Can any other country do this?
 

If the only source was this forum, one might be forgiven for thinking that our military was entirely pointless/useless/toothless, around 80% of posts being negative to greater or lesser degree. Yet night after night we've been successfully conducting the most complex long-range missions through potentially hostile or diplomatically sensitive airspace three thousand miles from our shores.

Of course some will respond, rightly, that the military gets on with it and makes do, whatever. This is certainly true, now and always. But it's also true that the RAF HAVE been given the tools for this job. Not just obvious things like aircraft and missiles. The difficult political, logistic and diplomatic groundwork has clearly been done. How many other countries, other than the US would be capable of this?

30,000 IS "soldiers," two per Hilux truck divided by eight Tornados, it's going to take a while...

It all seems a bit like political posturing, playing a 1st world power with a 3rd world military capability, but to be honest we do not appear to have anything to do anything else these days.

- well! France, Germany, Denmark, Australia etc etc?

And Canada, who have just declared they will contribute offensive air. All of those countries have further to travel than we do from the UK. I'm afraid I remain deeply saddened by our greatly diminished ability to project air power and am not in the least re-assured by our ability to fly a (small) flight of GR4s from Cyprus to Iraq - absolutely not a slight on the ground and air crews involved.

Sun.

BOAC:

Luftwaffe have difficulty even having serviceable aircraft, french, widely dispersed with Africa. Tansall's in both ageing and A400 not yet in service. No heavy strategic rough field airlift capacity.

"What" are you doing is the central question.

That you are doing something is noted.

The end results are still to be determined it appears.

Other potential adversaries around the world are watching the effort it takes you to do this.

And conclusions are being drawn.

Sleep tight.

The same applies to my country's seemingly random as yet unnamed campaign. But the current administration had to be seen doing "something."

Why is beyond me. The old 'vital national interests' piece seems to be missing.

Yes. Plenty of other countries could do it with more resources too. Don't forget, France is committed in other parts of the world and yet seemed to conduct strikes before the UK.

Many Nations 'can', but there are inevitable political, domestic and fiscal factors at play.

Taking your first post ... "How many other countries, other than the US would be capable of this?" ... the answer is MANY. It's just that the US (aka The World's Policeman) has mechanisms which enable it to somehow wade in everywhere and anywhere, without UN authority or domestic approval [unlike UK].

I wish the the UK would stop following the US into their latest 'adventure' on autopilot, albeit that the issue is probably nearer home that it is for them.

Another "Zero Exit Strategy" operation begins. How I miss Colin Powell :(

Many people might simply answer "you are not doing this at my request". Hard to think of a reason why the average Joe in the street will think this bombing campaign is any benefit to him. I certainly don't.
Point taken about the effort that a smallish military force has to muster to maintain a bombing campaign. But many people must be wondering (a) its comparatively small destructive result against this disparate group ISIS means it has (b) limited value to a bigger picture.

I like many just sit and think of this campaign....what's the point of it?
And frustratingly, I have a horrible feeling this will come back and bite us badly at home in the UK, when some of the ex ISIS/Syrian fighters eventually return here (which they will, they'll be back) unhappy and bitter at the RAFs work, or at anyone who doesn't seem to agree with their mad outlook, back to wreak havoc again, this time at home, on a tube, on a train or bus...that's why so many British people here are against it.

To be honest I am quite happy that someone is bombing the crap out of them. But, I would ensure they didn't enter this country afterwards. It would have me branded a racist, but that wouldn't bother me one iota.

30,000 IS "soldiers," two per Hilux truck divided by eight Tornados, it's going to take a while...


Now add to that equation, 100,000 quid per Brimstone( daily telegraph figures ).
Defence budget Fu$$$d.:mad:

Like so many, who know better than I, have said, there have to be boots on the ground. But...they need to be local boots. Kurds, Free Syrians, Jordanians, Turks. Our job is to support them, and that's what we're doing. Doing a bit of bombing won't increase the risk at home; they'll be after us regardless. Let's just let the military and intelligence people get on with it.

Um, no we haven't. That is the motion to be put before Parliament on Monday.

Fair point mate, but given the conservative majority in Canada, I think that motion is likely to pass.

Sun.

Britain and many other European countries have contributed greatly to this campaign. At least five hundred UK fighters are now boots on the ground in ths campaign.
The cost of educating, housing, giving NHS medical care and benefits to some of that group is probably very high indeed so the UK has already spent a lot of money gearing up for this conflict. I just thinks it's lucky that some of them are now finding out first hand what their hard earned taxes have been used for by the MOD :)

Where Britain is failing IMHO is trying to react to ISIS exactly how ISIS want us to by treating this conflict as a 'police action' where minimal force is the prime mover.
Brimstone looks sexy on TV news clips taking out ONE vehicle. A MOAB elsewhere could be dropped almost at random and create a much higher casualty rate and instill more fear than a little pop gun missile designed to leave bystanders alive and well.

On whose side? :sad::suspect:

Certainly a GBU-43/B 'MOAB' would have a significant effect on the worthless scum and their pick up trucks....

The more of these stone age savages who are left splattered across the desert the better. No matter what the cost, they have to be eliminated. Permanently.

Amen to that.

I sort of disagree, I think that to clean the area out, and get back to some resemblance of control there needs to be a large professional western force.

The only way to regain control is with a large campaign with all the sustained boots on the ground and logistical support which go with it.

Though some of the surrounding countries have such forces (to what degree is to be debated), the political reality of operating in Sunni areas is problematic.

Having a pile of Westerners go in defeat ISIS (relatively speaking), followed by a large force of peace enforcers from surrounding countries would be the best bet.

A sort of bad cop good cop thing. It is likely the majority od Sunni's don't like ISIS, but also don't like being "occupied". So you need to decrease the annoyance factor.

TURIN

Do you really need to ask which side the 500 from the UK are on?

Have you not noticed them boasting on TV/the Internet that they wish to have the chance to take on British forces on the ground, or that they have beheaded an innocent non combatant.