Answer yes or no to the RAF bombing Syria this coming week.

[Melchett01]

If you think that working with JaN/AQ is sustainable you need to do some research on JaN atrocities in this conflict.

They too behead regime soldiers/militia and slaughter Alawites. Yes they've worked with "moderates", but these "moderates" are still Islamists. They've also brokered deals with secular opposition groups, invited them into their HQ, then executed them.

Not an organisation we should be working with.

downsizer,

You should re-read my post as I never said we should work with JaN/AQ, I'm afraid that is your misreading of my post.

What I said was that the AQ philosophy in Syria was for sustainable domination through a slowly slowly catch your monkey approach vice D'aesh's torture, rape and pillage approach. I know full what JaN are capable of and they by and large toned things down (it's all relative in this utter basket case of a civil war) after most Syrians rightly gave them a stiff ignoring when they first appeared on the scene and tried to enforce their will. If you go back you will see that what I said is we need to be prepared for the fallout of them being the last man standing once D'aesh has gone. Nowhere does that imply working with them.

[AR1]

My local MP has spoken. He uses the no word too. - I dont know if your local is making his/her stance public. - Mods feel free to deal with if it contravenes any of the Pruners charter! Vote on the RAF taking part in air strikes against ISIS in Syria - John Mann

[Royalistflyer]

It may all be getting academic - Turkey appears to have blockaded the Dardanelles to all Russian ships, maybe all shipping. You can watch it here: Live Ships Map - AIS - Vessel Traffic and Positions - AIS Marine Traffic

[Cows getting bigger]

Err, a oupke of thoughts.

I'm not sure many people, including Assad, are overly bothered about a line on the map.

I'm absolutely sure that ISIS don't recognise an arbitrary line on the ground.

[huge72]

yes

Sadly we are in the situation a present which mirrors Northern Ireland. The IRA could and did wave/shoot at us from the other side of the imperceptible border that divides the two countries knowing there was nothing that we could do but just turn away. We have to be able to follow up and hit ISIS on both sides of the Iraq/Syria border or there is little point in staying.

[just another jocky]

Originally Posted by sharpend

NO.

As an ex Strike/Attack pilot with at least one tour in the Middle East under my belt + time with the MNPKF Lebanon in 1984 I understand a little about the area. Why have I said no?

1. Bombing will not solve this problem.
2. There are sufficient air assets already in the area.
3. To identify targets and be successful in this task we need effective intelligence and post attack info. At present, with no professional forces in that area we don't have that vital data.
4. The BBC today interviewed civilians in the towns and were told that much collateral damage was taking place.
5. I accept that the so-called Islamic State does pose a significant threat to the UK, but there are better ways to protect our island.
6. We do need ground forces in the area, but I cannot envisage the UK, France or the US committing to that.
7. The threat is not solely in Syria, but world wide.

I'm sure that you can think of many more reason why the UK should not bomb in Syria.

As a serving military officer, I am not going to vote and I hope no-one assumes I have a particular stance on this subject based on what I write below but in the interest of a balanced debate and the fact you have conveniently listed your objections, I just thought I'd add to your posts:

1. Bombing will not solve this problem. No-one has said it would, but it will surely degrade ISIS/Daesh.

2. There are sufficient air assets already in the area. How do you know this? Is that just your opinion or that of someone with more intimate knowledge?

3. To identify targets and be successful in this task we need effective intelligence and post attack info. At present, with no professional forces in that area we don't have that vital data. Again, how do you know there isn't sufficient intelligence? Tornado with RAPTOR could increase whatever the current level of intelligence is.

4. The BBC today interviewed civilians in the towns and were told that much collateral damage was taking place. So surely what is needed is more precision weapons, like those used by Tornado?

5. I accept that the so-called Islamic State does pose a significant threat to the UK, but there are better ways to protect our island. And they should and are being done. Don't all these sit alongside each other?

6. We do need ground forces in the area, but I cannot envisage the UK, France or the US committing to that. Perhaps not, but why should that stop the UK from extending the current offensive into Syria?

7. The threat is not solely in Syria, but world wide. Again, why should that stop the UK from extending the current offensive into Syria?

Just a few thoughts around your post.

Definitely in the 'no opinion' camp though!

[downsizer]

Melch

Fair enough, I obviously misinterpreted your post.

My point is there is no one we can work with. These so called moderates simply don't exist.

[John Farley]

Interesting so many are voting NO on a board like this.

I see our paticipation or not as a totally political issue. Not a military one.

Yes Brimstone does bring somthing to the military case but in my view it would not be a game changer. I think it is mainly a name for the YES polititions to bandy about to try and get us in..

However politics do matter so YES (but only just)

[ShotOne]

That's a reasoned post, jockey but surely what's needed more than more bombs, is a plan? Nobody on this thread, and more worryingly, parliament, has laid down anything resembling one. IS aren't marching around in the open waving black flags and the idea that the Free Syrian Army are capable of defeating them is, if not delusional, optimistic in the extreme...and even if they did, then what? Do we even know what "victory" would consist of?

[Corporal Clott]

JAJ

Go easy on Sharpend, he has not flown a strike attack aircraft on real ops in a very long time - must be in the region of 30-35 years. The latter half of his career was in one of those well known strike attack aircraft - the VC10!!!

He has no relevant modern knowledge of time sensitive targetting, precision low-colateral weapons and modern real-time intel feeds to back up his reasons for saying no - but he can bore for NATO about the SA Bulldog!

CPL Clott

[BEagle]

Corporal Clott, you (or rather, a mallard duck) can take the man out of the fighter, but never the fighter out of the man.

You might not agree with sharpend's comments, but please play the ball - not the man!

[jindabyne]

Calmly said John

[Corporal Clott]

Beagle

I would agree with you if the post had not tried to give an impression of "I'm a strike attack pilot so I know what I'm talking about" - it certainly gave that impression to me. So I thought that this miss-impression should be put into context. Had it not tried to give that 'air of authority' then I would would not have bothered, but his personal opinion is just that, regardless of his Service flying time some 30 years ago. Things have moved on a bit and I refer you to the question in post #1 in this thread:

I'm interested in how intelligent, combat experienced people on Prune see and read the world, and how they would vote

No offence intended to you Vickers Funbus types!

Quack, quack...

[AtomKraft]

No.
Might make us feel good because we are 'doing something', but ultimately it's a fight we don't have the bottle for.
If we want to WIN, it will take more than bombing- it will take balls.

If we want to ponce about like pansies, and aren't really interested in WINNING, and more interested in posing about- then by all means, drop a few aircraft bombs. We can then come over all righteous, having 'done something'.

We should either go 'all in', or stay out completely.

If I'm wrong, and we really do feel like taking these nutcases on, then fine.

Not putting the kettle on though......

[Royalistflyer]

I thought both Sharpend and JAJ were reasonable. I suspect Beagle and Sharpend and I haven't been involved for aeons and probably don't know all the details of 2005-2015 weapons. Nevertheless we do know some things and believe it or not, no matter how one updates weaponry, the basics of warfare don't change that much. The effect of air attacks is limited. Without air superiority, land forces have enormous problems. Without land forces, air forces cannot win. That hasn't changed. The weapons available on Tornado are the kind that are needed in this situation - agreed. However I see no reason for us to extend into Syria which seems to be being nicely looked after by the Russians and French. If Britain and USA handled Syria, then I think it would work out. There's a huge amount of ISIS territory in Iraq - quite enough to keep our aircraft busy.

[Pontius Navigator]

Originally Posted by ShotOne

That's a reasoned post, jockey but surely what's needed more than more bombs, is a plan? Nobody on this thread, and more worryingly, parliament, has laid down anything resembling one. IS aren't marching around in the open waving black flags and the idea that the Free Syrian Army are capable of defeating them is, if not delusional, optimistic in the extreme...and even if they did, then what? Do we even know what "victory" would consist of?

I don't know about Parliament but both here and in the papers is a viable plan - Blockade, close borders, seize financial assets, stop export of oil, if it moves shoot it.

Then there is a point about bombing. They have talked about precision weapons but often equated bombing with WW 2, etc, but I suggest modern bombing is more akin to snipping or machine gun with a low probability of collateral damage.

[Corporal Clott]

Royalist

"Quite enough to keep our aircraft busy"

You see that's the problem. Time sensitive targetting, cued by real-time intelligence with low-yield precision weapons against high value individuals in the IS leadership is exactly the effect that aircraft like the GR4 or MQ-9 Reaper can deliver. You don't need 'boots on the ground' and it has an assymetrically demoralising effect on insurgent forces like IS. They don't respect borders, just like the Taliban didn't on the PAK/AFG border. Being able to strike them over a wider area will improve the chances of getting these people that lead IS.

As I have hinted at before - bombing is not really bombing any more. It is more like sniping from block 2 for maximum effect against the brains of the threat.

CPL Clott

PS. Looks like PN beat me too it on my last point.

[Kitbag]

Debate and vote on Wed 2 Dec. Media say Cameron has a secure majority for it to be approved.

[RAFpilot23]

It will be happening within the week. The Tornados are already bombing within Iraq to switch to targets in Syria ain't rocket science.

[Linedog]

Debate and vote on Wed 2 Dec. Media say Cameron has a secure majority for it to be approved.

I think I'll ask DC to pick my lottery numbers this week.