if the objective is destruction of IS then effective boots on the ground will be needed, and may need to be a "western" alliance. No dribbling at the problem was a quote.
Last edited by LeggyMountbatten; 19th Jul 2015 at 19:31. Reason: typo
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The second motion never happened because they got the message that a majority in Britain didn't want further war-fighting. Pain in the arse that I am, I actually e-mailed my own MP and asked him to vote against any move towards further fighting. Like this below;
" 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".
That bit above I just cut out of the motion.
Our military is now just too small to bring and effective change to anything.
Our Governments pre and post General elections are totally out of their depth.
Cameron could be leading us into another open-ended Middle East conflict | Simon Tisdall | Comment is free | The Guardian
Anti ISIL strikes shore up Assad's regime - the regime we were trying to attack not long ago. Our policies aren't thought through and they aren't consistent.
The Govt. are stuffed full of rich thickie's and I am afraid at this level they are out of their experience and depth.
" 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".
That bit above I just cut out of the motion.
Our military is now just too small to bring and effective change to anything.
Our Governments pre and post General elections are totally out of their depth.
Cameron could be leading us into another open-ended Middle East conflict | Simon Tisdall | Comment is free | The Guardian
Anti ISIL strikes shore up Assad's regime - the regime we were trying to attack not long ago. Our policies aren't thought through and they aren't consistent.
The Govt. are stuffed full of rich thickie's and I am afraid at this level they are out of their experience and depth.
Hangarshuffle,
"our military" is not too small to add effective force to the coalition effort to combat a very real threat to the security of a large number of friendly nations. I'm sure the vast majority of Britons don't want "further war fighting", but I'm also sure they don't also want ISIL to continue to occupy yet more land, oppress and murder yet more people and recruit yet more stupid people.
So, what would you have the UK and other free nations (including those in the Middle East and farther afield) do about it. Vote UKIP and hope it goes away?
"our military" is not too small to add effective force to the coalition effort to combat a very real threat to the security of a large number of friendly nations. I'm sure the vast majority of Britons don't want "further war fighting", but I'm also sure they don't also want ISIL to continue to occupy yet more land, oppress and murder yet more people and recruit yet more stupid people.
So, what would you have the UK and other free nations (including those in the Middle East and farther afield) do about it. Vote UKIP and hope it goes away?
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 20th Jul 2015 at 21:09.
Sometimes, a nation's forces are provided with some interesting caveats.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only people out of their depth are those who assume that a 2013 vote to deny the PM state-on-state war with Syria is also a veto on 2015 ops against IS.
Military aviation is built upon the humble building block of 'not making stuff up'; I can't understand why anyone would choose to wilfully invent the myth that parliament voted against Air Ops against IS in Syria.
It did no such thing.
Military aviation is built upon the humble building block of 'not making stuff up'; I can't understand why anyone would choose to wilfully invent the myth that parliament voted against Air Ops against IS in Syria.
It did no such thing.
I have some personal experience with a coalition operation with differing RoE for differing nations. In fact, I just realized there were two such ops.
Allez la France
A good result by our French chums:
French Jets Wipe Out IS Training Camp In Syria
A few more of the murdering, stone age scum wiped off the face of the earth!
French Jets Wipe Out IS Training Camp In Syria
A few more of the murdering, stone age scum wiped off the face of the earth!